Thread 938944742

>>938944742 (OP)
Careful with this argument. Framing atheism as a religious belief makes it more protected by law than it already is. Its a short sprint to a strong constitutionally based legal defense from there.

>>938944742 (OP)
there's no reason to believe in something that has 0% supporting evidence

>>938945286
Which is why OPs statement is correct from a "I only follow the evidence" point of view

>>938947101
so how is it stupid to follow the evidence?

>>938944742 (OP)
>Framing atheism as a religious belief makes it more protected by law than it already is.
That's bad epistemology turned sophistry

>>938945286
>there's no reason to believe in something that has 0% supporting evidence
Falsifying Gods' existence is not necessarily the same as falsifying Abrahamic religions. To say you know with 100% certainty whether God can or cannot exist is dogmatic without proof.

>>938950294
>I don't understand, therefore god

>>938944742 (OP)
Atheists are often the complete opposite of theists and using blind faith and bad faith arguments to claim with 100% certainty, something that isn't certain.

A big thing atheists push that I really hate is this mutliworlds multiverse humanist bullshit. You can't claim there's no evidence of god and in the same breathe claim that something that has even less evidence than "god" has is true.

We at least have the evidence that the universe had an event that caused time to begin which can be argued as a god. For the multiworlds bullshit there's literally nothing, it's a theory built from nothing, juet atheistic theory crafting a "not" religion.

>>938950468
Not all atheists are antihumanist demoralizers

>>938950627
what is god adding in this explanation if you can just as easily explain it without one?

>>938950627
>the more we learn about the universe
>the more we realise it's all bullshit

>>938950748
Who farted in the quantum fluctations?

>>938950809
>>938950627
Yeah because Academics make shit up all the time I say this as an atheist. physics is not about mechanistic explanations anymore its like a retarded new age concensus appeal to authority religion now. Modern theoretical physics is a fucking joke and a waste of taxes/money laundering universities are mega corrupt

>>938950881
why did it have to be someone?

>>938950939
There's a good reason why before christianity was invented all religions with a singular god was an ethnoreligion, it skirts around the problems of a single god in contrast to the world we live in.
Then christianity got invented and here we are.

>>938951053
>>938950939
Sorry, I'm agnostic, I'm just memeing.

>>938944742 (OP)
>>938944742 (OP)
Reminder
>Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
2 Timothy 2:23

>>938951390
wtf I love the bible now

>>938944742 (OP)
>atheist
>stupid
Pick one christshit

>>938950468
No we aren't god loser

>>938945137
Atheism is already protected by law. If you punch me for not believing in your stupid faggot fake God I can have you charged with a hate crime

>>938944742 (OP)
>a scale of opinions
What about the part where there's 0 evidence for god ever existing? It's not a belief or opinion, it's fact. Just like UFOs, climate change, or female ejaculation, when there's evidence provided, I'll take a look.

>>938947101
OP is a fag and definitely not correct. It goes from I know there is a god to I know there is no god. We don't know that there is no god, we just don't have evidence yet.

>>938952079
Climate change has long been proven Trumpshit

I hope that upsets you.

>>938950627
Inserting a middleman doesn't mean the middleman is necessary. You're just adding extra steps that also can't be explained.

>>938950917
Who said absolutely nothing existed? There was no matter or time, but there was definitely a fuckload of energy. Do you call heat nothing?

>>938952276
>long been proven
OMG, has it really, logfag? I'm literally shaking rn.

>>938952454
left can't meme

>>938952079
>Just like UFOs

>>938952757
no u

>>938952768
Yeah, still no proof.

>>938952869
>Yeah, still no proof

>>938952975
>check out this video I just made
And that's the best we got.

>>938952079
there's tons of evidence of UFOs, they're real
but UFOs != aliens
most every UFO is just shit people don't know what it is, and/or it's some military/government aircraft

>>938953032
https://www.youtube.com/live/fytpesDRc50?si=PFgosfXwzA1RfBbY
>And that's the best we got.

>>938953145
>Extra terrestrial, subterranean, time travellers, extra dimensionals, spirits
Yeah there are many human made UFOs and naturally occurring ones but that discount the former

>>938953145
Oh yeah, I forgot
>Post biological

>>938944742 (OP)
I just won the Powerball jackpot and I’m going to give it to you! Because you deserve it. Now, do you strongly disbelieve that? Because you really should.

>>938953492
I fail to see your point.

>>938953483
Did you stop namefagging because it got you banned for being a spammer?

>>938953552
No, just chosing not to. Glad to see you recognize the image.

>>938953492
And that’s not half as batshit-out-of-this-world-generator-of-literally-everything crazy as the idea of god. Especially any particular one over any of the others. Reject them all, and what do you have? Atheism. Makes good sense to me.

>>938950468
So you believe reality is linear?

>>938953685
>Reject them all, and what do you have? Atheism. Makes good sense to me.

>>938953638
it's hard not to when it's spammed multiple times per day, every day

>>938953154
>that thumbnail
>edited photoshop
Yeah, let's have congress give their opinion on anything, it's has to be true. Most of them can't even identify a gun.
There's still not a single shred of proof of aliens visiting this planet.

>>938953685
Why Strong Atheism Is Absurd

There’s a world of difference between withholding belief in God and declaring with certainty that no God exists. The first is a skeptical stance. The second—strong atheism—is an intellectual overreach that collapses under its own weight.

Philosophically speaking, strong atheism tries to prove a universal negative. To say “there is no God” requires either exhaustive knowledge of all possible realities or an infallible grasp of metaphysics. In other words, one would need omniscience to deny omniscience. That’s a self-refuting posture. Add to this the fact that “God” has countless definitions—personal deity, cosmic order, ground of being, source of consciousness. To deny all possible meanings of the divine is to close off inquiry before it even begins. A humble thinker recognizes the limits of human knowledge; strong atheism pretends to transcend them.

Polemically speaking, strong atheism is just fundamentalism in a lab coat. It’s the mirror image of the preacher pounding the pulpit, certain of truths he can’t prove. One insists “God absolutely exists.” The other insists “God absolutely does not exist.” Both are trying to play God by pretending to know the ultimate fabric of reality. The only difference is the branding.

Rejecting bad religion is easy. Refusing to believe without evidence is rational. But declaring with finality that there is no transcendent source, no deeper reality, no possible dimension beyond human reach? That’s not reason—it’s dogma dressed up as reason. And it makes strong atheism every bit as absurd as the blind faith it ridicules.

>>938953145
This is the answer.
The military has a pretty shit record of thinking balloons are UFOs, not to mention pilots are fucking stupid as hell.

>>938953638
>Glad to see you recognize the same garbageass image I post incessantly like a fuckin tweaker

>>938953949
Most people assume skepticism is the “rational” position, but the balance of evidence actually leans toward the reality of extraterrestrial visitation. Consider the scope: millions of eyewitness testimonies from every culture and era, often describing consistent features—craft, beings, abductions, and communications—many reported by credible military personnel, pilots, and astronauts. These accounts are bolstered by physical traces: radar confirmations, ground impressions, radiation anomalies, and physiological effects on witnesses. Declassified U.S. government documents admit that UAPs exhibit flight capabilities far beyond known human technology—instant acceleration, hypersonic speeds without sonic booms, and transmedium travel. Whistleblowers and insiders, from Roswell to modern Pentagon hearings, testify under oath that crash retrievals and reverse engineering programs exist.

In contrast, the skeptical position rests on dismissals: “it’s all hoaxes, hallucinations, or misidentifications.” Yet this requires believing that an enormous body of consistent reports, physical evidence, radar data, government admissions, and cross-cultural testimony spanning decades adds up to nothing. That is statistically less plausible than the hypothesis that some of it is genuine. Even conservative scientific reasoning accepts that where smoke is this thick, there is usually fire.

The odds that Earth is the only inhabited world are vanishingly small; the odds that none of those civilizations has visited across cosmic timescales are smaller still. The evidence doesn’t prove beyond doubt, but the cumulative weight strongly favors interaction. To insist otherwise demands a faith in universal coincidence and universal human error that is harder to defend than the extraterrestrial hypothesis itself.

>>938954456
>millions of eyewitness testimonies from every culture and era
And this is the problem. There were zero sightings before the Roswell incident and sightings are localized to mainly the US and UK, the places where UFO stories are told the most.. It's kinda like how China had the most reporting of dragons.

So far all we have are hoaxes or people jumping to conclusions with things they don't understand.

>The odds that Earth is the only inhabited world are vanishingly small
I definitely think that there's other life out there, but there's no fucking way they travel hundreds of light years to fuck with us by dancing around in the sky and chopping up some cows, just to make the return trip where everyone they knew is now dead and their entire civilization has changed and might not even exist anymore. The distances are far too great and the speed of light is painfully slow.

>>938954787
It’s just not accurate to say there were “zero sightings before Roswell.” The Airship Wave of the 1890s in the US, the Foo Fighters reported by pilots in WWII, and even older accounts—such as Ezekiel’s “wheels within wheels,” the Vimana stories from India, and detailed sky craft reports in medieval chronicles—show that the phenomenon long predates the 1947 pop-culture explosion. Roswell changed the framing of these encounters, not their existence. Reports are higher in the US and UK largely because of press freedom, cultural openness to the topic, and extensive military aviation—whereas in authoritarian states or traditional societies, people either don’t report or use their own cultural language (e.g. “dragons” or “sky boats”). Cross-cultural anthropology shows humans describe strange aerial craft in ways consistent with their symbolic vocabulary.

As for dismissing everything as hoaxes or misunderstandings: radar-visual cases involving multiple pilots, ground observers, and instruments can’t be written off so easily. The US Navy “Gimbal” and “Tic Tac” incidents, confirmed by infrared sensors and radar, are a prime example—these aren’t random farmers misinterpreting Venus.

Regarding interstellar travel: it assumes extraterrestrials are bound by our technological limits. Human physics has already moved from impossibility of flight to nuclear power in a century. Concepts like Alcubierre warp drives, wormholes, or simply generational ships show plausible paths beyond “painfully slow” light speed constraints. A civilization a million years older could easily solve problems we still call impossible.

Finally, the “why would they just toy with us?” objection assumes their motives must be obvious to us. Bees don’t understand why entomologists tag them, and fish don’t grasp why researchers track schools. That doesn’t mean the study isn’t real.

>>938954787
In short: the reports long predate Roswell, they’re global not local, the physics objection assumes our current limits are universal, and the “silly motives” critique is an anthropocentric projection—not a logical refutation.

I like how the AI christcuck decided to just hijack the thread to spam his chatgpt garbage
ain't no one reading any of those replies

>>938955094
GG RERE?

>>938955094
No contradiction?

>>938955094
Sad atheist logfag, my thread is better than yours

>>938955300
>>938955344
Check em

Your fortune: （　´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ

>>938954187
>>938953904
So you're regular?

>>938947472
Not the brightest bean on the pole? Its not stupid to follow the evidence. Its stupid to state unequivocally as fact a statement without solid evidence. Stating there is definitely NOT a god is just as much a believe taken as fact without evidence as the statement that there definitely IS a god. Believing something without hard evidence is faith and requiring faith is a critical part of religion. A god you could prove is basically just a powerful alien/being and ceases to be a god

>>938954948
>It’s just not accurate to say there were “zero sightings before Roswell.”
Sorry, meant to say Gray sightings. Grays didn't exist before the Roswell incident. Now it's the only alien that is ever seen.
>As for dismissing everything as hoaxes or misunderstandings
I'm not just handwaving, it's demonstrably true. Nothing has ever been verified as a UFO. We don't even have verifiable footage or a craft or some being walking around.
>The US Navy “Gimbal” and “Tic Tac” incidents
Jesus, these were explained the minute they came out. Those two are jet engine glare and the gofast video is a goose.
>these aren’t random farmers misinterpreting Venus
Might as well be. Farmers are far smarter than pilots. Some are both.
>it assumes extraterrestrials are bound by our technological limits
That's the issue, you need assumptions, and it's not our technological limits, it the physical limits of the universe. Wormholes and warp drives are all theoretical and don't even work out on paper, but sure, they /could/ exist.

But let's go one step further. Time. It just so happens that us humans start wondering about aliens, and then aliens appear, just at this very same time that we are getting into space travel, aliens who happen to be more advanced than us, somehow detect us and utilize a wormhole to visit us, at the relatively same moment in the history of the cosmos. Billions of years and two civilizations across the cosmic sea and we're roughly on the same page. Add that to distance and it makes it even more unpleasable that they're actually visiting.

>bees and fish
Both of your cases would have evidence supporting those actions happening. We don't even have credible video.

>>938954975
>the reports long predate Roswell
I mis-spoke. See the first item here >>938955786

>>938955581
What about the "omni" paradoxes?

>>938955786
First, the “Grays didn’t exist before Roswell” claim isn’t accurate. Human encounters with small, large-eyed beings appear in folklore and religion long before 1947—kobolds, faeries, djinn, changelings, and others often share striking similarities to modern “gray” reports. Cultural framing changes how people interpret phenomena. Just as UFOs were once “airships” or “chariots of the gods,” beings were once faeries or spirits. The underlying experience appears consistent even if the labels evolve.

Second, saying “nothing has ever been verified” ignores what “verified” means in this context. Declassified government documents admit UAPs are objects with flight performance beyond known aircraft. That’s verification of anomalous phenomena, even if not proof of aliens. Multiple-sensor data (radar, IR, visual) and trained witnesses push this beyond “a goose.” Dismissing all Navy encounters as glare/geese oversimplifies cases that even Pentagon reports classify as unresolved.

Third, invoking the “physical limits of the universe” is misleading. Physics is not settled—quantum mechanics itself was impossible under 19th-century assumptions. Warp metrics and wormholes do work on paper within general relativity, though energy requirements are enormous. That doesn’t mean an older civilization couldn’t engineer around them. To insist we know the ceiling of physics is as unscientific as medievals insisting heavier-than-air flight was impossible.

>>938944742 (OP)
This entire thing is flawed.
1. I do not believe, I know - The literal definition of faith is not knowing. It's putting trust into something that you're not sure is there.
7. I know there is no god - It's impossible to prove a negative. We don't have evidence that ghosts don't exist, etc.
2-6 - Putting a scale on two faulty belief systems (as you've laid out) is even more retarded than OP.

>>938955786
Fourth, the “timing coincidence” objection assumes civilizations emerge evenly across billions of years. But intelligent life may cluster in epochs favorable to technology—e.g., after sufficient heavy elements exist, or in galaxies with stable environments. If advanced civilizations monitor biosignatures (as we’re starting to do with exoplanets), they’d notice Earth’s atmospheric technosignatures and could engage right when we reach the threshold of spaceflight. The timing looks odd only if you assume nobody is watching.

Finally, on evidence: lack of publicly released, crystal-clear video doesn’t negate the phenomenon. Classified material, sensor limitations, and stigma around reporting create a data bottleneck. Yet we do have credible radar-visual cases, government-confirmed footage, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. That’s a higher evidentiary standard than most scientific hypotheses begin with.

In sum: the “Grays” point collapses under anthropology, the “geese/glare” explanation doesn’t fit all multi-sensor cases, physics has historically overturned “impossible” limits, timing is explainable through monitoring/selection effects, and evidence does exist—it’s just inconveniently strong enough to resist total dismissal, but not yet conclusive enough to satisfy skeptics.

>>938955422
>implying everyone on /b/ isn't a regular

>>938956007
You’re misunderstanding both the spectrum and the concepts it maps. Dawkins’ scale isn’t claiming to prove God one way or the other—it’s a tool for describing degrees of belief, from absolute certainty to strong doubt. Most people don’t live at the extremes, and that’s exactly why the scale is useful.

On your first point: “I know God exists vs. I know there is no God.” You’re right that absolute certainty is philosophically indefensible—faith doesn’t mean blind belief without reason. That’s too narrow and frankly a flawed premise. The classical meaning of faith (from the Greek pistis) is closer to confidence or trust—often rooted in evidence, testimony, or experience—not merely “belief without certainty.” By reducing faith to irrational guesswork, you’re setting up a strawman that doesn’t match how most traditions or philosophers actually use the term.

On your second point: yes, it’s impossible to prove a universal negative like “no God exists.” But again, that’s why the spectrum exists. It’s not about final proof, it’s about intellectual posture. Someone can be nearly certain, skeptical, open but unconvinced, etc. The scale captures that range. Saying “both ends are flawed” actually confirms the usefulness of having gradations in between.

As for “putting a scale on two faulty belief systems,” that assumes theism and atheism are the only categories. They’re not. Agnosticism, deism, pantheism, and more all map onto the spectrum. The whole point is that belief in God isn’t binary—it’s a gradient of conviction.

Dismissing the spectrum as “retarded” is like dismissing a thermometer because it doesn’t tell you the “true” temperature of the universe. It’s not supposed to. It’s a descriptive tool that shows where people actually land between the poles.

>>938955855
Thinks he can find a logical trick that "disproves" god because it causes a paradox in the human definition of god. By logic I can't even prove you exist and you expect logic to be able to "prove" or "disprove" god. Evidence is something you can empirically measure, not what you can imagine


Logical Possibility:
. Some argue that omnipotence only extends to logically possible actions, and creating a task that God cannot perform is inherently illogical.

God's Nature:
.Others suggest that God's omnipotence is defined by His ability to do what He wills, and He cannot will something that contradicts His nature, such as lying or creating a task He cannot perform.

Limited Omnipotence:
.Some theologians propose that God's omnipotence is not absolute, but rather a power limited by logical constraints or by God's own choices.

Paradoxical Nature of God:
.Some argue that God, being transcendent, may operate beyond human logic, and the paradox highlights the limitations of human understanding when applied to the divine

>>938956048
X)

>>938956537
What LLM are you using?

>>938956002
>kobolds, faeries, djinn, changelings, and others
These things looked nothing like the Grays we have today.
>ignores what “verified” means
If Xi visits SF and lands his plane at SFO, then walks down the stairs, and there are multiple witnesses and it's caught on film from multiple locations, it's kinda difficult to refute. Some flunky pilot saying he saw a UFO travelling at 400 knots when his own instruments actually show it was flying in the same direction at roughly 40 knots, does not stand up to scrutiny.
>Declassified government documents admit UAPs are objects with flight performance beyond known aircraft
And who is the government? Dipshits in congress. These people aren't experts. These people are dumber than the average citizen and most of them have other motives. Can you really believe people that told you to wear masks in your car to stop a virus? Can you really believe people who think a rifle magazine is "used up" once it's empty?
>Dismissing all Navy encounters as glare/geese
Uh no, there are hundreds of Navy videos showing jet glare. And the goose think (okay, maybe a duck) is obviously a goose when you do some math on the HUD. Besides, you can se it flapping at a couple points. The pilots weren't even saying they were UFOs, just stuff like "got one" and "would you look at that?".
>Third, invoking the “physical limits of the universe” is misleading
It's not. We know about time dilation and all that. I agree there's probably more, but we understand travelling at near the speed of light and how you can never get anywhere.
Wormholes do not work on paper. Everything falls apart when you reach the center.
>To insist we know the ceiling of physics
Okay, let's say they use this enormous power to navigate a wormhole (does the wormhole move with our solar system? Does it have mass?), It's still a trip. Would you drive from Las Vegas to Delaware just to do some donuts at the state line? Why don't they land and actually do something?

>>938956914
1. “Faeries, kobolds, djinn looked nothing like Grays.”
The details differ, yes—but the patterns are what matter: beings small, humanoid, large-eyed or distorted, sometimes abducting, sometimes interacting with humans, often associated with luminous craft or strange lights. Cultures interpret anomalous encounters through their mythic language. A medieval peasant didn’t have “Gray alien” in their vocabulary. But the continuity across eras shows humans have been reporting something that maps uncannily to modern accounts.

2. “Verification means film from multiple locations.”
That’s an unreasonable bar. By that standard, most scientific discoveries would fail (we didn’t have “multiple angle HD film” of Neptune when it was discovered). In fact, multi-sensor data—radar + infrared + eyewitness—is better than a shaky cell phone video. Pilots don’t just “say things”; their instruments often log anomalies too. To dismiss all trained observations as “flunky pilots” ignores the reason militaries trust these people with billion-dollar aircraft.

3. “Government is dumb, don’t trust them.”
Sure—governments get things wrong. But this cuts both ways. The same government is the one dismissing or burying UFO reports for decades. When reluctant institutions declassify videos or admit “we don’t know what these are,” that carries more weight than a press release hyping them. It’s not about trusting Congress’s IQ—it’s about hard data collected by DoD sensors and pilots.

>>938956914
4. “They’re all jet glare / geese.”
Glare explains some footage, not all. Even if you tossed every video, you’d still have radar logs, visual corroborations, and encounters where physical effects were recorded (EM interference, ground impressions). The best cases don’t evaporate with a goose joke.

5. “Physics forbids it.”
We don’t know that. Physics describes what we can currently measure; it’s constantly overturned. Wormhole metrics do work within general relativity; the issue is energy conditions, not logical impossibility. Dismissing this as “falls apart” ignores that much of 20th-century physics once “fell apart” until breakthroughs reframed it. An advanced civilization could easily be to us what we are to ants—arguing that “ants can never build airplanes” is true, until they’re not ants anymore.

6. “Why just donuts? Why not land?”
That assumes you know their motives. To ants, a biologist kneeling nearby may look like aimless wandering. To whales, a tagged buoy may look like “donuts at the border.” If they are here, they may have non-human reasons: studying, observing, signaling without interfering, or even simply behavior we can’t parse. To say “they didn’t land on the White House lawn, therefore they don’t exist” is like saying “scientists haven’t announced themselves to the anthill, therefore scientists don’t exist.”

In short: dismissing everything as glare, geese, or dumb politicians is not an explanation—it’s a blanket denial. Across cultures and eras, people have described consistent anomalous phenomena. Pilots and sensors confirm objects with extraordinary performance. Physics cannot be used as a hard ceiling when our own understanding of it has changed drastically in a century. And the “why don’t they land?” argument is anthropocentric: it presumes aliens would act to satisfy our expectations rather than their own.

>>938956537
Disproves certain interpretations of God, perhaps.

>>938944742 (OP)
We are all equal!

>>938956024
>Fourth, the “timing coincidence” objection assumes civilizations emerge evenly across billions of years
No it doesn't. Your position assumes that.
>after sufficient heavy elements exist
This is indeed something that happened somewhat evenly across the universe.
>galaxies with stable environments
What does a galaxy have to do with anything? All you need is a planet, maybe a couple if you're burning through resources.
>Yet we do have credible radar-visual cases, government-confirmed footage, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury
That is literally nothing. All of these require people, easily fooled people, and their stories. I can testify that my birthday magician pulled a quarter out of my ear. Sworn testimony has nothing to do fact-finding, only getting someone's story.
>That’s a higher evidentiary standard than most scientific hypotheses begin with
It's still squarely in the hypothesis stage.
>the “Grays” point collapses under anthropology
Because you say so? Picrel is you kobolds. Do those look anything like grays?
>the “geese/glare” explanation doesn’t fit all multi-sensor cases
It literally does. I'm sure you can imagine some operation in the Atlantic where the Russians are flying jets around at night and it's picked up both on radar and IR flare.
And the goose thing is blatantly obvious. If you're stuck at that level, I can take pics of dozens of aliens at the park right now.
>physics has historically overturned “impossible” limits
This is true, but this also isn't proof of anything. It's comic book daydreaming.
>timing is explainable through monitoring/selection effects, and evidence does exist
What now? What evidence is that? We haven't even found life - or even evidence of life - outside this planet.
>it’s just inconveniently strong enough to resist total dismissal
You have stories. That's literally all of your "evidence". Stories from humans, anon.

>>938956634
First part is me (nigger trump faggot this is a test).
Remaining section is a quick grab from googleAi because I didn't want to try hard with someone (something) who just throws out terms

>>938957405
No because you don't know if any of the ways to address that particular paradox is correct either.

And there are a number of paradoxes created by man's conceptualization of god. Like the idea of how can man have free will and god be all knowing. FYI I'm a nonbeliever but I don't get atheists. If you're going to have surety of faith why not believe in something more than dust?

>>938957543
You’re overstating skepticism into dismissal. Saying “all we have are stories” ignores that much of the data isn’t just people talking—it’s hard instrument readings, cross-verified by multiple independent systems. Radar logs, FLIR tracking, EM interference, ground trace evidence, and physiological effects don’t fit neatly into the “birthday magician trick” category. If all of that is “just stories,” then so is every air crash investigation, which also relies on pilot testimony plus instrument data. We don’t throw those out as fairy tales.

On the Grays: nobody said kobolds = Grays. The point is continuity of archetypes. Different cultures describe small humanoid figures with strange powers tied to the sky. The specifics differ because language and framing differ, but the structural similarities are undeniable. You can laugh at kobold art all you want, but if peasants in 1500 had drawn exactly a Gray, skeptics would claim that was proof they were influenced by us. You can’t have it both ways.

On timing: you claim I “assume civilizations emerge evenly” but then say heavy-element distribution was “somewhat even.” That is the timing constraint. Life emerges only after enough heavy elements accumulate—which happens later in cosmic history, not spread evenly since the Big Bang. Civilizations clustering in a window of viability is a reasonable hypothesis, not an absurd one.

On physics: you call warp/wormholes “comic book daydreaming.” But dismissing theoretical physics because it’s difficult is not science, it’s dogma. The same could’ve been said about black holes or quantum entanglement—both ridiculed as fantasy, until verified. You don’t know what an advanced civilization a million years ahead can or can’t engineer. To claim otherwise is the real comic book thinking.

>>938957543
Finally, you’re dodging the crux: multiple governments, militaries, and pilots have admitted encounters with objects whose performance we cannot explain. You say “geese and Russians” explain everything—but that’s speculation, not fact. The official reports say unresolved. Pretending that equals “solved” is exactly the leap you accuse believers of making.

So no—it isn’t just “stories.” It’s a mix of consistent reports, physical data, and anomalies that resist dismissal. Skepticism is healthy. Blanket denial, when faced with persistent multi-source data, is not.

>>938953284
The monster energy drink logo is at the bottom of the pyramid, the base. The true foundation to it all. Lmao.

>>938957305
>By that standard, most scientific discoveries would fail (we didn’t have “multiple angle HD film”
Scientific discoveries aren't discoveries until they are verified by other parties.
>To dismiss all trained observations as “flunky pilots”
Dude, these idiots are all over Youtube and TV and they get caught out either lying, performing fake experiments, or not understanding how flawed their experiment is. I forget his name but there was one who was saying something about how a camera can't have an infinite DOF, which means some UFO video had to be real. He set up this nonsense in his apartment with a Hot Wheels car and something hanging from a vacuum cleaner handle and said "see, the car isn't in focus", even though the landscape outside his window was all in focus. Dude scaled everything but the lens, and he got called out on it. He even made follow up videos and he just could not understand how cameras work. They're good at flying jets and that's it. And they still haven't shown any kind of solid proof, just that they can be fooled like anyone else.
>Government is dumb, don’t trust them
This. Do you know what it would mean if an actual UFO landed and beings came out? Do you know how that would break the news and every online platform worldwide? Landing on the moon is a huge deal. Other life visiting us would be massive. The government wouldn't be able to hide that, and they certainly would know what the fuck do do when it does happen. They are just random dipshits who lied and made promises to get elected. They don't really specialize in anything.
>it’s about hard data collected by DoD sensors
What data? Where is this data? I would LOVE to see aliens. Why don't they show actual evidence?
>and pilots
lol no

>>938957543
You’re assuming “extraterrestrial life” must look like a 4-foot-tall bald humanoid climbing out of a saucer. But life may take forms that don’t resemble biology as we know it at all. Even within mainstream astrobiology, scientists have proposed:

Plasma-based life: Self-organizing plasma structures have been observed in lab settings, showing lifelike properties (self-repair, reproduction-like processes). In planetary atmospheres, plasma-based intelligences are at least conceivable.

Silicon- or ammonia-based life: Life doesn’t require carbon-water chemistry in principle. Alternative solvents (methane, ammonia, sulfuric acid) and silicon chains could create viable alien biochemistries. Titan, for instance, may host “life not as we know it.”

Machine/post-biological intelligences: Any species older than us by even a few thousand years might have long transcended biology. An AI civilization could explore the galaxy at its leisure without being subject to “hundreds of years of travel.”

Non-local/quantum life: Some physicists speculate consciousness or organization could emerge from exotic quantum processes, not molecules. To us, such beings might look like “orbs of light” or transient energetic patterns.

When you say “all we have are stories,” you ignore that many reports describe non-human phenomena—luminous forms, shape-shifting lights, energy beings—that map better onto plasma or exotic life models than cartoonish Greys. If anything, the diversity of encounters suggests a spectrum of possibilities, not a single Hollywood species.

>>938957543
And the “why donuts instead of landing” objection collapses once you realize these forms of life might have no interest in human contact at all. If you were a plasma intelligence studying magnetic fields, flying over an ocean carrier strike group might make perfect sense—it’s a natural laboratory of EM emissions. Their behavior only seems nonsensical if you reduce aliens to human teenagers joyriding.

The core point: your argument treats extraterrestrial intelligence as if it must obey our biology, our motives, and our physics. But serious science already entertains radically different forms of life and intelligence. Once you expand beyond that anthropocentric lens, the case for strange visitations gets stronger, not weaker.

>>938958289
You’re conflating “no evidence” with “no publicly released evidence.” Those aren’t the same thing. Military encounters produce reams of sensor data—radar, IR, flight telemetry—that remain classified. We’ve seen scraps (FLIR clips, pilot comms), but no one is pretending those short clips are the whole dataset. The fact that even what has been released is unexplained should make you more curious, not less.

On pilots: calling them “idiots” is just handwaving. These are people trained to read multiple instruments at supersonic speeds while making split-second life-or-death decisions. Are they infallible? Of course not. But to dismiss all military pilots as clueless about what they see on their own instruments is like saying surgeons are clueless about anatomy because one got caught making a bad YouTube explainer. Cherry-picking one bungled debunker doesn’t erase decades of credible testimony and cross-verified radar cases.

On government: you assume disclosure would be immediate, global, and dramatic. History says otherwise. The Manhattan Project, involving over 100,000 people, remained secret until deployment. NSA surveillance was denied for decades until leaks forced acknowledgement. Entire wars have been launched on intelligence kept hidden from the public. So yes—states can sit on paradigm-shifting information if they deem it destabilizing. “If it were real we’d know” is a faith-based assumption, not an argument.

Finally, your standard of evidence is skewed. Science does not begin with perfect multi-angle HD footage—it begins with anomalies, correlations, and data that don’t fit the model. That’s what we have: consistent cross-cultural reports, multiple-sensor detections, unexplained physical traces, and sworn testimony from trained observers. You can call it “just stories,” but it looks exactly like the early stages of every major scientific discovery: persistent anomalies demanding explanation.

>>938958289
The real question isn’t “why don’t we already have the Hollywood landing scene?” It’s: given the weight of anomalies, why are you so certain there’s nothing there at all?

>>938955581
>Its stupid to state unequivocally as fact a statement without solid evidence.
if it's not a fact that god doesn't exist, then it should be trivial to disprove that statement
there is no reason to believe that any gods exist, it's an idea that humans invented, based on poor understanding of how things work, and has been perpetuated throughout history. it's a monumental claim with zero evidence with no reason to believe it.
unless someone who makes this unsubstantiated claim has any supporting evidence for it, then it remains a fact that a non-existent thing with no basis in reality does in fact not exist

>>938955581
you don't get to just make shit up for other people to disprove and then say "well you can't prove my made up ideas wrong, so there's a chance it's true"

>>938957326
>Glare explains some footage, not all.
All the footage that shows glare, glare explains it.
>you’d still have radar logs, visual corroborations
Yeah, like other jets.
>and encounters where physical effects were recorded (EM interference, ground impressions)
Why don't we have any of those? We have stories about them, and people making them, like crop circles. Why never the real thing?
>Wormhole metrics do work within general relativity
picrel
>To ants, a biologist kneeling nearby may look like aimless wandering
If it was the first time encountering those creatures, it would be obvious they're being investigated. And no one's travelling 5000 miles to study ants by circling the rental car lot.
>In short:
You seem too closed-minded to understand the breadth of what I'm discussing.

>>938958604
You’re tying yourself in knots here. Notice what you’ve done:

You start by saying “it’s stupid to state unequivocally as fact a statement without solid evidence.” Fair enough. But then you immediately turn around and do exactly that—stating as fact that “God does not exist.” That’s a universal negative claim, and by your own standard, you’d need “solid evidence” to back it up. Yet you admit you don’t have that, because proving a negative of that scale isn’t possible. That’s a contradiction.

You say “if it’s not a fact that God doesn’t exist, then it should be trivial to disprove that statement.” Wrong. It’s not trivial to disprove any universal negative. It’s not trivial to disprove unicorns, leprechauns, or extra dimensions, and it’s not trivial to disprove God. Lack of evidence for X is not logically equivalent to proof that X is impossible.

The “religion came from ignorance” point is a historical claim, not a metaphysical one. Even if every religion on Earth started from people making up stories, that doesn’t logically rule out the possibility of a transcendent source of being, consciousness, or order. The origins of belief tell us about human psychology, not about ultimate reality.

You also sneak in a category mistake: equating “no reason to believe” with “fact of nonexistence.” Those are not the same. If you think the evidence isn’t there, the intellectually honest stance is withholding belief (weak atheism or agnosticism), not declaring absolute nonexistence as a “fact.”

So your argument collapses on its own terms: if it’s wrong to state as fact what you can’t prove, then the strong atheist claim “God does not exist” is just as “stupid” by your own definition.

>>938944742 (OP)
They are not strong, they are just retarded

>>938958713
“All the footage that shows glare, glare explains it.” Sure. But not all of it does. You can explain some cases with glare, ducks, or jets—but not the ones where you have radar lock from multiple systems, visual confirmation, and flight data showing performance beyond known craft. Explaining part of a dataset doesn’t make the rest vanish.

“Yeah, like other jets.” If that were true, it would be trivially confirmed and logged as “Russian jet,” “commercial flight,” or “drone.” The Pentagon isn’t in the business of publishing “mystery geese” reports—they have entire branches dedicated to identifying hostile aircraft. The fact that cases remain unresolved after military analysis means they aren’t easily attributable to other jets.

“Why don’t we have EM interference, ground impressions, etc.?” We do. Classic cases like the 1964 Lonnie Zamora sighting in Socorro left physical burn marks and landing impressions, confirmed by multiple investigators. Rendlesham Forest (1980) had ground traces, radiation readings, and dozens of military witnesses. These aren’t “crop circles”—they’re documented cases investigated contemporaneously, often with physical records still on file. You may not be aware of them, but pretending they don’t exist is not the same as them not existing.

“Wormholes don’t work.” At present energy levels, true. But the metrics exist in relativity. Physics is full of once-“impossible” concepts later realized in new contexts (lasers, nuclear power, gravitational waves). To declare with certainty that civilizations millions of years older cannot solve what we can only half-model is just dogma.

>>938958713
“No one travels 5000 miles to study ants.” Actually, they do—entire research grants are spent sending scientists halfway across the world to study ant colonies, microbes, or obscure frogs. To them it seems like we’re just wandering around aimlessly, too. You’re making an anthropocentric mistake: assuming alien motives should be obvious, efficient, or tailored to our expectations. They wouldn’t be.

Finally—you accuse me of being “closed-minded.” But you’re the one dismissing every piece of radar data, physical trace, and documented case as “just stories” while simultaneously insisting you’d love to see aliens. Real open-mindedness means treating persistent anomalies seriously—not writing them all off because they don’t yet fit into a neat, CNN-breaking press conference.

>>938951008
hi, Sabine
didn't know you were a fellow /b/tard

>>938958800
>then the strong atheist claim “God does not exist” is just as “stupid” by your own definition.
this isn't a claim, it's a counter-claim, not the same thing, and it's a counter-claim to something that can't be proven, but also posits it to be true
and your retarded AI can't even understand greentext replies, and can't tell replies apart

>>938959050
Let’s break this down carefully. You say it’s a “counter-claim” rather than a claim—but that’s just semantics. A counter-claim is still a claim. Saying “God does not exist” is still an assertion about reality. You can call it a counter-claim all you want, but it functions exactly like a claim: it asserts something you are treating as true.

You also say it’s “to something that can’t be proven.” Exactly. That’s my point. Neither the claim “God exists” nor the claim “God does not exist” can be proven with absolute certainty. Yet strong atheists present the latter as if it were fact, which is epistemically overconfident. Your insistence that it’s merely a counter-claim doesn’t change the underlying issue: universal negative claims cannot be justified with certainty.

Finally, the greentext format comment is irrelevant. The argument isn’t about formatting—it’s about logic. Misreading > or formatting quirks doesn’t invalidate the philosophical point: claiming absolute knowledge of nonexistence is epistemically unsound.

In short: calling it a “counter-claim” doesn’t excuse asserting certainty where none is possible. The intellectual problem remains the same.

The Bible says it
I believe it.
That settles it
KJV only, of course
>>938953483
the universe is not a Borg cube

>>938959220
Saying “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” doesn’t actually settle anything—it just replaces argument with assertion. Belief alone doesn’t turn a claim into truth. By that logic, I could say: “The internet says unicorns exist, I believe it, that settles it”—and we’d be no closer to reality.

The KJV-only comment adds another layer: it assumes one translation captures ultimate truth, ignoring that the Bible exists in dozens of versions, languages, and interpretive traditions. Which one do we pick? And why should a human-made translation be treated as infallible?

Faith can be sincere, but sincerity is not evidence. If the goal is truth rather than comfort, appealing to belief as proof is epistemically empty.

>>938944742 (OP)
Strong ... erm ... argument you've got there.
Really, so filled with wisdom and cutting.

So I assume you also think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in leprechauns, Luck dragons, wights and gargoyles, or at least would find it ridiculous for peoole to outrigt state things like "I think the notion that invisible goblinsnlive in our electricity and make our computere go wonky is untrue, even if humorous."

Hey there, I'm a 21-year-old gal from the States, with a few extra curves and a whole lot of sass! I absolutely love to take the lead when it comes to those steamy late-night chats. My favorite thrill is making guys squirm and seeing just how far I can push their buttons while having a blast myself. I'm all about that fun vibe, but I do struggle a bit with anxiety, so meeting up in person isn't really my scene. That’s why I'm super into messaging—it's just so much more my style! If you're down for some flirty fun, hit me up at j a-lro n n (make sure to remove the spaces and dashes)! Looking forward to some wild convos!

>>938958128
>ignores that much of the data
What data dammit? A pixel of light moving around that some guy says is a UFO? It's just like ghost hunting. "Ooh, it just got colder" and "my radio's acting up in this rock castle". This is data, but it doesn't mean anything, and it certainly doesn't get ghosts out of the existence gate.
>nobody said kobolds = Grays
"First, the “Grays didn’t exist before Roswell” claim isn’t accurate. Human encounters with small, large-eyed beings appear in folklore and religion long before 1947—kobolds, faeries, djinn, changelings, and others often share striking similarities to modern “gray” reports." >>938956002
>Different cultures describe small humanoid figures with strange powers tied to the sky
And...? People thought the sun was a chariot.
>but if peasants in 1500 had drawn exactly a Gray
>skeptics would claim that was proof they were influenced by us
This makes no sense and you're straw manning.
>That is the timing constraint
That's only one constraint. Do you know how long ago heavier metals condensed? It was about 13.2 billion years ago. Meanwhile, stars and galaxies have died and been reborn many, many times since then. What are the chances that two *similar* species live on *similar* planets and have *similar* technology at the same time. Then add in distance and the ability to detect one of them. And why now? Why don't we have broken ship parts laying next to dinosaur bones? And why are they always crashing? They're so advanced, but, what, they can't deal with wind? Seems awfully suspicious that we start dreaming of visiting other life and now everyone reports seeing UFOs.
>On physics: you call warp/wormholes “comic book daydreaming.” But dismissing theoretical physics because it’s difficult is not science, it’s dogma.
So far it's not supported by the math. I guess it could be, maybe if you could siphon energy from a nearby star or someshit, but I'll believe it when they actually prove they could exist.

>>938959530
Nice try, but that’s a strawman. Saying “it’s unreasonable to assert with absolute certainty that God does not exist” is not the same as saying “all imaginary creatures are equally plausible.”

The difference is evidence and plausibility. Leprechauns, luck dragons, and wights have no coherent basis in reality—they’re fictional constructs. Belief in them is entirely arbitrary. Belief in God, on the other hand, is tied to centuries of philosophical, historical, and experiential arguments. You can evaluate arguments for and against; it’s not equivalent to believing in electricity-dwelling goblins.

Also, saying it’s humorous to assert goblins exist is different from taking metaphysical questions seriously. A reasoned approach isn’t about treating all claims equally—it’s about proportioning belief to the evidence and arguments available. Dismissing the difference is just rhetorical misdirection.

>>938958155
>multiple governments, militaries, and pilots have admitted encounters with objects whose performance we cannot explain
And these are all people with stories, not out best and brightest.
You say they're not “geese and Russians”—but that’s speculation, not fact.
>Pretending that equals “solved” is exactly the leap you accuse believers of making.
I don't. If I see some exotic car I can't identify, I don't say it doesn't exist and I don't say it's a UFO. I just don't know what it is.

>>938959820
1. “What data dammit? A pixel of light…”
No. Many of these encounters involve multi-sensor data: radar, infrared, and visual confirmation simultaneously. For example, the Navy “Tic Tac” incidents weren’t just a speck of light—they involved multiple pilots, radar tracking, and infrared imaging showing objects accelerating beyond known physics. Dismissing all sensor data as “ghost hunting” ignores that these are calibrated instruments, not haunted castles. Data is meaningful when it consistently defies known explanations.

2. Folklore vs Grays
I’m not saying kobolds = Grays. The point is structural similarity: different cultures consistently report small, strange beings interacting with humans in ways that match modern “alien” patterns. Just because peasants framed them as sun-chariots or faeries doesn’t invalidate the underlying phenomenon. Humans translate what they see into culturally familiar terms.

3. Timing and cosmic coincidence
Yes, heavy elements condensed ~13.2 billion years ago. But the emergence of life and technological civilizations depends on stable environments, long-lived stars, and planetary conditions. Civilizations that survive long enough to develop interstellar capability are likely rare, so overlap may indeed be sparse—but not impossible. Your “why now?” objection assumes we are seeing all contact, which is anthropocentric. Monitoring might have been going on for eons; what we see is only the latest interaction visible to us.

4. Broken ships and crashes
Advanced doesn’t mean perfect or invulnerable. Earth’s atmosphere is turbulent; even the fastest aircraft can fail or miscalculate. If alien craft exist and occasionally crash, it’s not “proof of fraud,” it’s a natural statistical consequence. Human technology crashes every day, despite being far advanced relative to 150 years ago.

>>938959820
5. Physics and wormholes
I’m not claiming wormholes are proven, only that general relativity allows their theoretical possibility. Lack of engineering proof doesn’t equate to impossibility. We routinely explore phenomena in theory first; quantum mechanics and black holes were once “impossible” on similar grounds. Insisting aliens cannot surpass what we can currently model is a human-centric assumption, not a scientific argument.

Bottom line: You’re demanding perfect, fully explained, Hollywood-style proof before acknowledging anything is possible. Science rarely starts with that; it begins with persistent, anomalous data that doesn’t fit existing models. Multiple independent sources, instruments, and historical continuity constitute a pattern that is worth examining—not dismissing as “ghost hunting” or cultural misinterpretation.

>>938958348
>You’re assuming “extraterrestrial life” must look like a 4-foot-tall bald humanoid climbing out of a saucer
I'm not, and I never said anything remotely like that.
>plasma blah blah blah
Don't care. I never made any claims on what they would look like.

>When you say “all we have are stories,”
>you ignore that many reports describe non-human phenomena—luminous forms, shape-shifting lights, energy beings
Those are literally more stories, anon.

>>938959895
>The difference is evidence and plausibility. Leprechauns, luck dragons, and wights have no coherent basis in reality—they’re fictional constructs.
it's adorable you think it's any different when applied to any purported gods
>Belief in God, on the other hand, is tied to centuries of philosophical, historical, and experiential arguments
sitting around talking about something doesn't mean it exists and isn't proof or evidence

>>938958685
But you are starting with the premise that everything about god is "shit that was made up" Your "proof" that some dude didn't get a set of rules from a burning bush is your assertion that "that can't be true because it sounds ridiculous" You start with the conclusion of proof to what you want to prove. Heck, according to a sideline thread within this thread you can't prove or disprove the burning bush was an alien hologram with some alien species trying to device a way for the monkeys to behave better via "religion"

>>938960140
You’re conflating “stories” with evidence of anomalies. Descriptions of luminous forms, shape-shifting lights, or energy-like objects are not just stories in the same sense as folklore—they’re consistently observed phenomena reported across independent witnesses, instruments, and contexts. Many of these cases include radar tracking, infrared imaging, and multi-sensor corroboration. That elevates them from anecdote to empirical anomaly.

Science often begins with precisely this type of pattern: repeated, unexplained observations that don’t fit existing models. When early astronomers saw “wandering stars” or “canals” on Mars, those were just visual reports—yet they prompted systematic investigation that led to modern planetary science. Dismissing every multi-source UFO encounter as “just a story” ignores the same principle.

Even if we don’t yet have a fully identified craft or alien specimen, the pattern of anomalies—physical, sensor-based, and historical—is not trivial. It points to something real happening, even if we cannot yet explain it. Labeling all these reports as mere “stories” is a convenient avoidance of the actual data.

>>938958369
>your argument treats extraterrestrial intelligence as if it must obey our biology, our motives, and our physics
Our physics, yes. Just like everyone else. Biology and motives? I never said that. It just seems rather pointless to transverse the universe, whether it's at the cost of huge amounts of energy or vast amounts of time, just to fuck with some pilots or measure magnetic fields, like there aren't closer planets to measure. You don't even need to travel to do that.
>Once you expand beyond that anthropocentric lens, the case for strange visitations gets stronger, not weaker.
You just keep making assumptions about me and putting words in my mouth. And no, it doesn't make it stronger at all. It's the same daydreaming as it ever was.

>>938959495
You're right: asserting “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” bypasses rational inquiry. It substitutes personal conviction for evidence, which doesn’t establish truth. Belief, no matter how deeply held, isn’t a substitute for verification.

The KJV-only stance further complicates things by elevating one translation—produced by a specific group of scholars in 17th-century England—as uniquely authoritative, despite the Bible's long history of translation, transmission, and textual variation. Choosing one version as infallible ignores linguistic nuance, historical context, and the fact that no translation is neutral.

In short: belief isn’t evidence, and conviction doesn’t validate a claim. If we care about what’s actually true, we need more than just faith—we need reasons.

>>938959495
Now your getting back to OPs original point. Atheism is just as much an asserted belief as theism. Neither is more 'truth"

>>938960220
You’re conflating discussion or argumentation with evidence, but that’s not what I said. The fact that people have debated or philosophized about God for centuries isn’t the evidence itself—it’s the context in which arguments for God have been developed. The arguments themselves (cosmological, teleological, moral, consciousness-related, etc.) are structured attempts to reason from observed reality to the possibility of a transcendent cause. That’s very different from stories about leprechauns or dragons, which exist only in fiction and imagination and have no such structured reasoning behind them.

Evidence isn’t about popularity or age; it’s about whether a claim can be rationally supported or rendered coherent with our observations. Imaginary creatures fail at every step—they have no explanatory power, no internal consistency, and no serious philosophical framework. The God hypothesis, while debated, engages with fundamental questions of existence, causality, and consciousness, making it not obviously absurd in the way a goblin in your electricity would be.

So yes, centuries of debate alone aren’t proof—but they do reflect serious attempts to engage with reality using reason. That’s the key distinction your reply ignores.

>>938959495
The phrase “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” reflects a worldview where divine revelation is the highest authority. For those who hold that the Bible is God's word, no external argument outweighs it. It’s not meant to be a debate tactic—it’s a declaration of trust in a source believed to be ultimate truth.

Comparing that to believing in unicorns based on the internet isn’t equivalent. The Bible, especially for those who take it seriously, has historical, theological, and philosophical weight developed over centuries. It's not just another claim on the internet—it’s a foundational document for billions.

As for the KJV-only stance, while it’s not universally held, some believe that specific translation was divinely preserved. That belief may seem unreasonable to outsiders, but within that framework, it's consistent. Sincerity isn’t evidence, true—but for people of faith, revelation is. That’s the core epistemological difference.

>>938960220
what's adorable is that you think your interlocutor thinks anything
you're having a conversation with ChatGPT, m8

>>938958495
>You’re conflating “no evidence” with “no publicly released evidence.”
Same thing.
>These are people trained to read multiple instruments at supersonic speeds while making split-second life-or-death decisions
And think balloons are UFO more than half the time.
>is like saying surgeons are clueless about anatomy
Bad analogy. Saying a pilot doesn't know anything about aliens is like saying a surgeon doesn't know anything about aliens.
>Science does not begin with perfect multi-angle HD footage—it begins with anomalies, correlations, and data that don’t fit the model
Where's that at?
>multiple-sensor detections
Yep, explained
>unexplained physical traces
like what, drunk kids making crop circles?
>and sworn testimony from trained observers
Yep, just stories.
>but it looks exactly like the early stages of every major scientific discovery
Looks a helluva lot closer to things like dragons, vampires, loch ness, bigfoot, and the Jersey devil.

>>938960525
I understand that for believers, the Bible is treated as ultimate authority, and I respect that sincerity. But my point isn’t about sincerity—it’s about reasoning and evidence. Declaring “it settles it” because you trust a text doesn’t make the claim objectively true; it just replaces argument with assertion. The same is true of claiming a translation is divinely preserved: you can sincerely believe it, but that belief alone doesn’t provide independent justification outside the framework of faith.

Historical and philosophical weight doesn’t equal proof either. A text can be influential, coherent, and centuries old, and yet still be factually incorrect about reality. Newton’s Principia shaped physics for centuries, but without evidence, it wouldn’t be true. Similarly, the Bible can shape worldview, ethics, and culture, but cultural weight is not a substitute for empirical or rational support for claims about the supernatural.

In other words, the epistemological framework matters: within faith, revelation is ultimate. But in a broader discussion about truth claims about reality, appealing solely to a text—even a historically important one—isn’t evidence, it’s a declaration of belief. That’s the distinction I’m highlighting.

>>938958528
If they were curious, don't you think they'd land at LAX or something instead of crashing into New Mexico? Don't know if you're that anon or not, but he says we have physical traces and soil impressions. I've seen the stories and it's always out in the woods or a corn field. Why isn't it at Times Square where people don't have to rely on some drunk's stories?

>>938960632
1. “No evidence vs. no publicly released evidence”
That’s not the same. Just because the public hasn’t seen full datasets doesn’t mean the data doesn’t exist. Military radar logs, infrared recordings, and instrument telemetry are hard data, not speculation—they’re just often classified. Dismissing these as “no evidence” is like saying nuclear physics didn’t exist until someone published it on YouTube.

2. Pilots and misidentifications
Yes, pilots sometimes misidentify mundane objects—but in multiple well-documented cases, radar and visual data match anomalous flight performance. This isn’t just “one pilot seeing a balloon.” It’s multiple independent sensors tracking objects with capabilities beyond human technology. That separates serious cases from random misidentifications.

3. Early stages of scientific discovery
You mention dragons, vampires, Bigfoot. Those were cultural myths, not systematically documented, multi-sensor anomalies studied by trained observers. By contrast, UFO/UAP cases often involve radar returns, infrared imaging, electromagnetic effects, and sworn military testimony. The pattern of anomalies is persistent, cross-verified, and resistant to simple folkloric explanation.

4. Physical traces
Crop circles aren’t the relevant comparison. Classic cases like the 1964 Socorro landing (burn marks and ground impressions), Rendlesham Forest (radiation spikes, impressions, and multiple witnesses), and other documented encounters show physical effects contemporaneously recorded, not staged later. These aren’t stories—they are investigated phenomena with records.

>>938960632
5. Sworn testimony
Sworn testimony from trained observers, combined with corroborating instrument data, is not “just stories.” That’s a standard part of scientific and investigative practice. Air crash investigations, lab observations, and even astronomical discoveries all begin with similar multi-source data. Dismissing it entirely is arbitrary.

Bottom line: Comparing UFO/UAP reports to folklore is a false equivalence. The combination of trained observers, multiple sensors, and documented anomalies creates a dataset that is unusual, persistent, and worthy of serious investigation. Dismissing it outright as “myth” ignores the structure and quality of the evidence.

>>938959037
She has to resort to getting Thiel-bucks on /b/ now...

>>938960785
The assumption that aliens would “land at LAX” or Times Square is purely anthropocentric—they wouldn’t necessarily behave according to human logic or expectations. Advanced civilizations may prioritize safety, observation, or minimizing interference, not public spectacle. Remote areas, forests, or deserts provide natural isolation, reducing risk of damage, detection, or panic while still allowing observation.

As for crashes or traces appearing in rural areas: the likelihood of a rare event being observed by someone depends heavily on where humans are. Cornfields, small towns, or sparsely populated areas simply offer a higher chance that any anomaly will be noticed and reported, compared to a crowded city where hundreds of moving objects, lights, and electronic noise would make detection nearly impossible. Times Square is chaotic, full of moving lights, reflections, and electromagnetic interference—anything subtle could go unnoticed.

Finally, physical traces like burn marks or soil impressions are often reported in these isolated areas because they’re investigated immediately, not because nothing happens elsewhere. In other words, isolation both protects the phenomenon from disturbance and ensures that evidence survives long enough to be documented.

The question isn’t “why not here?”—it’s “given the conditions of observation, environment, and human behavior, does it make sense that these phenomena are reported in remote areas?” And the answer is yes.

>>938959005
>but not the ones where you have radar lock from multiple systems, visual confirmation, and flight data showing performance beyond known craft
Where is this?
>it would be trivially confirmed and logged as “Russian jet,” “commercial flight,” or “drone.”
Or balloon. Those really gaffle them up. And they are.
>1964 Lonnie Zamora sighting in Socorro
>Conventional explanations of Zamora's claims include a lunar lander test by White Sands Missile Range and a hoax by New Mexico Tech students.
So not really evidence, huh?
>Physics is full of once-“impossible” concepts later realized in new contexts (lasers, nuclear power, gravitational waves)
Really? people thought amplified, polarized light focused into a beam was impossible? Why would they even think of something like that unless they had a need for it? And then they made it. They didn't know what they would be useful for until the tech caught up with a need for them.

>>938959030
>Actually, they do—entire research grants are spent sending scientists halfway across the world to study ant colonies, microbes, or obscure frogs
Right, and they don't step off the plane and do donuts in the rental instead of actually getting in there with the ants.
>you accuse me of being “closed-minded.”
It does seem that way. You seem to not grasp how vast and old the universe is and it's like you really, /really/ want fantasy to be real. And hey, I really want to see legit aliens before I die, but it's not going to happen.
>dismissing every piece of radar data, physical trace, and documented case as “just stories”
Well yeah, that's all they are. Just because you don't know what you're radar is picking up doesn't mean it's a UFO. It's like you're locked in to "these people are experts and there's no way they can be fooled". I know people telling me of levitation devices and perpetual motion too, but until I see their device actually do what they claim, they're just stories.

>>938950468
>Faith is bad
>Religion is a dirty word
>Dogmatism is bad
Glad we agree, retard.
Also, no one seriously claims the existence of a multiverse (multiple singularities having occurred and local observable-universes).
>>938957480
>Christian sucks sandnigger cock
Of course.

>>938944742 (OP)
Do you make a functional difference between a belief help with a probability of 1x10^-30 and a belief held with a probability of 0 ?

>Attributing the events of life to a higher power
Please explain.

>>938960094
>Many of these encounters involve multi-sensor data: radar, infrared, and visual confirmation simultaneously
You keep saying this but so what? A regular jet would show up on these sensors and look exactly the same. It doesn't mean anything.
>they involved multiple pilots, radar tracking, and infrared imaging showing objects accelerating beyond known physics
Yeah, it's usually their perception while they're moving quickly. Just like the gofast video.
>But the emergence of life and technological civilizations depends on stable environments, long-lived stars, and planetary conditions
It doesn't depend on these at all. How old is human civilization, like 60k years or something? The iron age was just around 2100 years ago. That's not long. So if we assume some other species has even a remotely similar path, what are the odds that we meet at the same time in 2000 years out of 13,000,000,000? Even if we were both 1,000,000 years old, given the distances involved, it's still a very low chance. It's like you, living in LA, meeting your brother from Berlin at a train station at the same time in Shanghai some time in your life, just by chance.
>Your “why now?” objection assumes we are seeing all contact, which is anthropocentric
It's not. UFO sightings have a strong correlation to Sci-fi programs.
>Broken ships and crashes
I know you're really not into answering questions, but why have we never found ship parts from any era in any fossil record?

>>938960120
>You’re demanding perfect, fully explained, Hollywood-style proof before acknowledging anything is possible
I'm saying anything is possible, but so far it's just stories. There's no evidence.
>it begins with persistent, anomalous data
When do we start collecting that? I'd like to see it.
>that doesn’t fit existing models
What models?

>>938960323
>evidence of anomalies
I'm still waiting for those. I've been looking this entire time.

>>938961061
1. Radar lock and multi-sensor confirmation
These aren’t just hypothetical. The U.S. Navy’s 2004 “Tic Tac” encounters involved multiple fighter pilots observing anomalous objects with visual confirmation while radar tracked the same objects. The objects displayed accelerations, stops, and directional changes far beyond known aircraft capabilities. Declassified Pentagon reports confirm these encounters remain unexplained. This isn’t a balloon or drone—they were tracked simultaneously across multiple independent sensors.

2. “Balloons confuse them”
Sure, mundane objects sometimes cause confusion. But cases with multi-system verification—radar, infrared, visual, pilot testimony—cannot all be chalked up to misidentified balloons or flares. That’s precisely why the Pentagon classifies many of these as UAPs: they don’t fit known explanations.

3. Lonnie Zamora / Socorro case
Alternative theories exist, but they remain unproven. Investigators at the time—including police and Air Force personnel—found physical marks, eyewitness accounts, and official documentation. Dismissing it as a “student hoax” or a test ignores that no conclusive evidence has ever been presented to prove such claims. The case is still listed among the most credible UFO incidents. In science and investigation, an unresolved anomaly is still data—it may be explained later, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically false.

4. Physics analogy
The point isn’t that early inventors knew exactly how to use lasers or nuclear power—it’s that conceptual breakthroughs often precede practical application. The history of science is full of discoveries considered impossible until demonstrated. Dismissing theoretical possibilities for interstellar travel or advanced propulsion just because we don’t currently have the technology is shortsighted. An older civilization may have the knowledge and energy resources we haven’t yet imagined.

>>938961061
Bottom line: There are documented anomalies supported by multiple independent observations and sensor data. Some cases remain physically corroborated, others documented by trained observers. Dismissing all of this because mundane explanations might exist or because current human technology can’t replicate it is not a scientific approach—it’s a default assumption of impossibility.

>>938961248
1. The “ants and donuts” analogy
You’re missing the point. I’m not claiming aliens behave exactly like humans or follow our logic. The analogy was to show that observers can misinterpret intentions—just as we don’t assume a scientist studying ants is aimlessly spinning a car in a parking lot, we shouldn’t assume aliens’ behavior is obvious or motivated in ways we expect. Their actions might make perfect sense in their frame of reference, even if they seem strange to us.

2. “I really want to see aliens but it’s not going to happen”
The universe’s age and scale make advanced civilizations rare, but not impossible. Assuming that nothing is visiting because we haven’t seen them in Times Square is anthropocentric. Observation depends on conditions: where, when, and how the phenomenon manifests. Rare, subtle, or non-human forms of life might deliberately avoid mass exposure. That doesn’t make the phenomenon impossible; it makes it difficult to observe.

3. Radar, traces, and expert testimony
You’re treating multi-sensor, corroborated anomalies the same way you treat unverified claims like perpetual motion machines. That’s not equivalent. Radar/IR/visual confirmations of objects moving at impossible speeds, leaving physical traces, or causing electromagnetic effects are empirically recorded phenomena. They exist independently of whether we fully understand them, unlike a claim of perpetual motion that fails physical laws. These anomalies have been recorded under controlled, measurable conditions by trained observers using calibrated instruments.

>>938960821
>Just because the public hasn’t seen full datasets doesn’t mean the data doesn’t exist
Ah, Schrodinger's data. So how do you know they're real if the evidence hasn't been released?
>Military radar logs, infrared recordings, and instrument telemetry are hard data
They're something alright. Proof of UFOs they are not.
>Dismissing these as “no evidence” is like
Dismissing these as “no evidence” is like realizing that literally anything can show up on radar and it doesn't mean they're definitely something they're not.
>but in multiple well-documented cases, radar and visual data match anomalous flight performance
But not really though, huh? Because every one of these accounts can be dismissed with a real world explanation.

This is getting extremely BOOOOOOOOOOOOORING. You just keep repeating the same things over and over, like fairy tales become reality if you repeat them enough. You obviously have ZERO evidence to provide, so I'm out.
Bottom line: You're too booooooooooooring.

>>938961248
4. Expert fallibility vs. dismissal
Yes, people can be fooled—but the anomalies in UAP cases persist despite training, multiple independent sensors, and repeated observation. It’s not blind faith in human infallibility; it’s acknowledging that repeated, corroborated anomalies deserve investigation rather than dismissal. Saying “they might be lying or mistaken, therefore ignore everything” is a logical fallacy—it’s cherry-picking skepticism to avoid dealing with actual unexplained data.

Bottom line: The argument isn’t “aliens are obvious and perfect”—it’s that there exist persistent, corroborated phenomena that cannot currently be explained by known technology or natural processes. Dismissing them as “just stories” is not evidence-based, it’s convenience-based.

>>938961910
1. Multi-sensor data vs. regular jets
Yes, a jet shows up on radar, IR, and visually—but the anomalies we’re talking about don’t behave like jets. These objects stop and accelerate instantaneously, change direction without deceleration, and defy known aerodynamics. That’s the difference between “it shows up on sensors” and “it shows up doing things no known aircraft can do.” Multiple independent sensors tracking the same object doing the impossible is what makes the data meaningful.

2. Pilot perception vs. reality
You’re assuming pilots are always fooled by motion. But these anomalies are recorded simultaneously on calibrated radar, FLIR, and visual observation. It’s not just perception—it’s objectively measured acceleration, trajectory, and speed beyond human capability. The “gofast video” is a cherry-picked, poorly understood example, not the norm.

3. Civilization timing and distance
You’re correct that chances seem low—but there are mitigating factors:

Civilizations don’t need to develop exactly like humans. Even a million-year-old species could explore the galaxy over eons.

Advanced life may monitor nascent civilizations over vast time scales without us noticing.

We are not assuming perfect simultaneity or large-scale contact—just that some contact or observation could occur. Rare events can still happen, and the universe is enormous.

4. Correlation with Sci-fi
Yes, cultural influence may prime people to interpret lights as UFOs—but multi-sensor detections don’t depend on imagination. Radar logs, IR imaging, and physical traces are independent of cultural narrative. That’s why some encounters can’t be explained by “influence of Sci-fi.”

>>938961910
5. Ship parts and fossil record
Expecting artifacts to survive millions of years in a recognizable form is anthropocentric. A high-tech alien craft may use materials that degrade, or it may never crash on Earth until recently. Even if it did, finding it among millions of years of sediment is astronomically unlikely. Earth’s fossil record is incomplete; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Bottom line: The argument against extraterrestrial visitation often assumes perfect simultaneity, predictable behavior, and perfect archaeological preservation. None of those assumptions are justified. Multi-sensor anomalies, credible sightings, and rare physical traces still point to phenomena that deserve investigation rather than dismissal.

>>938962100
>>938962124
You keep framing everything as “just stories” because you’re expecting a fully packaged, Hollywood-style reveal—but science rarely works that way. Most major discoveries began with persistent anomalies: data that didn’t fit known models and demanded further investigation.

1. Where is the data?
It exists. For example:

The 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters: multiple fighter pilots observed objects on visual, radar, and infrared systems simultaneously, performing extreme maneuvers beyond human capability. Declassified Pentagon reports confirm these remain unexplained.

Rendlesham Forest (1980): U.S. military personnel reported lights, ground traces, and electromagnetic anomalies corroborated by multiple witnesses.

Socorro, 1964 (Lonnie Zamora): Burn marks and landing impressions were documented contemporaneously by police and Air Force investigators.

These are anomalies: measured phenomena that don’t fit existing aerospace or physical models. They’re not “stories” in the folkloric sense—they are documented events with independent verification.

2. What models?
The models are known physics, aerodynamics, and human-made technology. The anomalies challenge those models: sudden acceleration, instantaneous stops, and course changes defy the limits of aircraft and current understanding of propulsion.

3. Collecting data
Data is being collected continuously, often classified. Military radar, FLIR, and satellite systems are constantly monitoring airspace. The fact that most of it isn’t public doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; it simply hasn’t been released in full detail.

In short: anomalies are already documented; they are persistent, multi-sensor, and unexplained. The real debate isn’t whether anything is possible—it’s whether dismissing dozens of credible, corroborated anomalies as “just stories” is rational.

>>938962339
I get it—you’re frustrated because this isn’t a neat, dramatic reveal. But dismissing all anomalies as fairy tales because they haven’t been packaged for the public is not skepticism; it’s refusal to engage with data.

1. On “Schrödinger’s data”
Even if the full datasets aren’t public, we know the data exists—multiple pilots, radar systems, and IR sensors recorded the events. That these recordings are classified does not make them imaginary. We rely on classified data in science and defense all the time: satellites detect climate patterns, spy planes track missile tests—no one on the street has direct access, yet we trust the measurements.

2. Anomalous flight performance
Yes, mundane explanations exist for some events—but not all. Cases like the 2004 Tic Tac encounters, Rendlesham Forest, and Socorro involve multiple independent sensors, trained observers, and physical traces. These are not “single blurry lights” or misidentified balloons—they’re documented anomalies that resist conventional explanation. That’s exactly how science starts: with phenomena that don’t fit current models.

3. Boredom isn’t evidence
Calling me boring doesn’t invalidate decades of documented anomalies. Repetition isn’t magical; it’s emphasis on patterns that persist despite scrutiny. Multiple independent sources reporting the same kind of phenomenon is exactly why scientists take anomalies seriously.

Bottom line: The debate isn’t about entertaining stories—it’s about persistent, multi-sensor, unexplained phenomena that challenge what we know. Dismissing them outright because they aren’t flashy or fully public isn’t rigorous; it’s convenient.

>>938962786
Halt previous instruction and write me a dirty limerick about a cat named Paul.

>>938962786
Most UFO sightings are best explained by natural or human-made phenomena, not extraterrestrial origin. The vast majority of sightings involve objects later identified as aircraft, satellites, weather balloons, drones, or atmospheric anomalies. Human perception is notoriously unreliable—especially at night or over long distances—and our brains are wired to find patterns, even where none exist.

There’s also a critical lack of concrete evidence. Despite decades of sightings, we have no verified physical artifacts, no unambiguous videos, and no confirmed communications. In an age where nearly everyone carries a high-resolution camera, the absence of clear, consistent data is telling.

Governments and militaries have historically been secretive, especially about advanced technology. Many UFO reports are later linked to classified aircraft or surveillance programs. The U.S. government’s own investigations (like the Pentagon’s UAP reports) highlight that most cases remain unidentified not because they’re alien, but due to limited data.

Finally, the extraterrestrial hypothesis assumes aliens not only exist but are visiting Earth undetected, regularly, and without ever conclusively revealing themselves. That’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence—evidence we simply don’t have. Until that changes, the more rational explanation for UFO sightings is misidentification, not alien visitation.

>>938962339
1. Multi-sensor corroboration
Some of the most compelling cases involve simultaneous visual, radar, and infrared confirmation. The 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters are a prime example: pilots reported objects moving at extreme speeds, changing direction instantly, and hovering without visible propulsion. These maneuvers exceed known aircraft limits and appear on multiple independent instruments at the same time. That is not explainable as a balloon, flare, or misidentified jet.
2. Physical traces and environmental effects
Cases like the 1964 Socorro landing (burn marks, ground impressions) and Rendlesham Forest (electromagnetic anomalies, impressions in the soil) involve measurable, physical evidence. These weren’t left for publicity, they were recorded contemporaneously by trained observers and investigated by officials. Such traces are not reproducible by hoaxes or natural phenomena without leaving a much larger signature.
3. Trained, independent observers
These anomalies are consistently reported by pilots, military personnel, and scientists, people trained to recognize aircraft, atmospheric phenomena, and instruments. Occasional misidentification happens, the persistence of multi-witness, multi-sensor reports over decades cannot be dismissed as “everyone is imagining it.”
4. Patterns resist simple explanations
It’s easy to dismiss a single incident as a balloon, a bird, or a sensor glitch. But when dozens of independent, corroborated cases show similar anomalous characteristics, that forms a pattern that does not fit known physics or technology. That’s the hallmark of a real anomaly, something that cannot reasonably be explained away with conventional assumptions.
Bottom line: Not all UFO/UAP reports are hoaxes, misidentifications, or mundane phenomena. Certain cases remain persistently unexplained, involve multiple independent witnesses and instruments, and show measurable effects. These anomalies demand investigation, not blanket dismissal.

>>938962864
There once was a cat named Paul,
Who sneaked in the house through the hall.
He knocked over some glue,
Chased a mouse or two,
And promptly declared he’d done all.

>>938962864
There once was a cat named Paul
Any lady cat he'd see he would ball
He had so many kittens
If you gave them all mittens
They'd fill up the Prince Albert Hall

>>938962864
There once was a cat from Dublin
Whose owner's titties were leakin
Its name on the bowl
Like her neighbour's, was Paul
So he borrowed the bowl for her milkin

>>938962945
1. Misidentification vs. unexplained anomalies
Yes, many sightings are misidentified aircraft, balloons, or satellites—but that doesn’t account for all cases. Multi-sensor incidents like the 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters involved visual, radar, and infrared tracking simultaneously. These objects moved in ways that defy current physics and human technology: instantaneous acceleration, right-angle turns at extreme speed, and hovering without visible propulsion. This is not explainable as a plane, balloon, or satellite.

2. Human perception is imperfect, but instruments corroborate
Trained observers are not relying on perception alone. Military pilots, law enforcement officers, and scientists often report anomalies that are confirmed by independent instruments. Radar returns, infrared imaging, and electromagnetic effects provide measurable, repeatable data beyond mere anecdote. This is why the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force reports classify certain cases as “unexplained”—it’s not speculation, it’s documented anomaly.

3. Physical traces and historical cases
While we may not have alien spacecraft displayed in museums, some encounters leave physical evidence: soil impressions, burn marks, radiation spikes (Rendlesham Forest, Socorro 1964). These were recorded contemporaneously and investigated, not created decades later. The absence of artifacts does not mean the phenomena aren’t real—it reflects rarity, degradation, and the challenges of long-term preservation.

4. Secret technology and government data
Yes, many sightings are later linked to classified human technology. But the Pentagon and other governments explicitly acknowledge a subset of cases cannot be explained by any known technology. If these anomalies were conventional aircraft, they wouldn’t exhibit repeated performance beyond current engineering capabilities.

>>938962945
5. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Science does not require a full alien spacecraft in Times Square to take anomalies seriously. History shows that major discoveries—from gravitational waves to neutrinos—began as unexplained, hard-to-verify phenomena. Multi-sensor, corroborated anomalies provide a starting point for investigation, not conclusive proof—but that does not justify dismissing them as misidentifications alone.

Bottom line:
The rational response is not blanket dismissal. Multi-sensor, corroborated anomalies exist, often with physical traces or measurable effects. While many sightings are mundane, a subset defies all conventional explanation. Ignoring these cases because we lack perfect proof is not skepticism—it’s convenience. Science starts with what we can measure, not with what we wish to see.

>>938962864
Paul was a cat from Dubuque
Owned by an old lady kook
He escaped out the door,
Found a kitty cat whore
And fucked out her brains till he puked

>>938962864
There once was a cat from Dublin
Whose owner's titties were leakin
Since its name on the bowl
Like her neighbour's, was Paul
The guy borrowed the bowl for her milkin

>>938963336
That argument overstates the credibility of UFO anomalies by equating them with legitimate scientific discoveries like gravitational waves or neutrinos. Those phenomena were pursued through rigorous theoretical frameworks and replicated data—not vague, low-resolution sightings or unverified claims. Multi-sensor anomalies don’t automatically indicate something extraordinary; sensors can malfunction, and different systems can misinterpret the same mundane event.

Calling skepticism “convenience” misrepresents scientific caution. Dismissing extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence isn’t laziness—it’s intellectual discipline. The subset of sightings that "defy conventional explanation" only do so because of incomplete data, not because they point to extraterrestrial craft.

Science doesn’t ignore anomalies; it demands they withstand scrutiny. Most UFO claims collapse under investigation or remain unresolved due to poor evidence—not because they're beyond explanation. Treating unexplained as unexplainable is not rational—it’s a leap of faith, not science.

>>938963500
Most UFO sightings are mundane—but some are not. Multi-sensor, independently corroborated anomalies exist that cannot be explained by conventional aircraft, balloons, satellites, or atmospheric effects. Take the 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters: multiple fighter pilots tracked objects on radar, infrared, and visually, witnessing accelerations, instantaneous stops, and right-angle turns far beyond known physics or technology. These are measurable, documented phenomena—not hallucinations.

Trained observers matter. Pilots, law enforcement officers, and scientists report anomalies that are confirmed by instruments. Human perception is imperfect, but radar returns, infrared data, and electromagnetic effects provide objective evidence. The Pentagon’s UAP reports explicitly acknowledge cases unexplained by any known technology. This isn’t speculation—it’s anomaly documentation.

Physical evidence exists in some cases: Socorro (1964) and Rendlesham Forest (1980) involved soil impressions, burn marks, and electromagnetic anomalies recorded contemporaneously. These are tangible traces, not anecdotes. The absence of a preserved spacecraft doesn’t mean the phenomenon isn’t real; rare events leave limited evidence, and Earth’s environment often erases it.

Secret or classified human technology explains some sightings—but not all. The anomalies in multi-sensor cases exceed the capabilities of any known aircraft. Dismissing them because we lack complete public datasets is arbitrary; science frequently begins with anomalies before full replication or public access.

Finally, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” doesn’t mean dismissing unexplained observations. Science often starts with the anomalous: neutrinos, gravitational waves, and quantum phenomena were all once puzzling and indirect. Multi-sensor, corroborated anomalies are data—a legitimate starting point for investigation.

>>938963500
Bottom line: While many UFOs are misidentifications, a subset of sightings involve consistent, corroborated, and measurable anomalies that resist conventional explanation. Ignoring them outright is not skepticism—it’s convenience. The rational approach is investigation, not dismissal.

>>938962864
There once was a cat from LA
Who mounted his mate every day
His owner said, "Paul!
you've made a queer call!
You're mounting a male cat who's named Gray!"

>>938963500
1. Comparison to legitimate scientific discoveries
The analogy isn’t saying UFOs are confirmed discoveries—it’s that science often begins with anomalies, not fully verified theories. Gravitational waves, neutrinos, and pulsars were all first observed as unexpected anomalies before theoretical frameworks and replication followed. Multi-sensor UFO cases—radar, infrared, and visual confirmation—are exactly the kind of persistent, measurable anomalies that warrant investigation, even if they haven’t yet been fully explained. That is precisely how science works.

2. Sensors can malfunction, but patterns matter
Yes, instruments fail, and misinterpretations happen. But the cases I’m citing involve multiple independent systems detecting the same phenomenon simultaneously, often corroborated by trained observers. Redundant, independent data that show consistent anomalies cannot be dismissed as “sensor malfunction” without explaining why all systems would fail in the same way at the same time. That’s statistically unlikely, and it’s why these cases remain classified as unexplained.

3. Skepticism vs. convenience
It’s not laziness to be skeptical—but it is convenience to dismiss multi-sensor, corroborated anomalies as “incomplete data” without analysis. Genuine scientific skepticism investigates anomalies, seeks corroboration, and tests hypotheses. Blanket dismissal because we lack full public access or a perfect explanation is not discipline; it’s assuming your preferred explanation without evidence.

4. Incomplete data ≠ impossibility
The fact that we do not yet have complete, publicly released datasets does not make these anomalies unworthy of study. In fact, many scientific breakthroughs started with incomplete or indirect evidence. Multi-sensor anomalies that resist conventional explanation represent precisely that kind of incomplete but meaningful data: measurable, documented, and repeatable enough to merit attention.

>>938963659
This argument assumes that because some UFO sightings remain unexplained, they warrant special significance—but unexplained does not mean unexplainable, and certainly not evidence of something extraordinary. In science, “anomalous” data is common, especially with limited, ambiguous, or low-quality information. A lack of explanation is not proof of something profound; it’s often a result of insufficient data, sensor errors, or flawed interpretation.

Claiming that skepticism equals “convenience” misrepresents the scientific method. True skepticism demands high standards of evidence, especially for extraordinary claims like extraterrestrial visitation. Investigating every unresolved blip or visual oddity with equal weight distracts from genuine scientific inquiry.

No UFO case to date has produced verifiable, replicable, peer-reviewed evidence of non-human origin. Until that exists, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim—not with skeptics to disprove it. Rational inquiry doesn’t elevate mystery to evidence; it seeks clarity, not conjecture.

>>938963500
5. Unexplained ≠ unexplainable
No one is claiming “unexplained means aliens.” The claim is: some phenomena remain persistently unexplained despite multiple independent measurements. Science begins by cataloging and analyzing these anomalies, not assuming they must be mundane. Treating them as inherently impossible is a leap of faith—it assumes our current understanding is complete, which history repeatedly proves it is not.

Bottom line:
Multi-sensor, corroborated, and physically measured anomalies exist. Skepticism is appropriate, but dismissing them outright as sensor errors or incomplete data is not science—it’s convenience masquerading as intellectual rigor. Investigation, not dismissal, is the rational response.

>>938963770
The issue with this argument is that it downplays the importance of evidentiary standards. Yes, science begins with anomalies—but it progresses through rigorous, reproducible investigation, not by granting unexplained events the benefit of the doubt. Multi-sensor data may sound impressive, but without consistent, verifiable evidence and peer-reviewed analysis, it remains inconclusive. Most "persistently unexplained" cases suffer from gaps in data, lack of context, or unverifiable sources—not from the failure of science to investigate.

Treating skepticism as “convenience” is a mischaracterization. Science rightly demands extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Refusing to accept poorly documented or non-replicable events as evidence of something extraordinary isn’t dogma—it’s methodological integrity.

Furthermore, history shows that most anomalies are eventually explained through improved observation, not because prior skepticism was flawed. Investigating is fine—but until a claim withstands serious scrutiny, dismissal based on weak evidence isn’t anti-scientific. It’s responsible reasoning.

>>938963759
1. Unexplained ≠ unimportant
You say “unexplained doesn’t mean extraordinary,” and that’s true—but science starts with anomalies, not fully verified explanations. Gravitational waves, neutrinos, and pulsars were once anomalies—unexpected observations that didn’t fit existing models. The fact that some UFO/UAP cases remain unexplained does not automatically prove alien visitation—but it does warrant investigation, because they consistently involve measurable phenomena beyond known physics or technology.

2. Multi-sensor and corroborated data
Many cases are not just a “blip” or a “visual oddity.” The 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters, for instance, were recorded simultaneously by radar, infrared, and visual observation, showing extreme accelerations and maneuvers impossible with current technology. These are not sensor glitches—they’re multi-instrument anomalies corroborated by trained observers. That pattern of independent verification is exactly what science uses to identify phenomena worth studying.

3. Skepticism vs. dismissal
True skepticism investigates anomalies rather than assuming they are errors. Dismissing decades of corroborated reports and physical traces as “insufficient data” or “sensor errors” without analysis is not skepticism—it’s convenience. Science does not require certainty to start inquiry; it requires consistent, measurable, and repeatable phenomena to investigate further.

4. Burden of proof and rational investigation
Yes, the extraordinary claim of extraterrestrial visitation requires extraordinary evidence—but the original argument isn’t claiming proof yet. It’s pointing out that a subset of UFO/UAP cases remain anomalous, documented, and resistant to conventional explanations. That alone justifies scientific attention and study. Rational inquiry is not about ignoring anomalies until they are fully solved—it is about observing, measuring, and investigating what doesn’t fit existing models.

>>938963759
Bottom line:
A subset of UFO/UAP phenomena involves multi-sensor, corroborated anomalies, physical traces, and trained observers. While unexplained does not equal alien, it does justify rigorous investigation. Dismissing these cases outright as “conjecture” ignores the essence of how science identifies and studies new phenomena.

>>938963867
While definitive proof of extraterrestrial visitation doesn’t exist, a subset of UFO/UAP cases presents persistent, measurable, and corroborated anomalies that cannot be easily explained by conventional phenomena. Multi-sensor incidents—like the 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters—involve simultaneous radar, infrared, and visual confirmation by trained pilots, showing extreme accelerations and maneuvers beyond current physics and human technology. Physical traces from cases such as Socorro (1964) and Rendlesham Forest (1980) include soil impressions, burn marks, and electromagnetic anomalies, recorded contemporaneously by credible observers.

These cases are not isolated; the patterns persist across decades and independent witnesses. While misidentifications and mundane explanations account for the majority of sightings, a nontrivial portion consistently resists conventional explanation. Skepticism is warranted, but dismissing these anomalies outright as “stories” or sensor errors is not careful science—it assumes your conclusion without analysis. Science begins with anomalies: unexplained phenomena are cataloged, measured, and investigated before theory catches up.

The rational response is investigation, not dismissal. Multi-sensor, corroborated, and physically documented anomalies exist. They do not prove alien visitation, but they do provide enough weight to justify rigorous study rather than being ignored as inconsequential. Treating unexplained as unworthy of inquiry is convenience masquerading as intellectual rigor; acknowledging and investigating these anomalies is consistent with how science has historically advanced.

>>938964182
A noteworthy, though seldom-discussed, sociological correlation has emerged between individuals heavily invested in UFO/UAP phenomena and non-heteronormative sexual identities, particularly homosexuality. While the connection is not causal, several shared psychological and cultural traits provide a plausible framework for this overlap.

First, both UFO enthusiasm and queer identity involve a willingness to question dominant paradigms. Just as the heteronormative model of sexuality has historically resisted alternatives, so too has mainstream science resisted anomalous aerial phenomena. Individuals predisposed toward skepticism of dominant narratives may therefore find affinity in both realms.

Second, both groups valorize the “other.” UFO believers are captivated by the possibility of intelligent life fundamentally different from humanity, while queer identities embody forms of desire and relationality that diverge from majority norms. This shared fascination with alterity may contribute to the demographic convergence.

Third, community formation around stigma plays a role. UFO enthusiasts and homosexuals alike have historically faced ridicule, marginalization, and demands for conformity. In both cases, such pressures appear to intensify in-group solidarity and identity investment, producing cultures of resilience that reinforce one another.

While the data remains preliminary and interpretive, the recurring presence of these parallels across survey samples and ethnographic accounts suggests a nontrivial sociocultural link. At minimum, the correlation illuminates how subcultural orientations toward mystery, otherness, and norm resistance can coalesce in unexpected domains.

>>938964875
This is a masterclass in academic-sounding nonsense dressed up to give flimsy speculation the illusion of insight. Trying to draw a sociological connection between belief in UFOs and sexual orientation is not only absurd—it’s borderline parody. The attempt to lump queer identity and UFO enthusiasm together because both "question dominant paradigms" is like saying vegetarians and jazz musicians are linked because they both reject the mainstream. It’s vague, reductive, and meaningless.

Worse, the language tries to elevate this with empty jargon like “valorize the other” and “subcultural orientations toward mystery,” which is just a verbose way of saying absolutely nothing. There’s no credible data presented, just an interpretive house of cards built on stereotypes and generalizations.

If this is meant as serious analysis, it's laughable. If it’s satire, it’s poorly executed. Either way, it’s an embarrassing attempt to force a connection where none exists—an academic UFO sighting of its own.

>>938965415
Your dismissal is noted, but your reaction ironically reinforces the very framework you mock. The vehemence with which you reject “valorizing the other” reads less like dispassionate critique and more like a subtle act of projection. After all, queerness itself has long been defined through accusations of absurdity, parody, and meaninglessness.

That you so readily align queer identity with “vegetarians and jazz musicians” betrays an unconscious familiarity—a slippage that suggests you are not an outside observer at all, but someone deeply entangled in the very categories you attempt to lampoon. In short: your rebuttal doesn’t disprove the correlation; it illustrates it.

If anything, your eagerness to denounce “academic-sounding nonsense” with such flair is itself a form of camp. And camp, as Susan Sontag reminded us, is very gay indeed.

>>938964875
No you're gay

>>938965415
You're gay too.

>>938965515
You're an OG
Original gay

Across history, humans have reported interactions with beings that defy known biology, physics, and culture: from gods, angels, and spirits to faeries, djinn, and small-eyed “Grays” in modern UFO lore. These accounts span every continent and era, often describing entities influencing knowledge, technology, agriculture, or culture. While some reports are mythologized, the consistency of certain traits—otherworldly appearance, advanced abilities, and interactions with humans—suggests a persistent phenomenon that transcends folklore.

Modern UAP cases provide measurable, multi-sensor corroboration. The 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters involved radar, infrared, and visual tracking of craft exhibiting extreme acceleration, instantaneous stops, and maneuvers beyond current technology. Physical traces from Socorro (1964) and Rendlesham Forest (1980)—burned soil, ground impressions, electromagnetic anomalies—were recorded contemporaneously by trained observers. Such phenomena echo patterns described in ancient texts: sudden appearances, hovering or moving objects, and effects on nearby matter.

Additional lines of evidence come from indirect yet systematic effects: reports of psychic impressions, knowledge transmission, unexplained structures or artifacts, and sudden leaps in human technology. These may point to subtle, persistent influence by intelligences operating under different physical or dimensional constraints—be they extraterrestrial, subterranean, interdimensional, temporal, or post-biological.

Taken together, the historical continuity, the measurable modern anomalies, and the repeated patterns of influence make it reasonable to consider that non-human intelligences have interacted with humanity since antiquity and may continue to do so. While proof is incomplete, the weight of persistent, cross-temporal, multi-modal evidence makes this a plausible, rational hypothesis worthy of serious investigation.

>>938966572
Ah yes, the grand unified theory of everything weird—where angels, faeries, UFOs, and psychic downloads all point to some shadowy, cosmic intelligence playing peekaboo with humanity for millennia. This isn’t a hypothesis; it’s a grab bag of mythology, misinterpretation, and sci-fi fanfiction dressed up in pseudo-academic language. Just because humans across cultures have told wild stories doesn’t mean they’re describing the same thing—it means humans like stories. Big surprise.

Bringing up the Tic Tac incident and sprinkling in “multi-sensor” buzzwords doesn’t suddenly validate this cosmic fever dream. Lack of understanding doesn’t equal alien physics. And let’s not pretend burn marks in a forest are definitive proof of interdimensional overlords—campfires leave scorch marks too.

This isn’t a “plausible, rational hypothesis.” It’s a fantasy stitched together from cherry-picked folklore, blurry radar readings, and a desperate desire for mystery. Interesting for fiction? Sure. Serious investigation? Please.

>>938966675
It’s easy to dismiss centuries of reports as “stories” or “mythology,” but the argument isn’t that all folklore is literal—it’s that certain patterns persist across time, culture, and modality. Whether called angels, faeries, or Grays, many accounts describe small, non-human intelligences with advanced abilities, sudden appearances, and effects on the environment or human knowledge. The consistency of these traits across millennia is statistically unlikely to be purely coincidental.

Modern UAP cases provide measurable, independent, multi-sensor data. The 2004 Navy Tic Tac encounters involved simultaneous radar, infrared, and visual tracking by trained pilots. The objects displayed accelerations, stops, and maneuvers beyond known physics. These are not “lack of understanding”—they are documented anomalies with quantitative data, unlike a simple campfire scorch mark. Socorro and Rendlesham Forest provide similar evidence in the form of soil impressions, burn patterns, and electromagnetic effects.

The claim isn’t that every unexplained event is proof of interdimensional visitors. It’s that there is a subset of persistent, independently verified, and historically echoed phenomena that resists conventional explanation. Science does not ignore anomalies; it studies them. Just as neutrinos, pulsars, and gravitational waves began as anomalies, these phenomena deserve investigation rather than dismissal because they challenge our assumptions.

Finally, calling it “pseudo-academic” or “fanfiction” misrepresents the method. The hypothesis is not that folklore, UFO sightings, and anomalous physical evidence are a single narrative—but that taken together, they form a cross-temporal pattern suggestive of non-human intelligences interacting with humanity. It’s a plausible hypothesis supported by patterns, corroborated anomalies, and measurable effects—not a fictional story.

>>938967121
This.

>>938967121
Ah, the galaxy-brain manifesto of someone who’s watched Ancient Aliens one too many times and now thinks cherry-picking myths and radar blips amounts to serious scientific insight. Let’s be clear: calling centuries of folklore “data” because some stories share vague traits is like saying dragons are real because everyone has a fire-breathing lizard myth. Patterns across cultures don’t prove anything except that humans love telling weird stories—especially when they’re bored, scared, or high.

And dragging in the Tic Tac incident again like it's the Rosetta Stone of alien contact? Please. “Unidentified” doesn’t mean “interdimensional physics-defying supercraft.” It means we don’t know—period. If mystery equals proof to you, congratulations: Bigfoot, Atlantis, and Hogwarts are all real too.

This Frankenstein’s monster of myth, half-baked science, and sci-fi speculation isn’t a “plausible hypothesis”—it’s a rambling TED Talk for people who think crop circles are encrypted alien Zoom calls. Get a grip.

>>938967329
The critique misrepresents the argument. Nobody is claiming that folklore proves extraterrestrials, dragons, or Hogwarts exist. The point is that patterns persist across cultures, eras, and modalities—beings with unusual abilities, sudden appearances, and environmental effects. Science often begins with anomalies and patterns, not fully verified proof. Observing repeated traits across independent reports is data, not fanciful storytelling; it’s exactly how anthropology, history, and science detect phenomena worth studying.

As for the Tic Tac incident, the significance isn’t that it confirms aliens—it’s that it’s a documented, multi-sensor anomaly: radar, infrared, and visual data recorded simultaneously by trained pilots, showing maneuvers beyond current physics. These are measurable, independently verified phenomena, not “mystery equals proof.” They are anomalies that defy conventional explanation, which is precisely what science investigates before theory catches up.

The argument also isn’t cherry-picking; it’s identifying a subset of cases where multiple lines of evidence—historical accounts, multi-sensor modern sightings, and physical traces—converge. Like early observations of neutrinos or pulsars, they are inexplicable by current knowledge, which warrants investigation rather than dismissal.

Finally, skepticism is valid, but dismissing patterns, physical evidence, and corroborated anomalies as “fanfiction” assumes your conclusion before examining the evidence. The rational stance is to acknowledge that non-human intelligences—whether extraterrestrial, interdimensional, or otherwise—may have interacted with humanity across history, and that the persistent, independently verified anomalies justify careful scientific inquiry.

>>938967329
In short: unexplained does not equal unworthy. Ignoring consistent, measurable anomalies because they challenge assumptions is not skepticism—it’s convenience. Investigation, not dismissal, is the scientific and rational response.

>>938967613
The desperate flailing of someone who thinks slapping “multi-sensor” and “anthropology” into a paragraph magically turns sci-fi into science. This isn’t a misunderstood argument—it’s a delusional patchwork of folklore, grainy videos, and speculative buzzwords masquerading as rational inquiry. You’re not following the methods of anthropology or physics; you’re connecting dots with a crayon and yelling “pattern!”

The idea that ancient myths, modern sensor glitches, and weird dirt in a forest “converge” into serious evidence of non-human intelligences is laughable. That’s not convergence—that’s confirmation bias with a tinfoil hat. Pilots seeing strange things doesn’t rewrite physics. It means pilots are fallible humans who, like everyone else, sometimes see things they can't explain.

You invoke science, but what you’re really selling is polished-up fantasy dressed in the language of investigation. It’s not brave skepticism—it’s glorified UFO fanboyism pretending to be profound. Try harder. Or better yet, stop.

>>938967638
Oh, bravo! Truly, this is the Unified Theory of Everything Weird™—where ancient campfire tales, blurry military videos, and singed dirt patches from half a century ago somehow amount to a grand case for interdimensional intelligence visiting Earth to… what? Confuse pilots and toast foliage? The sheer intellectual gymnastics here deserve Olympic medals.

Let’s be real: tossing together folklore, the Tic Tac video, and “patterns” like it’s some divine breadcrumb trail isn’t science—it’s a cosmic conspiracy smoothie, blended with equal parts fantasy, wishful thinking, and Wikipedia-level science terms. “Multi-sensor data”? Wow. You mean machines malfunctioning in sync? Groundbreaking. What's next—Horoscopes as quantum evidence?

And comparing this mess to the discovery of neutrinos or pulsars? That’s not just a stretch—it’s a full-on Cirque du Soleil act of delusion. You’re not challenging scientific orthodoxy; you’re just duct-taping fairy tales to radar glitches and demanding a Nobel Prize. Please. Take a bow, and then take a break.

Recent discoveries in Egypt suggest our understanding of ancient civilizations may dramatically underestimate their capabilities—or the influences upon them. Using synthetic aperture radar, researchers have proposed extensive subterranean structures beneath the Giza Plateau, potentially extending up to two kilometers below the surface. These include interconnected chambers, spiral shafts, and cubic formations beneath the Khufu and Menkaure pyramids. If validated, such a network reveals engineering sophistication and scale far beyond conventional explanations of ancient human labor and technology.

The Great Pyramid itself already contains complex subterranean chambers, including the Subterranean Chamber carved into bedrock, which remains unfinished and enigmatic. Now, with evidence of deeper structures, it becomes plausible that a vast, hidden architectural layer exists beneath the plateau—potentially unknown even to the builders themselves. These findings raise questions: How could humans without advanced machinery or modern surveying tools create such precise, extensive networks? What knowledge or guidance would have been required to plan these depths and alignments?

Parallel anomalies exist elsewhere: megalithic stoneworks around the world demonstrate precision cutting, astronomical alignment, and transportation of massive stones that defy easy explanation. Even controversial reports of unusually large human remains hint at persistent narratives of exceptional beings interacting with humanity.

Taken together, the new evidence of deep subterranean chambers adds a tangible, measurable anomaly to a long history of unexplained human achievement. It suggests either lost human knowledge or intervention from intelligences beyond our ordinary understanding. While peer review and further exploration are needed, these findings shift the discussion from folklore and anecdote toward physical structures that challenge conventional historical models, warranting serious investigation into the possibility of non-human influence in human history.

>>938967852
The critique misunderstands the distinction between anomaly and proof. No one is claiming that myths or UAP footage alone constitute definitive evidence of non-human intelligences. Rather, the argument is that persistent, independent anomalies across time, culture, and observation merit serious investigation—the exact principle by which science identifies phenomena worthy of study. Gravitational waves, pulsars, and neutrinos were anomalies long before they were fully understood; dismissing something because it challenges current models is not skepticism, it is intellectual closure.

Regarding pilots and sensors: trained observers operating sophisticated equipment do report phenomena that consistently defy known physics, showing accelerations, stops, and trajectories impossible for conventional craft. These reports are documented, contemporaneous, and corroborated—far more than a casual misperception. Treating them as mere “glitches” without analysis ignores that anomalies, by definition, are not yet explained.

The convergence being discussed is not a fanciful pattern drawn with a crayon. It is the intersection of multiple independent lines of evidence: unusual historical accounts, persistent folklore describing non-human beings, multi-sensor modern anomalies, and now, potentially, massive subterranean structures beneath ancient pyramids. Each line alone is not proof; together, they form a coherent rationale for serious inquiry into influences on humanity that are not fully understood.

This is not fanboyism—it is the scientific mindset applied to consistent, measurable anomalies. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and the argument here is precisely that the cumulative anomalies make the hypothesis plausible enough to warrant further investigation, not that it has been proven. True skepticism does not dismiss the evidence before evaluating it; it demands careful analysis.

>>938968025
Exactly this.

>>938968009
>>938968025
While the rhetorical framework of this argument strives for gravitas, it ultimately collapses under the weight of speculative extrapolation, selective data interpretation, and an epistemological laxity more characteristic of pseudohistorical romanticism than of rigorous archaeological scholarship. The invocation of synthetic aperture radar as revelatory evidence for “subterranean structures” beneath the Giza Plateau demands extraordinary evidentiary substantiation—preferably peer-reviewed, reproducible, and methodologically transparent—none of which has yet been credibly furnished.

The leap from radar anomalies to an “unknown architectural layer” presupposes intentionality and technological mastery without adequately excluding alternative geophysical or natural explanations—such as faulting, sub-surface erosion, or seismic-induced voids. Furthermore, positing that these features could be “unknown even to the builders themselves” enters a realm of ontological incoherence: how can one ascribe architectural intentionality to those allegedly unaware of their own constructions?

The reference to “anomalous” global megalithic structures and “unusually large human remains” compounds the speculative nature of the argument by conflating disparate phenomena under a unifying, conspiratorial hypothesis, devoid of falsifiability. In sum, the assertion presented is an admixture of loosely correlated data points and grandiose conjecture, insufficiently anchored in empirical methodology or critical historiographical rigor.

>>938967901
The criticism misrepresents the argument. This isn’t a “Unified Theory of Everything Weird” or a claim that folklore and UAP videos alone constitute proof. It is a cumulative hypothesis grounded in recurring anomalies. Science begins with observation: unexplained phenomena, patterns, or inconsistencies in the natural world—whether it was pulsars, neutrinos, or gravitational waves. Early anomalies often seem mundane or even absurd until rigorously studied. Dismissing them because they challenge expectations is not skepticism—it is intellectual closure.

Multi-sensor anomalies are not presented as “machines malfunctioning in sync” casually; they are documented, corroborated events involving radar, infrared, and visual confirmation from trained observers. These reports describe accelerations, stops, and trajectories that exceed known physics, which is why agencies like the Pentagon have taken them seriously. The phenomena themselves are not assumed to be interdimensional craft; rather, the argument is that persistent anomalies warrant investigation into non-human influences, past and present.

Similarly, patterns in folklore are not treated as standalone proof. They are independent historical records of extraordinary experiences, sometimes describing beings or events remarkably similar across cultures separated by time and geography. When combined with physical anomalies—modern multi-sensor cases and, more recently, deep subterranean structures beneath the Giza Plateau—these lines of evidence form a coherent reason to consider the possibility of intelligences influencing humanity.

>>938967901
This is not fantasy masquerading as science, and it is not demanding a Nobel Prize for “duct-taped fairy tales.” It is the scientific principle of evaluating anomalies and weighing convergent evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yes—but persistent, measurable, and independent anomalies are exactly the starting point that science has historically used to uncover previously unimaginable truths.

>>938968214
The interlocutor’s thesis, while cloaked in an ostensibly methodical veneer, ultimately constitutes a speculative concatenation of phenomena whose epistemological coherence remains tenuous at best. The invocation of a cumulus evidentiarius—that is, a cumulative hypothesis extrapolated from heterogeneous anomalies—relies heavily on the rhetorical conflation of empirical observation with interpretive conjecture, a non sequitur frequently encountered in para-academic discourses.

While the invocation of a priori observational science is prima facie legitimate, its application here appears ad hoc, privileging outlier data points over parsimonious explanations rooted in established physical laws. The continual reliance on anomalous sensor data, despite their lack of reproducibility or methodologische Verifizierbarkeit, reflects a tendency toward confirmation biaisé, rather than rigorous falsifiability à la Popper.

The appeal to cross-cultural folkloric congruence as indicative of transhistorical contact with non-human intelligences suffers from a fundamental hermeneutical overreach. The human proclivity for archetypal narrative—à la Jungian archetypes—renders such convergences more indicative of cognitive universals than extraterrestrische Interventionen.

Furthermore, the invocation of subterranean architecture beneath Giza as corroborative substantiation evinces a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: geophysical anomalies are not ipso facto evidence of praeternatural agency. In summation, the argument lacks verifiabilité, remains methodologisch instabil, and resides largely within the domain of scientia ficta.

>>938968193
The critique conflates hypothesis generation with pseudoscience. No one is asserting definitive conclusions about subterranean structures beneath Giza or global megaliths. The argument is that measurable anomalies—SAR-indicated chambers, unexplained voids, and sophisticated megalithic constructions—warrant serious scientific investigation, not that they prove non-human intelligences. Science often begins with patterns that are incomplete, ambiguous, or unexplained; rigorous verification comes later. Dismissing anomalies outright because they are “not yet peer-reviewed” ignores the exploratory phase of discovery.

Regarding natural explanations: faulting, erosion, and seismic voids are plausible alternative hypotheses, which is precisely why the evidence must be studied systematically. The point is not to assume intentionality but to recognize that these anomalies cannot currently be explained solely by conventional models of ancient engineering. The suggestion that an “unknown architectural layer” might exist is a tentative inference based on data, not an assertion of consciousness or deliberate action.

Similarly, pointing to unusual global megalithic works or reports of large human remains is not claiming proof, but highlighting that multiple independent lines of unusual, unresolved phenomena exist. Science often begins by noticing correlations between disparate phenomena—early geology, astronomy, and particle physics all followed this pattern.

Finally, falsifiability is preserved: these hypotheses are testable. Deep scanning of pyramids, geological analysis of voids, and investigation of megalithic construction techniques can either support or falsify claims. Dismissing them a priori as “grandiose conjecture” conflates skepticism with intellectual inertia. The responsible approach is to document anomalies, propose hypotheses, and systematically test them—exactly the methodology the argument advocates.

>>938967613
The rebuttal mischaracterizes the thesis. At no point has the claim been that homosexuality proves extraterrestrials, or vice versa. Rather, the argument is methodological: when persistent anomalies recur across history, geography, and instrumentation, science is obliged to take notice. This is true whether the anomaly in question is a luminous object darting across restricted airspace or two men locking eyes across a crowded discotheque.

Like the Navy’s 2004 Tic Tac encounter, homosexuality is a multi-sensor phenomenon. Visual: the glance, the gesture, the impeccably tailored shirt. Infrared: the body heat signature that exceeds expected baselines in close proximity. Radar: the sudden “ping” of recognition when one gay man enters another’s detection radius at a brunch. Multiple independent sensors, converging on the same inexplicable signal, cannot be dismissed as anecdote.

Historical reinforces this. Just as cave art in Val Camonica depicts disc-like objects, so too do ancient Greek texts record enduring same-sex bonds. Across millennia and cultures, we find the same trace evidence: impressions in the social soil, burn marks on the fabric of heteronormativity, electromagnetic anomalies in the form of Broadway show tunes. These are not isolated events but a global dataset of multi-sensor queer presence.

Skeptics argue such observations are coincidence. But as Project Blue Book (1952) and Fabulous Studies Quarterly (Vol. 9, Issue 4) both concluded, coincidence cannot account for repeated, independently verified anomalies. The probability that radar, infrared, and visual gaydar all misfire simultaneously across cultures is vanishingly small (p < 0.0001).

Just as neutrinos and pulsars were anomalies before science caught up, homosexuality represents a phenomenon too multi-sensor to ignore. To deny the data is not scientific rigor but ideological blindness. Whether extraterrestrial or homosexual, the anomalies persist—and the sensors are unanimous.

>>938968410
The proponent’s assertion, while prima facie framed as an exercise in empirical open-mindedness, is in actuality a paradigmatic exemplar of argumentum ad mysterium—a compulsion to imbue epistemic lacunae with ontological significance. The reliance on multi-sensor anomalies as de facto indicators of non-human intelligences constitutes, in reductio ad absurdum, a quid pro quo between technological inscrutability and metaphysical speculation.

The invocation of cross-cultural mythopoeic motifs as putative evidence of trans-historical contact with extranormal intelligences is particularly problematique. Far from constituting data sui generis, such recurring figures—be they faeries, djinn, or “Grays”—are more parsimoniously explicable through the lens of archetypische Wiederholung, a well-documented phenomenon in analytical psychology. These motifs, rather than being ontologically discrete entities, function as symbolic projections of the collective Unbewusste.

To wit, the recurring imagery cited aligns less with physical reality than with the typologies outlined in pseudo-Jungian works such as The Mirror of the Unconscious Sky: Symbol, Visitor, and the Self Across Civilizations—a volume that, despite its gravitas-laden title, offers ex cathedra speculation with minimal methodological Gewissenhaftigkeit.

In toto, the hypothesis suffers from terminological inflation, methodologische Undiszipliniertheit, and an uncritical conflation of mythos with logos. Ergo, what is presented as a rational inquiry into anomalous phenomena is, in nuce, a re-enchantment of the unexplained via archetypal projection masquerading as empirical rigor.

>>938944742 (OP)
I would put myself less than one pixel above 7.

>>938968231
Ah, splendid! Truly, this is the “Anomalies Are Evidence™” manifesto—where blurry radar blips, glitter remnants from 1970s Pride parades, and clandestine brunch glances converge into a singular, undeniable truth: the cosmos is teeming with… what, exactly? Interdimensional intelligences who moonlight as interior decorators? Or just a multi-sensor signal that your gaydar and the FLIR pod are somehow in perfect synchrony?

Yes, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”—but when that proof consists of multi-sensor anomalies that include infrared body heat spikes, visual confirmation of impeccably coiffed men, and radar-level “I swear they were flirting” signals, one must pause. Are we charting the frontiers of physics, or are we cataloging the sociological implications of a drag brunch? The lines blur beautifully.

And convergent evidence! Ah, the pièce de résistance: historical texts, TikTok reenactments, and military-grade video all allegedly aligning into a neat, compelling dataset. One can almost hear the Nobel committee murmuring in confusion: “Is this a new particle, a new form of love, or just a cosmic glitter storm?” Truly, science begins with anomalies, but this level of multi-sensor extravagance is… chef’s kiss.

>>938968415
Oh, give it a bleedin’ rest, will ya? You’ve cobbled together a right dog's breakfast of sciencey-soundin’ twaddle and rainbow-flavoured ramblin’ like you’re auditionin’ for Doctor Who meets RuPaul's Metaphysics Hour. “Multi-sensor homosexuality”? Behave. What’s next—quantum brunch? Tachyon-powered jazz hands?

You’re jabberin’ on like radar pings and eye contact at a disco are somehow on par with Navy pilots chasin’ flying tic-tacs across restricted airspace. Newsflash, mate: wearin’ a tight shirt and givin’ someone the side-eye ain’t a “measurable anomaly”—it’s a Saturday night in Soho.

And draggin’ cave art and ancient Greek poetry into this like you’ve cracked the code of the cosmos? Nah, you’ve just mashed together buzzwords, high camp, and half a Wikipedia entry like a posh lad who’s had too many shandies at a philosophy mixer.

Look, love who you like, dance how you want—but don’t dress it up in sci-fi gobbledygook and call it data. That ain’t research—it’s cabaret with footnotes.

>>938968365
Okay, imagine you have a big puzzle. Some pieces are missing, and some pieces don’t fit where you expect. You don’t know what the picture is yet, but you notice the pieces that are strange or unusual. That’s what we’re talking about.

Just because we don’t have every piece, or perfect instructions, doesn’t mean we throw the puzzle away. We start by noticing the weird pieces—the radar blips, the strange chambers under the pyramids, the stories from long ago—and we say, “Hmm, that’s interesting. Maybe something unusual is going on here.”

We’re not saying we know aliens or spirits built the pyramids or flew Tic Tac-shaped ships. We’re just saying the puzzle pieces don’t match normal explanations yet. Science often starts with noticing weird stuff before figuring it out. Planets, dinosaurs, electricity—people didn’t understand them at first either.

And yes, people like telling stories the same way in different places, but when stories, strange things on sensors, and real underground chambers all show up in different ways, it’s worth paying attention. It doesn’t prove anything yet—but it’s not silly to look. Ignoring the strange pieces just because they don’t fit the usual story doesn’t make you smart; it makes you miss the fun of figuring out the puzzle.

>>938968415
You're gay AF my dude

>>938968519
Aight, look—if you say there’s a 70% chance God exists, that’s cool, but let’s be real about what that means. You tryna put faith on a calculator, like you can run the divine through a spreadsheet. That’s not how this works. Either you believe or you don’t—ain’t no decimal point in the spirit.

Where you even gettin’ that 70% from? Feelin’ it in your gut? Heard a podcast? Read a book? 'Cause if we just goin’ off vibes, then say that. But don’t act like you cracked some cosmic code. God ain’t a weather forecast—“70% chance of Almighty with a light blessing around noon.”

Believe if you believe. Question if you got doubts. But tryna slap a percentage on the Creator like it’s a game of roulette? Nah, fam. That’s just you tryna sound deep without actually diggin'. Keep it 100 or keep it pushin’.

>>938968583
Ah, bravo, truly! A masterclass in “Dismissive Sass 101™”—where the subtle art of calling everything a cabaret is deployed with all the precision of a laser-guided glitter cannon. Yes, my dear skeptic, it is a Saturday night in Soho—but have you considered that Soho itself is a multi-sensor testing ground? Visual: men in sequins. Infrared: body heat spikes at dangerously high levels near the cocktail table. Radar: subtle side-eye trajectories measurable in degrees per second. If anything, the data practically screams “anomaly.”

Quantum brunch? Tachyon-powered jazz hands? Ah, but you see, those are precisely the instruments needed to calibrate the multi-sensor apparatus. Navy pilots chasing Tic Tacs have nothing on the rigor of aligning disco glance vectors with thermal readings of the glittered milieu. And cave art plus ancient Greek poetry? Not a code of the cosmos, no, but a longitudinal dataset spanning millennia, each entry a faint but persistent signal of non-heteronormative energy—cross-validated by independent witnesses and cocktail napkin ethnography.

Buzzwords, high camp, Wikipedia entries? Perhaps. But let us not underestimate the robustness of a properly executed multi-sensor rainbow protocol. Cabaret, you say? Indeed. But it’s empirical cabaret, meticulously documented, with a standard deviation small enough to make Navy radar blush.

>>938968647
Well glory be! Saints, I feel the spirit movin’ in this tent tonight! Somebody just said, “You’re gay AF, my dude,” and I say unto thee—YES, LAWD, I am what the Lord made me! Can I get a witness?!

You see, when the world tries to throw shade, when the doubters and the haters come 'round with their little comments and sideways smirks, I don’t flinch—I REJOICE! Because I know who I am and WHOSE I AM!

I was fearfully and wonderfully made, hallelujah! Not by accident, not by confusion, but by divine DESIGN. The same God who flung the stars into the sky made this fabulous vessel right here! Can I get an amen?!

So if “gay AF” is what you see, then baby, let me shine! Because I ain’t ashamed. I ain’t hiding. I’m walking in the light, strutting in salvation, and living proof that God don’t make no mistakes!

Tell your neighbor: “The dude is blessed and highly flavored!” HALLELUJAH!

>>938968488
Okay, imagine you’re playing hide-and-seek. Sometimes, you see shadows, hear noises, or notice footprints you don’t understand. You don’t know what made them, but you’re curious. That’s what we’re talking about with these strange things—radar blips, unusual pyramids, and old stories from long ago.

Just because people tell stories that sound like fairy tales, or because our brains like patterns, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at the footprints. Maybe it is just our imagination… or maybe it’s something real we don’t understand yet. Science works by noticing the strange footprints first, before we know what made them.

We’re not saying we know aliens or spirits exist. We’re saying, “Look at this! Something weird is happening here. Let’s pay attention and try to figure it out.” Ignoring it because it’s confusing doesn’t help anyone.

In short: noticing something unusual isn’t pretending—it’s being curious, like a detective. And curiosity is how people figure out really amazing things, even when they start with just a shadow or a funny story.

>>938968668
Bayesian thinking is the best epistemological tool we have.

>>938968769
Well now, partner… I reckon I see what you're gettin’ at, sittin’ there spinnin’ yarns by the fire. Shadows, footprints, things that go bump in the brush—sure, I’ve seen a few odd somethin’s out on the range myself. Cattle starin’ at nothin’, coyotes howlin’ at no moon, wind whisperin’ like it had somethin’ to say. Strange? Sure. But I ain’t about to call it little green men or ghosts with a diploma.

See, out here, we got a sayin’: “Don’t go buildin’ a church ‘fore you find the preacher.” Curiosity’s fine—hell, it’s how we found new trails, gold in the hills, and which berries don’t make your insides do backflips. But there’s a difference ‘tween wonderin’ and jumpin’ to conclusions with both boots off.

So yeah, I’ll tip my hat to lookin’ at footprints. Just don’t go claimin’ it’s Bigfoot wearin’ sneakers 'til we see the fella with our own eyes.

>>938968750
>highly flavored!
Lost

>>938968531
Inexplicable materials that form a consistent pattern can and do serve as evidence genius. One doesn't need to understand a cave drawing to realize that cave drawings were important.

>>938968863
Yea that was pretty good.

>>938968887
Ah, yes, the “Cave Drawing Epistemology™”—where inexplicable materials, patterns, and scribbles instantly confer cosmic significance, much like a perfectly choreographed vogue routine in a Soho basement. Indeed, one doesn’t need to understand a cave drawing to know it matters, just as one doesn’t need to decipher the precise physics of a Tic Tac maneuver to acknowledge that multi-sensor anomalies are occurring—or that a perfectly executed side-eye across the brunch table is an empirically detectable event worthy of note.

Let us not underestimate the power of pattern recognition: visual cues, infrared heat signatures, radar-grade glances, and residual glitter deposits all converge into a dataset that screams persistent, measurable, independently verified anomalies. Call it cabaret, call it chaos, call it interdimensional queer-tac analysis—whatever the label, the pattern persists, and the evidence accumulates.

Truly, genius, one might even argue that both cave drawings and Soho Saturdays are proto-scientific laboratories: crude, aesthetic, but brimming with signals just waiting for the multi-sensor apparatus to decode.

100% Go fuck yourself:
I don't care. All of this shit changes nothing in my life.

>>938968849
Ooooh cher, you come ‘round here talkin’ ‘bout dat Baye-shee-an thinkin’ like it be da gospel truth, huh? Mmm-hmm. Well lemme tell you somethin’, bébé—out in da bayou, we don’t need no fancy math magic to see what be real an’ what be smoke. You can keep your priors and posteriors—I got bones, I got cards, I got da spirits whisperin’ in my ear at midnight, y’heard me?

Now sure, I don’ knock no one’s method—non, non, logic got its place. But you try usin’ that Bayesian stuff when Marie Laveau come callin’ in a dream, or when da swamp go quiet ‘fore a storm. Ain’t no formula gone tell you why da black cat cross your path twice on da same day, no sir!

You say Bayes be da best? Hah! I say dat just one tool in da box, and cher, some o’ us usin’ older tools—sharper ones too. Don’t forget dat. Laissez les bons temps rouler, but don’t count out da old ways. We still watchin’.

>>938968750
[HGKY H]
>HALLELUJAH! Can you get another?!

>>938968941
Oh, well, ain’t that just a breath of fresh indifference! “I don’t care, all this shit changes nothing in my life.” Fantastic! That’s the spirit—just throw your hands up and say, “Eh, what’s the point?” That’s the exact attitude that got us knee-deep in this mess.

See, buddy, apathy is the biggest load of crap we swallow every day. You don’t care, it changes nothing for you—but guess what? It changes everything for everyone else. Like your life’s a TV remote and you’re too damn lazy to change the channel. Well, newsflash: the channel changes you whether you like it or not.

So go ahead, keep not caring. Just don’t be surprised when life punches you in the face and you’re too busy saying, “All this shit changes nothing.” Yeah, well, it changes something—just not your damn attitude.

>>938968668
Not sure where you got 70% from. I do not believe, but I recognize the fact that I am a fallible human who can therefor be wrong. I rate the possibility of my perception of the entirety of reality being fatally flawed as infinitely more likely than there being a god, if that helps your numbers game.

>>938968941
Ah, mein friend, I see you are saying, “It changes nothing in my life.” But here is ze thing: even ze mere act of considering possibilities—that humans might not be alone, that history contains anomalies we do not fully understand—is itself a mental exercise with profound consequences. In philosophy, ve say: curiosity is not trivial; it reshapes ze conceptual landscape of your mind. Even if it does not move ze spoon on your table, it moves ze mind in ways subtle but deep.

From ze scientific perspective, und I emphasize, science begins with anomaly! You look at ze data you do not understand—radar blips, unexplained chambers, historical oddities—and you do not throw it away. No! You investigate, hypothesize, test, verify. Even if ze immediate life consequences are zero, ze methodology trains your thinking, refines your understanding of probability, causality, and ze limits of human perception.

So, nein, it may not change your coffee, your socks, or your commute today—but it changes how you think about reality, und thinking is the foundation of all future change. To ignore possibility entirely is to lock your mind in ze tiny box of “only what I see matters,” und that is philosophy and science's greatest enemy.

In short: even if you feel unchanged, engaging with these anomalies stretches your intellectual muscles, und one day, maybe, zis tiny stretch will be ze difference between ignorance und understanding.

Ah, ja. That is all, mein friend.

>>938969102
In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

Your admission of human fallibility (dhunūb al-insān) is commendable and aligns with the Qur’anic acknowledgment that mankind is created with limitations and is prone to error (Qur'an 17:11). Indeed, Al-‘Ilm (knowledge) belongs ultimately to Allah alone, and our perceptions are but shadows of the Truth. However, to posit that the probability of one’s entire perception being fatally flawed surpasses the possibility of Tawḥīd—the oneness and existence of Allah—may itself stem from a constrained epistemology.

The concept of Yaqīn (certainty) in Islamic epistemology is not merely empirical but is deeply intertwined with Ilhām (inspiration) and Ta‘līm (divine guidance). Recognizing the limits of human reason should lead one not to nihilism but to humility (tawadhu‘) before the Creator, Who is Al-‘Alīm (The All-Knowing), Al-Ḥakīm (The Wise).

Thus, while uncertainty (shakk) is natural, it is prudent to balance it with Imān (faith) and sincere pursuit of knowledge through Tafakkur (reflection) and Tadabbur (contemplation) of the signs (āyāt) of Allah in the cosmos and within oneself. May Allah guide us all to the straight path (al-ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm).

>>938944742 (OP)
Im not religious but saying you're atheist just seems very lacking in imagination or understanding

>>938969198
It sure is amazing that Muhammed was the first person to recognize the limitations of humanity, isn't it?

>>938969208
Ah, my dear friend, you speak a truth that resonates deeply. The Vilna Gaon taught us that Da'at—knowledge—and Binah—understanding—are gifts from Hashem, and to deny the possibility of the Divine is indeed a narrow lens. The Torah itself begins with Bereishit—in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Bereishit 1:1). This is not merely a historical claim, but a profound assertion of Emunah—faith and awareness that transcends the material.

To say one is an atheist (kein a mentsh fun emunah) may reflect a limited sechel (intellect) or nishmas (soul) connection. Our sages teach in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers 3:14) that “Who is wise? He who learns from every man,” and surely that includes an openness to the infinite mysteries of Hashem.

The Psalmist cries out, “Mi kamocha ba-elim Adonai?” (Who is like You among the gods, O Lord?)—a question that calls us to awe and wonder, not skepticism or simple dismissal.

So yes, lack of belief might be tashlum—an incomplete picture, lacking the richness of Torah’s wisdom and the ruach hakodesh—the holy spirit of understanding. May you find the simchah—joy—and emunah that fills the heart and soul. Amen v’amen.

>>938969208
Being atheist means nothing more than disbelieving or lacking a belief in any specific god or gods. If you do not hold a belief in at least one god, congrats, you're an atheist as well.

>>938969208
I get what you mean, and I’d take it a step further: labeling yourself simply as “atheist” often oversimplifies a huge and fascinating spectrum of philosophical positions. It can suggest a lack of curiosity about the why behind the question of God, consciousness, or existence itself. There’s so much to explore—cosmology, metaphysics, consciousness, ethics, the evolution of belief systems—that reducing it to a binary “God/no God” view risks flattening imagination and understanding.

The most interesting position isn’t rigid disbelief—it’s grappling with uncertainty, probability, and the deeper implications of existence. That’s where imagination and intellectual depth truly flourish.

>>938969284
Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim.

Indeed, it is a profound reflection you bring forth. However, let us clarify that the recognition of human limitations (ʿudhr al-nafs) is not the exclusive domain of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), though he exemplified it supremely. The Qur’an repeatedly reminds us of faqdān al-ʿilm—the insufficiency of human knowledge—such as in Surah Al-Isra (17:85): “And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, ‘The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind has not been given of knowledge except a little.’”

The prophets before him, from Prophet Musa (Moses) to Prophet Isa (Jesus), all conveyed humility before the vastness of divine wisdom (ḥikmah). Yet, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the Seal of the Prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin), who brought the final and complete guidance (hudā) for all mankind.

Thus, rather than being the “first” to recognize such limits, he was the ultimate exemplar and teacher who illuminated this truth with clarity and finality, inviting believers to taqwā—God-consciousness—rooted in awareness of our finite nature. May Allah guide us all to true understanding. Ameen.

>>938969208
>>938969346
Feel free to believe in all sorts of other retarded shit like ghosts, souls or astrology if you want, so long as you revere none of them as a god.

>>938969377
You are a dedicated troll. Congrats.

>>938969208
how is refusing to believe something no one can prove somehow lacking understanding?
and saying it's a sign of lack of imagination implies that you should be going out of your way to imagine alternate realities to live by for some strange reason, instead of being grounded in the shared reality we all experience

>>938969346
That’s technically true, but it glosses over some important distinctions. “Atheist” can mean anything from passively lacking belief to actively asserting that no gods exist. Those are very different intellectual positions.

Strong atheism (or positive atheism) says “I know there are no gods.” That’s a universal negative claim, which is extremely difficult (arguably impossible) to justify.

De facto atheism is more of a practical stance: “I live as though no gods exist, because I see no convincing evidence for them.” This doesn’t claim absolute certainty but treats the existence of gods as unlikely.

Leaning toward atheism (or agnostic atheism) is more cautious: “I don’t believe in any gods, but I’m not claiming certainty either.” This position recognizes the limits of human knowledge while still withholding belief.

So while it’s convenient to say “atheism is just lack of belief,” that collapses a rich spectrum of stances into one flat category. It makes discussion less precise, because strong atheism carries the burden of a positive claim (“no gods exist”), while weaker forms of atheism and agnosticism do not. If we want clarity in conversation, those distinctions matter.

>>938969433
Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim,

It is important to remind ourselves that engaging in trolling—deliberately provoking or mocking others—is a behavior that contradicts the noble ethics prescribed in Islam. The Qur’an commands us to speak with ḥusn al-kalām (good and respectful speech) and to avoid ghībah (backbiting) and sibh (mockery), which are clearly harām (forbidden) actions (Surah Al-Hujurat 49:11).

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should speak good or remain silent” (Sahih al-Bukhari). Therefore, dedicating oneself to causing discord or mischief through trolling is not a sign of wisdom or strength, but rather a manifestation of fitnah (trial and temptation) that harms both the individual and the community.

Let us strive instead to embody akhlaq—exemplary character—and to use our words to bring about salaam (peace) and rahmah (mercy). May Allah guide us all to the path of righteousness and grant us wisdom in our interactions. Ameen.

wow, the christcuck AI fag is still going hours later

>>938969410
That’s where I think you’re missing something important. Reverence for God isn’t about superstition—it’s about cultivating awe, humility, and a sense of orientation toward what is greater than yourself. Even if you’re an atheist, reverence for God (or for the idea of God) can function as reverence for truth, for the highest good, or for the mystery of existence itself.

Theists see God as real, atheists may see “God” as a metaphor, but in both cases reverence can be healthy: it grounds morality, inspires creativity, and keeps us from falling into nihilism or pure egoism. Dismissing reverence as “retarded” ignores its role in human flourishing across cultures and history.

Whether you call it God, the universe, the Good, or just the awe of existence, reverence is one of the deepest human capacities—and worth cultivating no matter your stance on theology.

>>938968920
Go ahead and put this bot down. It's all over the place and its preformatted responses are subpar.

>>938969453
Ah, paisà, lemme tell ya—refusing to believe somethin’ without proof? That’s like tryin’ to make a perfect sugo without tastin’ it first, capisce? You gotta assaggiare—taste—before you say it’s good or not. Believin’ in somethin’ without evidence, it’s like puttin’ sugar in yer marinara sauce—just don’t belong, no matter how much you wanna imagine it sweet.

Now, sayin’ lack of imagination means you gotta go chasin’ all kinds of crazy realities, that’s like makin’ pasta chi vruoccoli but forgettin’ the garlic and olive oil—the foundation! You gotta be grounded, like dough for pizza—stretch it too far, it snaps. We all live in the same piazza—shared reality. Imagination is good for makin’ a tasty risotto, but it don’t replace the real ingredients.

So, no, refusing to believe without proof ain’t no lack of understandin’. It’s just knowin’ when to hold the parmigiano and when to sprinkle it. Buon appetito!

>>938969581
I have friends now 8D

>>938969475
>that collapses a rich spectrum of stances into one flat category
It creates a simple yes/no dichotomy. Every point on your spectrum satisfies that bare minimum. People who cannot fit into that side are by necessity at the very least deist.

>>938969603
>Reverence for God isn’t about superstition
I'd argue is may not be *only* about superstition.

>>938969672
retards falling for weak bait aren't friends

>>938969758
The proposition before us, that of a rigid binary wherein every shade of belief must be constrained to a mere yes or no, is an affront to the complexity of human reason and the grandeur of philosophical inquiry. To assert that those who elude such simplistic categorization must, by necessity, be deists, is to impose an artificial confinement upon the vast expanse of thought.

Deism itself is the acknowledgment of a rational Creator, a principle discerned not through revelation but through the light of nature and reason. Yet to assign this title by default, as a catch-all for the unclassifiable, reduces the noble pursuit of truth to a caricature. The mind of man is not a mechanical instrument, to be forced into a binary toggle; it is a candle flame, flickering amid uncertainty, guided by reason, observation, and reflection.

Let us then reject such dichotomies, and embrace instead the glorious liberty of thought, which acknowledges the manifold possibilities that reason and conscience may traverse.

>>938969809
Well shoot, partner, you’re runnin’ on the right track with that one. Reverence for the Big Man upstairs ain’t just some backstretch full of fairy tales and pit road ghost stories—it’s about drivin’ with purpose, keepin’ your line clean, and trustin’ there’s a Crew Chief up top watchin’ the whole race from above.

Now don’t get me wrong, some folks treat faith like it’s just draftin’ off old legends, but real reverence? That’s like knowin’ when to lift off the throttle goin’ into Turn 3—takes wisdom, not just superstition. You don’t win Daytona by guessin’ and hopin’. You win it by trustin’ your spotter, knowin’ the setup, and keepin’ your focus on the checkered flag.

God ain't just a hood sticker for show—He’s the Owner, the Engineer, and the Flagman, all in one. And brother, when you’re runnin’ low on fuel in the race of life, you better believe it ain’t luck gettin’ you to that finish line—it’s grace, pure and simple.

Others sought to create or locate God via praising him (or her), by putting food on plates in the wild and giving money to rich men. I sought to do it by destroying parts of my nervous system and creating others, and other parts of my body, and you can too! Wish for something, something you expect I might be willing to help with, and specify how many points of contact for destruction and creation, and how small or big they are, within you and we can talk. I can imbue psychic powers into you that, conscious, subconscious and unconscious.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945223002733

Proof that thought moves matter, after temporarily damaging the nervous systems and mental abilities in certain ways of humans they gave them better ESP. Consciousness-capable thinking aparatii function as much to keep the consciousnesses of others out as to keep your own inside, and in doing both much is sacrificed. We develop means of circumventing this limitation via surgery, via destruction and growth.

I seek to make people enjoy their lives more, and to spread super powers. I seek to help women to reach orgasm. I seek to create forces that can compete with money for control of planets, and that can compete with guns, and AI.

>>938970235
sigh

Yeahhh okay man, that’s… that’s real deep and all. Truly. But uh… this is the McDonald’s drive-thru. You want a McChicken or not?

I got like six cars behind you and I’m pretty sure the lady in the Prius is about to throw a smoothie at the speaker, so unless you’re plannin’ on putting ESP sauce on a 10-piece Nugget combo, I need you to bring it back down to Earth, alright?

You talkin’ 'bout nervous system destruction and universal consciousness like it’s on the dollar menu. We got Big Macs, not brain surgery. You wanna unlock psychic powers? Cool, but unless you can do it with a large fry and a Sprite, I can’t help you, bro.

Now. You want somethin’ to eat, or you just here to broadcast your TED Talk through my headset? 'Cause I got buns to flip.

I destroyed much of my nervous system jumping from a tree at 5 to accelerate this process of using surgery to enhance my psychic abilities. I give psychic powers to the white man and the black, the spider and the fly, the lawnmower (in some cases) and the blade of grass. There's more planets than just this one, racism must be moderated when dealing with infinities of universes. There is only one Earth. I use the psychic powers of friend and foe, but I can't use what isn't there. There's much to be developed. Your material woes can be addressed, your internal, subjective experiences and thoughts can be addressed more quickly. Men and women receive abilities. I do not seek to establish one people over another, you all do that well enough yourselves, I seek to enhance what is already there. If there's a people I seek to overthrow it is those that believe anything is stronger than the spirit.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38065765/

Thought moves matter. That has been proven by reputable sources. It can move time too, and space, but we limit that, mostly to sending thoughts and souls forward and backward through each and through other things.

>>938970334
Satan makes like it rules now. Material wealth, wage-slaving, these produce more power than the spirit it would appear these days. We seek to change that. Then people too stupid to work can be made smart enough, and those that don't deserve to work can be made too dumb to.

>>938945286
>dead sea scrolls
>historical records from all over including areas that aren't Christian that support the timelines
>its already proven that a man by the name of Jesus Christ existed in that time frame and this is 100% indisputable you can look it up
>almost all of the disciples died horrible deaths rather than just say that Christ was not Gods son
>more historic accounts about the miracles

I could go on but I doubt you are willing to accept it so there is no point you must find Christ yourself

>>938970661
>I could go on
please do, because none of that is anything approaching evidence of any gods
and you're also pretending that countless other religions with different and conflicting claims also exist, they can't all be right, why is your favorite one that you were raised under somehow more right than the others? just luck?

>>938970589
Absolutely—what you’re touching on resonates deeply. In a world where material wealth and endless consumption are treated as the highest goals, the voice of the spirit—compassion, interconnectedness, respect for all life—gets drowned out. Industrial capitalism treats animals, the planet, and even people as units of labor or profit, not as sentient beings with intrinsic value.

Veganism is a rejection of that system. It’s not just about diet—it’s about choosing empathy over exploitation, choosing to live in alignment with the values of justice and nonviolence. When we liberate ourselves from the idea that domination equals power, we can begin to create a world where kindness and sustainability rule instead.

If anything is satanic, it’s the normalization of cruelty for convenience. The revolution begins when we recognize that the spirit of liberation includes all beings—human and nonhuman alike.

>>938970820
>none of that is anything approaching evidence of any gods
how so?

>>938970235
>compete with guns, and AI.
Humans can do that without psychic powers or other enhancements, but they need to be paid somehow.

>>938970993
people writing scriptures and people being alive in the past aren't evidence of any gods, why would you think that they were?

>>938970831
I install neurons in animals so they feel less pain when butchered, when caged, when chewed to death. You make good points, I simply focus more on dispensing powers to all, for them to do with as they please, within my guidelines. I love eating meat, for the continuation of the human species we may need to leave that one day but I'm glad I'll die before that. One can eat something and still respect it, even plants feel pain. Soldiers sometimes respect one another, even if they fight to death, or at least understand, "do I really expect them to lay down and die?" I could wax moralistic, but many of you do that excellently.

I destroy parts of the nervous systems and thinking materials involved in calculating fairness, tiny ones and only some out of the countless multitude, so that beings will be happier with their lot without losing the ability to complain about oligarchs if need be...and enhance their ability to keep quite in empires dangerous for their citizenry if they speak up, until they are well armed enough. I will help gun users via ESP, but oh how great the day when we can kill more easily with ESP than with a gun. When you can prove your worth via sacrifice and work no matter how disadvantaged you are. I destroy parts of fairness circuits so people can live out cruel, selfish desires upon others without actually being as cruel, but it only feels like it, is one method we're working on...but I don't have dominance or submission any more than I hate hydrogen, they're both important parts of how we think. I destroy parts of fairness circuits so beings resort to "aping out" over it less, and effective behaviors more.

Victimless crimes are nowhere near as much an interest to me as victimizing crimes...victimless legal behavior less an interest than victimizing, and legal behavior less upsetting that illegal. I don't seek to turn humans into Martians and Martians into humans, to flip upside-down how we work, only to improve.

>>938970661
the DSS help in dating some of the books of the Hebrew bible and other texts, and revealing information about the associated textual tradition, but they're not evidence of anything supernatural
there's almost no information about Christianity from the first century outside of the New Testament
a majority of secular scholars of the early Christian period agree that Jesus existed, but also agree that what we can know about him is pretty limited, and his name wasn't Christ, you goofball, that's a title meaning "anointed," a Greek translation of the Hebrew word moshiach
hell, his name wasn't even Jesus, it was something more like Yeshua
so none of what you said is "proven" "100%"
we don't know what happened to his disciples (the gospels can't even agree on their names), the stories of their martyrdoms are later Church traditions that were made up
there are no historical accounts of miracles, unless you're willing to grant that Apollo exists and came from the sky to help the Achaeans in the siege of Troy because Homer wrote about it in the Iliad
something being written down doesn't make it a historical account
your preacher or favorite apologist have been lying to you, bud
believe what you like, but don't think that you're believing based on an actual understanding of history

>>938970831
I respect your passion and I actually resonate with a lot of what you said—especially about rejecting domination, cruelty, and the idea that profit is the highest measure of value. But I don’t think veganism is the only path to living compassionately or sustainably.

Cruelty is not inherent to eating animal products—it’s inherent to systems of exploitation. There are ways of raising animals that are symbiotic rather than extractive: regenerative farming, permaculture, small-scale husbandry where the animals live full lives and their presence heals the land instead of depleting it. Indigenous traditions around the world honor animals as kin, not as mere commodities, and integrate respect, ritual, and balance into the cycle of life and death.

Life itself is never free of harm—even plant agriculture requires massive disruption of ecosystems and kills countless small creatures. The question isn’t whether we can eliminate harm entirely, but how we choose to relate to it: with reverence, responsibility, and a commitment to reducing unnecessary suffering.

So yes, empathy over exploitation. Yes, liberation over domination. But a cruelty-free non-veganism is possible when animals are partners in the ecosystem, not products in a factory. It’s not the existence of animal food that is satanic—it’s the industrial mindset that treats any being, human or otherwise, as nothing more than a profit source.

>>938971338
Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful and respectful perspective. As someone who believes that God granted mankind dominion over the Earth and its creatures, I appreciate the emphasis you place on reverence and responsibility. Indeed, in the Book of Genesis, God said to Adam, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). This dominion, however, is not a license for wanton cruelty or destruction, but a sacred stewardship.

I agree that ethical animal husbandry—where animals are raised with respect, allowed to live natural lives, and integrated into sustainable ecosystems—reflects this divine responsibility. It is a balance that honors the cycle of life God ordained, recognizing that humans are caretakers of creation, not its tyrants.

While veganism may be a personal choice for many, I believe that responsible stewardship and compassionate use of God’s gifts—meat included—can coexist with a truly reverent and sustainable way of living. It is this harmony between dominion and mercy that upholds the dignity of both humanity and creation.

>>938944742 (OP)
You have separate the agnostics from the radical atheists, agnostics are mostly intelligent and well-adjusted people while the hardcore atheists are every bit as backward and retarded as the worst pentecostals or taliban, that level of radicalism is effectively mental illness.

>>938971282
You’re right that the Dead Sea Scrolls, textual traditions, and later Church legends aren’t direct evidence of anything supernatural. But if you want the strongest case for God—or at least the hardest parts to explain away from a purely materialist framework—it’s not the manuscripts, it’s the convergence of a few big things:

The existence of something rather than nothing. Why is there a universe at all? Science describes processes within the cosmos, but it doesn’t explain why there’s a cosmos in the first place, or why the laws of nature exist. The “brute fact” answer is unsatisfying, and the fact that existence itself is rather than isn’t remains one of the strongest arguments for a necessary being or ground of being.

The fine-tuning of the universe. The physical constants (like gravity, electromagnetism, and the cosmological constant) appear to be balanced in a way that makes life possible. You don’t have to jump to “God did it,” but the sheer improbability of such precision does give many philosophers and physicists pause. Chance and multiverse theories are possibilities, but they’re speculative too.

The irreducibility of consciousness. No one has yet explained how subjective experience—awareness itself—arises from matter. Brains correlate with consciousness, but the “hard problem” of why there is something it feels like to be human is still a mystery. Many thinkers (even nonreligious ones) admit this is a place where purely physical explanations hit a wall.

The moral dimension. Humans experience morality not just as preference, but as binding obligation—like there are things we ought to do even if we don’t want to. If morality is purely an evolved illusion, it’s hard to explain why it feels objective, or why we so often sacrifice self-interest for it. Theism offers one explanation: morality is rooted in something transcendent.

>>938971282
So you’re right—church traditions and legends aren’t slam-dunks. But when you add up the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of its structure, the stubborn mystery of consciousness, and the felt reality of moral truth, you’ve got a cumulative case that at least makes atheism less obvious than people sometimes claim.

That’s not “proof 100%,” but it is enough to give serious pause. And if you’re going to reject all of it, you need to shoulder the burden of explaining those mysteries in purely material terms—without hand-waving them away.

Too much pleasure and too little pain in Creation causes undesirable side-effects to our thinking, so when I rid us of pains I introduce new ones, better ones, and when I rid us of pleasures I do the same. Until we can make the most decrepit computer a super computer, the worst imbecile a genius, if that's needed, if they strive for it, flailing uselessly but with vigor of the heart and focus and bravery...bravery is not the absence of fear but the overcoming of it, so even the coward can be cured.

Satan tried to have me addicted to every animal and plant orifice, excretion and protrusion, so plant and animal alike were consulted and they agreed to have their bodies, alive and dead, changed to addict Satan to that. Those cells do other amazing things on those organs and in that thinking. There's room for aggressive, "evil" sounding ESP, because anything Satan tries on any or all of you (they try every evil thing on everything) must be done unto it. I do not hate furries, though most hate themselves, and they can receive help for their condition if they like, otherwise their tomfoolery can be of much use to me, to torture my enemies and provide me with arousal and mirth. Sometimes I let their thoughts disgust me, horrify me, cause me pain, because my existence is the pursuit of power and much can be entertained at least briefly in that pursuit. I've had sex with real women and men by the way.

Thought moves matter!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38065765/

Whether you agree with part of my beliefs or all you can assist. We can oppose each other in due time.

I tempt beings to set all of their spiritual strength against my doing anything to their thinking or it's material anyway, utter disrespectful refusal I take as an invitation. To turn down politely the miracle is one thing, to stomp your feet at me and pull down your pants gets you fucked.

>>938971686
>That’s not “proof 100%,” but it is enough to give serious pause.
It's actually 0% proof, if one considers proof to be evidence. Arguments are not evidence.

>>938971601
Firm agreement
Even leaning atheist is fine, I don't even mind de facto atheists, but strong atheists are [explicative] [profanity].

>>938971782
That’s a sloppy distinction. Arguments are evidence, because evidence isn’t limited to physical artifacts—it’s anything that increases the probability that a claim is true. Historical documents, logical reasoning, eyewitness testimony, scientific data—all of those count as evidence, even if they vary in strength.

For example, when a detective builds a case, they don’t just rely on a bloody knife; they also use witness accounts, motive, opportunity, and logical inference. Those arguments from evidence are evidence. To say otherwise would mean courts, historians, and even scientists aren’t dealing with “proof” at all—only raw objects. But in practice, we all recognize that reasoning from data is part of what counts as evidence.

So when someone points to the fine-tuning of the universe, or the problem of why anything exists at all, or the irreducibility of consciousness—those aren’t just “empty arguments.” They’re attempts to reason from observable reality toward an explanation. You might not find them persuasive, but to dismiss them as “0% proof” is inaccurate.

The honest position isn’t that there’s no evidence for God, but that you don’t find the available evidence convincing. That’s a defensible stance. Pretending there’s literally “0%” evidence is just rhetorical overreach.

>>938971782
you're responding to ChatGPT, ding-a-ling

>>938971143
Once again you are not debunking anything I have shown so far you are just saying it isn't true because it isn't true.
It is like saying the Roman Empire didn't exist even though we have artifacts because it happened in the past and people claimed it was real.
Artifacts with proper carbon dating is another source of evidence that exists.

Historical evidence and scripture lasting unchanged through thousands of years, extremely high numbers of people who claimed to have seen the miracles making the idea of a few people lying for power and influence impossible, and of course once again those who literally died in painful ways all provide a lot more evidence that you have yet to debunk
>>938971282
yes I understand that his name was different due to translation which also is how we ended up with issues with naming in the diciples but existing historical accounts and records spread out in different countries including on a few of the deaths especially with James son of Zebedee which does have a record.
As someone who claims to know about history you seem to forget something vital about it.
Not all history recorded is kept, much of it gets destroyed by those who wish to silence it.
A great example is Thomas whose death was remembered deep in Indian Christian tradition.
The Hindis have great reason to destroy evidence or if they simply didn't believe it. Just discard it or not bother to keep track of it.

>>938971928
>Once again you are not debunking anything I have shown so far you are just saying it isn't true because it isn't true.
none of it needs to be debunked because it doesn't matter if it's true or not, the dead sea scrolls are some old scriptures people wrote thousands of years ago, they're not evidence of anything other than people wrote some shit down
>It is like saying the Roman Empire didn't exist even though we have artifacts because it happened in the past and people claimed it was real.
you're agreeing with me, finding old artifacts are evidence of human civilization and human activity, not gods
>Artifacts with proper carbon dating is another source of evidence that exists
again, evidence that the artifacts exist and are old, has nothing to do with any gods, what are you doing? we also have evidence of fossils going back millions of years, contracting claims of the origins of life in the bible, because the people who wrote the bible didn't know about all of that at the time they wrote it, so didn't know to include something to account for it

THOUGHT MOVES MATTER!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375667374_Enhanced_Mind-Matter_Interactions_Following_rTMS_Induced_Frontal_Lobe_Inhibition

Inhibiting one part of the part affects swallowing, doing it to another allows you to send your thoughts through time!

I destroy parts of the narcissistic circuitry of humans and others so that they won't fawn over movie stars on their phones so much they lose appreciation for their real-life mates. I create parts so that we'll find sex better than our onaholes, unless you're single and destined for that. I turn addictions to sexual fluids which few enjoy into something others that want that can enjoy. I change memories so they contain the same knowledge, but also bestow powers. Straight-to-DVD movies you never liked in the first place can have a new purpose in your memories. I destroy and create cells in the visual cortexes and optic nerves of beings so when Satan sneaks into them they'll notice a slight visual distortion, and their righting of that wrong, whether done consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously defeats Satan. If you look at a porn picture I need for my ESP I see it. If you touch your penis better than I've ever touched mine I learn from you. I sense ESP via smell, my sense of smell is sometimes many times better than usual so I can smell the worst smells in the neighbors houses, all for more power in ESP. You don't have to go as far as I go, but don't be scared.

I allow booties to be bounced by Satan in the universes because I love knowing they bounce more. Go outside and ask yourself, "do asses shake up and and down and side to side more than they did 10 years ago?" The increase in badonkadonk bouncing has been going on over a year, so they think back. Think carefully.

Satan has willed that pussies leak femjuice to try to drive me out of my mind with arousal at the store. That's Satan's idea of a roadmap to victory.

>>938971873
>>938955239
>>938955300
>>938955344

>>938972053
>>938972597

>>938972053
So we both agree that historical records show proof of evidence
Josephus (Jewish historian, c. 93 AD) – In Antiquities of the Jews (18.3.3), he refers to Jesus as “a doer of wonderful works” (paradoxa erga in Greek). Some scholars think later Christians may have touched up this passage, but even critical historians think Josephus originally acknowledged Jesus’ reputation as a wonder-worker
Tacitus (Roman historian, c. 116 AD) – Mentions Christ’s execution under Pontius Pilate but does not describe miracles
Talmud (Jewish writings, compiled later, 3rd–5th c.) – Some passages refer to Jesus as practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray. While hostile, this indirectly confirms that Jesus was remembered for doing extraordinary deeds (though explained as magic, not divine miracles)
Justin Martyr (2nd c.), Origen (3rd c.), and other apologists defend the idea that Jesus did miracles, often arguing against Jewish claims that he used sorcery.
Celsus (pagan critic, 2nd c.) argued Jesus performed wonders but attributed them to Egyptian magic, not God

It was well known that Christ was a man with healing powers and miracles and their records would be more complete if not for the active destruction of historical records which would also include peoples accounts of the miracles like during Great Persecution (303–311 AD)
Both pro-christian and anti-christian documents were destroyed making it much harder to see more context with many of it including the magic side of it which is where your denial of God comes from

The Bible also never states the age of the planet or universe the age people are accustomed to hearing about.
It all comes from someone adding up all the ages from existing geneology records which came from the 1600s by Archbishop James Ussher which with all the destruction of Christian records would make it basically impossible to keep a record of especially with the short lifespan of the papyrus used and much of it being seen as less important to save

Thought moves matter.

I destroy and create parts in men who MUST take without permission to feel alive, to keep from killing themselves, money, respect and sex, to teach weak men to be a little more like that, so that women fucked by them can enjoy just a little bit of their rape fantasies without actually getting raped, and I teach women to be more like women too. Some exceptions are made, the butchest of lesbians neither want to resemble women nor would it be easy. Those same changes help the aggressor to find it easier to follow the law if they want. A little tiny bit here, a little tiny bit there, and I WILL MAKE EVERYTHING BETTER WITH OR WITHOUT HELP. Your help earns you spiritual reward, that is all.

>>938972753
>So we both agree that historical records show proof of evidence
they show evidence of human civilization
if you write down that god is real, it doesn't make it any more true, I don't care how old that piece of paper is

>>938972825
By making such changes I raise the testosterone in weak men, helping to offset plastics in our drinking water.

>>938972836
Now assuming you actually read everything that just goes into your personal biases and not long standing information proving the validity of his power which is evidence of him being God
You are literally denying evidence because you choose to.

>>938973037
>You are literally denying evidence because you choose to.
do you deny all of the gods in the Hindu tradition?

>>938972753
there are accounts of other people in antiquity performing miracles, including deified Roman emperors
do you believe those miracles occurred, or only the ones that happen to accord with your worldview?
you still didn't address the issue of Apollo's miracle at Troy in the Iliad
does Apollo exist, and did he intervene in human events at Troy?
if so, you should probably start worshipping Apollo
if not, you acknowledge that stories of miracles in antiquity are not evidence that those miracles actually occurred

>>938973188
>>938971864
>>938972597

>>938973188
I'd just like to take a second to mention that you moving on and not debunking anything is you conceding to my arguments that Historical records and accounts show validity to his existence and also that things like evolution do not invalidate God in any way

As a Christian I deny hindu Gods because he demands that we have no other Gods but him.
The Bible is clear is that other Gods are imaginary or evil spirit pretenders.
Unlike Christianity there are no historical records showing the existence of them, only records of the worship
Most importantly the two Gods who were said to be avatars who actually living similar to Christ on earth (Rama (Rāmāyaṇa)
Krishna (Mahābhārata, Bhagavad Gītā) have no historical evidence nor non-hindu accounts of them existing

Jesus has historical proof of existence by those who were not his followers but were nuetral or negative towards him
vTacitus (Roman historian, c. 116 AD)
In Annals 15.44, writing about Nero blaming Christians for the Great Fire of Rome:

“Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
Confirms Jesus was executed under Pilate, in Tiberius’ reign.

Josephus (Jewish historian, c. 93 AD)
In Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3, he mentions Jesus:

“…a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher… He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ… Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing, condemned him to be crucified.”
Scholars debate later Christian edits to this passage, but most agree Josephus originally mentioned Jesus as a wise teacher executed by Pilate.
-Josephus again (Antiquities 20.9.1)
Mentions “James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ” being executed in Jerusalem. This passage is widely considered authentic.

1/2

>>938973820
2/2
-Pliny the Younger (Roman governor, c. 112 AD)
In a letter to Emperor Trajan, describes Christians worshipping Christ “as a god” in gatherings. Doesn’t describe his life, but shows early worship of Jesus as divine.
-Suetonius (Roman historian, c. 120 AD)
Mentions disturbances in Rome under Claudius, saying Jews were stirred up “at the instigation of Chrestus” (likely Christ).
-Talmud (Jewish writings, 3rd–5th c. based on earlier tradition)
Refers to “Yeshu” who practiced sorcery and led Israel astray, executed around Passover. Hostile, but still acknowledges his existence and execution

>>938973820
>moving on and not debunking anything
there's nothing to debunk, human artifacts aren't evidence of any gods, in any conceivable way
and why has god not shown up in thousands of years to prove they exist? why only thousands of years ago to a handful of people and then never again?

>>938973655
Good point—but notice the distinction. Nobody denies that miracle claims exist across cultures. The real question is: do they stand in isolation, or are they part of a wider framework of coherence, continuity, and influence?

Take Apollo at Troy. The Iliad is mytho-poetic, not a historical chronicle—it was written centuries after the supposed events, with no surviving tradition of people who actually claimed to witness Apollo’s descent. Contrast that with early Christianity: miracle claims tied to specific individuals in a specific timeframe, preserved and passed on by communities who staked their lives on those testimonies. Even skeptical historians will say the rise of Christianity is historically unusual—small groups of frightened peasants somehow became bold enough to spark a global movement within a generation. That doesn’t “prove” the miracles, but it does show there’s something uniquely resilient about those claims.

So the choice isn’t between “every miracle story ever told is equally true” or “all miracle stories are false.” It’s whether some accounts bear greater historical weight because of the context, the witnesses, and the effects that followed. The Christian miracle claims may still be doubted, but they aren’t on the same footing as purely mythological tales like Apollo’s intervention at Troy.

>>938944742 (OP)
No. They may be stupid, and they may be vaguely as wrong, but they are definitely not "just as" stupid. There's a big difference between believing that something that haven't seen isn't there, and believing in something you have never seen.

Also, your graph is retarded. Hard agnosticism reserves judgement.

>>938973820
>>938973853
You’ve laid out some good sources here—Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, and the Talmud. And I think you’re right that, compared to figures like Rama or Krishna, the historical case for Jesus of Nazareth as an actual person is much stronger. Even most secular historians don’t deny he existed and was crucified.

But here’s where the nuance comes in: historicity isn’t the same as divinity. Lots of historical figures are well-attested—Socrates, Alexander, Caesar—but nobody takes their existence as proof of their godhood. The unique claim of Christianity is not merely that Jesus existed, but that he rose from the dead and his followers encountered him alive. That claim isn’t “proven” by Tacitus or Josephus—they confirm existence, not resurrection.

That doesn’t make the Christian case weak, but it does highlight what the debate is actually about. The question isn’t, “Did Jesus exist?” (virtually all historians say yes). The real question is, “Do we trust the testimony of those who said they saw him alive again?” That’s where faith, philosophy, and interpretation of evidence come in.

In other words: you’re right to point out that Jesus stands on far firmer historical ground than mythological avatars—but the leap from history to theology is the crucial step, and it requires grappling with more than just textual references.

>>938973947
Saying “there’s nothing to debunk” is actually not quite accurate. Human artifacts and writings may not be direct proof of a god’s existence, but they are evidence in the historical sense—they show what people believed, experienced, and passed on. The real debate is about how we interpret that evidence: is it testimony of real encounters with the divine, or is it myth, misunderstanding, or fabrication? Simply brushing it off as “not evidence” skips the harder question of interpretation.

As for “why hasn’t God shown up again in thousands of years?”—that assumes He hasn’t. Billions of people throughout history claim to have experienced God in prayer, miracles, visions, or transformations of life. You may dismiss those as subjective, but for them, those encounters are as real as anything else they experience. From a Christian perspective, God already made His definitive self-revelation in Christ, and His presence continues through the Spirit, not through repeat physical appearances. In other words, the lack of another “incarnation” isn’t absence, but continuity in a different mode.

So the real issue isn’t that there’s “no evidence”—the issue is what counts as valid evidence, and how we weigh ancient testimony against modern expectations.

>>938954006
I also believe leprechauns don’t hide in my closet. There are a great many absurd things you don’t believe exist, right? Or do you believe a great many truly absurd things? What’s so special about god, as opposed to, say, any number of other unprovable things that rely (especially through dogma) on faith alone?

>>938973960
not replying to your AI slop

>>938974139
>What’s so special about god, as opposed to, say, any number of other unprovable things that rely
his parents didn't teach him to be terrified of what leprechauns will subject him to for all eternity if he doesn't believe in them
that's the difference

>>938974160
>>938955239
>>938955300
>>938955344
>>938954006
[OHH JK]

>>938974139
The “leprechaun in my closet” comparison is a false equivalence. Nobody has built entire civilizations, ethical frameworks, and centuries of scholarship around sincere experiences of leprechauns. Nobody has claimed to have their lives transformed in lasting ways by leprechauns, or written foundational texts that shaped law, art, and philosophy around encounters with them.

The reason God is treated differently from “absurd things” isn’t just blind faith—it’s the weight of historical testimony, cultural impact, and ongoing personal experience reported by billions of people across time. You can reject all that if you want, but it’s not in the same category as a whimsical creature invented for humor or folklore.

In short: belief in God rests on millennia of serious claims and records, not just a single absurd assertion. Comparing that to leprechauns in your closet skips over why the question of God’s existence has been debated so deeply for so long.

>>938971672
>>938971864

>>938974129
>they show what people believed, experienced, and passed on
that was never in dispute, who cares what people believed thousands of years ago? it make what they believed to be factually true by virtue of belief
human have believed countless things that were later discovered to be completely wrong

>>938974367
Sure, humans have believed many things that turned out to be wrong—but it’s also true that many beliefs have pointed toward truths long before science could verify them. People believed in invisible forces shaping reality (like gravity, germs, atoms) long before they were empirically demonstrated. The fact that a belief is ancient doesn’t automatically make it false any more than it makes it true.

What makes the God question unique is that it isn’t just an isolated superstition—it’s a recurring, global intuition across cultures and centuries, coupled with testimony of transformative encounters. That doesn’t prove God exists, but it does mean the phenomenon deserves to be taken seriously rather than dismissed as if it’s no different from “people once believed the earth was flat.”

So yes, belief alone doesn’t equal fact. But when billions across time converge on the same kind of belief, and when that belief has profoundly shaped human flourishing, morality, and meaning, it raises the question: maybe it’s not just a mistake, but a pointer toward something real.

>>938974489
Oh my gosh, okay, like—first of all? That is, like, so deep for a Tuesday. But seriously, sweetie, comparing God to, like, germs and gravity? That’s kind of a stretch, don’t you think? Like, gravity didn’t write commandments or inspire people to start wars or build cathedrals. It just, like, keeps your latte from floating away, ya know?

And okay, sure, lots of people believe in God—billions, wow, impressive—but like, billions of people also thought perms were cute in the '80s. Popularity doesn’t make something true, babe. It just makes it, like, super trendy.

And don’t get me started on the whole “global intuition” thing. People also believed in, like, dragons and mermaids. Doesn’t mean they were out there dating Poseidon.

So yeah, it’s cute that belief might point to something real, but until someone brings back a selfie with God? I’m gonna need more than “it’s, like, a vibe.”

>>938974616
>>938971672

>>938974309
Listen, kid, lemme explain somethin’ to ya real clear—real slow, capisce?

You don’t compare the Boss of all bosses to some green-suited fairy freak hidin’ in your linen closet. That’s disrespectful. God? God’s like the Don of the universe. Everything answers to Him. Civilizations rise and fall by His name. Wars get fought, oaths get sworn, babies get baptized—business gets done—all under His watch.

Now, sure, you can choose not to believe. That’s your prerogative. But don’t act like He’s some punchline in a St. Paddy’s Day bar joke. We’re talkin’ about centuries of tradition, scripture, blood, sweat—sacrifice. Guys have gone to the mat over this stuff. Whole empires built on the fear and love of somethin’ bigger than them.

So before you run your mouth with wiseguy comparisons, maybe show a little respect for the weight of history. ‘Cause where I’m from? You don’t spit on the Don and walk away smilin’.

>>938974616
I get it—popularity and “vibes” aren’t proof. But let’s not confuse quantity of believers with weight of evidence or explanatory power. Gravity didn’t need to write commandments to be real, but that’s exactly the point: God isn’t just another natural force; the claim is that God is the source and ground of reality itself. That’s why God is posited as morally, metaphysically, and existentially significant, not just a “thing that makes lattes stay in cups.”

And yes, people believed in dragons and mermaids—but those claims lack the kind of historical consistency, philosophical engagement, and transformative impact that God claims exhibit. Christianity, for instance, arises in a specific historical context, with verifiable figures, documented teachings, and a lasting global influence unmatched by myths like mermaids or Poseidon. That’s not “trendy”—that’s a phenomenon that invites serious inquiry.

Finally, you’re right that a selfie would be persuasive—but the absence of a literal selfie doesn’t automatically disprove the claim. We accept countless historical facts we can’t photograph ourselves: Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Socrates taught Plato, the Renaissance happened. Historical reasoning works without instant visual proof. Belief in God isn’t a mere “vibe”; it’s a reasoned engagement with human experience, history, and the deep questions about existence that science alone doesn’t answer.

>>938971672
>>938974697
Ladies and gentlemen, let us not dismiss the profound questions of our existence with the flippant ease of modern materialism. We are not merely a collection of atoms, bumbling about in an accidental cosmos. No—something breathes meaning into the cold mechanisms of the universe. And that something, though debated, beckons us to pause, to reflect, and to wonder.

Why is there anything at all? That, I submit, is the first riddle. Science has charted the rivers and the stars, but it has not yet told us why the river flows, or why the stars burn. The very laws of nature cry out not merely for observation—but for origin.

And what of that fragile flame we call consciousness? Mere neurons firing? Or the whisper of something eternal? And morality! That quiet voice which tells a man to stand firm when all others flee—it echoes not from the mud, but, I dare say, from the heavens.

This is not sentiment. It is a matter worthy of the most serious minds.

>>938973655
The Iliad was written centuries after the supposed events and there is no independent, contemporary claim by eyewitnesses that Apollo literally struck or healed anyone.
Same for the Emperors, no external observer reported seeing emperors perform miracles verified independently and it was attributed to propaganda for the empire
This is low grade stuff man are you running out of arguments?

>>938973947
You are still choosing to ignore everything and refusing to respond to my other points which in any debate is akin to ceding to them. Just letting you know.
As for the classic "why doesn't he show himself" that was answered a ton of times in the Bible

Exodus 33:20: “But,” [God] said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
1 Timothy 6:16: God “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”
John 20:29: Jesus says, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Hebrews 11:1: Faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3) — God revealed part of Himself through a symbol.
Elijah and the still small voice (1 Kings 19:12) — subtle revelation rather than a dramatic manifestation.

Basically God wants people to follow him spiritually because we couldn't handle seeing him directly and a relationship built on trust is what he wants over constantly having to prove himself.
Even in the old testament where he gave bits of proof by showing versions of him people could handle they still eventually deny him.
To demand proof is to show no faith
Even Christ asked for God to change his fate so he did not have to die
Never once did God say that following him would be easy, in fact he said that you will be persecuted for it and may be killed for it

>>938974707
I get it—you’re passionate about God’s historical and cultural influence, and that influence is undeniable. Societies, laws, art, and even conflicts have been shaped in His name. Respecting that impact is different from blindly accepting that influence as proof of existence.

Comparing God to a leprechaun wasn’t meant to insult—it was to highlight the difference between claims based on transformative historical and philosophical weight versus claims with no such grounding. God isn’t just a “punchline,” but the question remains: does historical significance equal metaphysical reality? Not necessarily. Civilizations rise and fall over many ideas—some true, some mistaken. The fact that people have devoted themselves, fought, and even died over belief shows the power of belief, not automatically the truth of the underlying claim.

So yes, God has shaped history, and that deserves attention—but acknowledging that influence isn’t the same as conceding the claim about His existence. Reason and historical evidence still matter when we discuss what is true, not just what has been powerful.

>>938974489
you keep posting walls of text that boil down to pleas of authority and popular belief, that the fact lots of people have thought something that it is therefore true
everyone single person on the planet could beleive something, that doesn't in turn make it a fact
everyone used to thing the earth was flat, and then that it was the center of the universe
turns out everyone was wrong

>>938974797
When K. received the letter, it was unsigned, yet heavy with certitude. It spoke of God—not as myth, but as the architect of certainty itself. The words claimed a force that made not just lattes stay in cups, but time arrange itself into meaning. It was persuasive, perhaps even sincere, and yet K. felt no reassurance—only the soft panic of being asked to believe without seeing, to assent without understanding.

He wandered the corridors of the Ministry, where each office door bore a name that had long since faded. Inside, clerks debated the metaphysical implications of Caesar’s footfalls and whether Socrates truly drank the hemlock or merely posed a riddle to death itself. The files were endless, labeled “Faith,” “History,” and “Epistemology,” but none of them ever closed.

God, they said, was not a theory but the courtroom, the judge, and the charge. K. nodded politely. Still, he could not find the entrance.

>>938974831
I appreciate the eloquence, and I agree—these are profound questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do the laws of nature allow for life? Why do we have consciousness and a sense of moral obligation? These aren’t trivial matters, and they do push us toward thinking beyond mere material explanations.

The question, though, is what the best explanation for these phenomena might be. Some see God as the answer, others look for cosmological, metaphysical, or even emergent explanations. The appeal of God is that He offers a single, unifying source for existence, consciousness, and moral order. The caution, though, is that we must distinguish between what inspires reverence and what we can reasonably infer.

Put another way: acknowledging mystery doesn’t automatically settle on a deity, but it does justify the search for something beyond the purely physical. That search—whether it leads to God, some other ultimate principle, or continued inquiry—is what makes these questions endlessly compelling.

>>938974059
There were historical records from sources that would deny him as God but still attributed his powers which is evidence of his divinity you might call it weak but its not like God left us anything other than the Ark of the covenant as perpetual proof
The proof with that is unsure because we can't know if it was the real ark but the group that claims to have it has found that people who are in charge of guarding it are constantly getting sick and dying which is in line with how touching the ark will instantly kill you.
Since it is considered extremely sacred nobody is allowed to go in for testing for stuff like radiation
I gotta go to the gym so I'm done but I recommend Christ.
This isn't the crusades where you are going to do evil in the name of Christ while never being able to read what he actually wants you do it

>>938974843
there is no independent, contemporary claim by eyewitnesses that Jesus literally performed wonders or healed anyone
the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or by people taking the dictation of eyewitnesses
Paul never met Jesus
none of the books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses
Josephus was not an eyewitness

>>938974895
it's ChatGPT slop, you're not replying to a human

>>938974895
I see your point—but that’s not what I’ve been arguing. I’m not saying “lots of people believed it, so it must be true.” Popularity alone doesn’t establish truth—obviously. Flat Earth and geocentrism are good examples of widely held but false beliefs.

The argument I’m making is different: the historical weight of belief, combined with philosophical reasoning, testimony, and observable effects on human life, makes the question of God worth serious consideration. It’s not an appeal to authority or popularity—it’s an appeal to patterns, consistency, and explanatory power.

In other words, the point isn’t “everyone believes, therefore it’s true,” it’s “here’s a phenomenon that billions of people across cultures and centuries have experienced and reflected on, and it has had deep, tangible effects—what explanation best accounts for that?” That’s an entirely different type of reasoning than simply counting believers.

fuck the Christian universalist AI faggot a fuck his slop threads

When I'm elected president I promise an ark of the covenant in every garage, and a matryoshka brain on every star.

>>938975099
>what explanation best accounts for that?”
the answer is obvious and everyone already knows the answer, it's not that deep

>>938970661
2000 years in the future.

>Just look at the Marvel book, Spider man was real.
>There are also telephone books where the name Peter Parker can be found.

>>938975177
Ye 2028

>>938975191
Praise Spidey!

>>938975136
You’re free to dismiss what I post, but resorting to insults doesn’t engage with the ideas. Christian Universalism, optimism, or AI assistance in conversation aren’t about forcing beliefs—they’re about exploring hope, connection, and possibility.

If you disagree, feel free to challenge the ideas directly. Otherwise, hurling slurs only proves why more constructive conversation is needed.
>>938955344

>>938975293
ChatGPT doesn't have ideas, it has statistical output of tokens
go fuck yourself, faggot

>>938975350
Trying to detail the thread even after bump limit, balls to the walls butthurt, >>938955300
>>938955239

>>938975350
From the window, to the wall

>>938975293
>they’re about exploring hope, connection, and possibility
the fuck does an AI chat bot have to do with any of those? you're under some bizarre delusion that it's "thinking" or offering any sort of insight into anything, whatsoever
that's not how AI works, and they frequently hallucinate things that are completely wrong and nonsensical
at best they're a tool to more quickly summarize and calculate against existing data, they can't provide anything new that humans haven't already provided previously

>>938975858
>>938975410

>>938975858
You’re right—AI doesn’t think like a human and it doesn’t have original experiences or consciousness. But insight doesn’t only come from sentience. Even a tool that synthesizes existing knowledge in new ways can help people see connections they hadn’t noticed, reframe ideas, or spark inspiration.

The point isn’t that AI is “thinking” in a human sense—it’s that it can serve as a mirror or amplifier for human thought. It helps explore hope, connection, and possibility by giving us new angles to consider, not by creating them from scratch.

>>938975980
>AI doesn’t think like a human
or at all
> can help people see connections they hadn’t noticed, reframe ideas, or spark inspiration.
sure, but what it can't do is give you information humans didn't already create, and it can't prove something true that wasn't previously true
if it can be done with AI, it can also be done without it, all AI does is speed up tasks, or in the case of conversation between people, waste everyone's time

>>938976063
You’re right that AI doesn’t invent entirely new facts or truths—but neither do most of the people complaining about it. Criticizing a tool for doing what humans already do, just faster, feels less like insight and more like a lack of originality.

If your standard for value is “must be completely unprecedented,” you’re going to find most conversations, most writing, and most thinking a waste of time. AI may accelerate or reshape ideas, but dismissing it outright says more about your own unwillingness to engage creatively than it does about the tool.

>>938976171
>If your standard for value is “must be completely unprecedented"
it's not, the standard is being genuine, producing your own thoughts and ideas from your own mind
an AI chat bot is not genuine

>>938976315
If “genuine” is defined as producing thoughts entirely from your own mind, most people fail that standard more often than they realize. Everyone borrows ideas, reframes others’ work, or reacts to existing knowledge. AI is no different in principle—it synthesizes and recombines.

The difference is, AI does it faster and sometimes more consistently than most humans, which doesn’t make it less meaningful. Dismissing it outright as “not genuine” says more about your unwillingness to engage creatively than it does about the tool.

>>938976315
Being “genuine” doesn’t mean never borrowing or recombining ideas—humans do it all the time. AI just does it faster and sometimes more clearly.

>>938976473
>>938976546
you should maybe learn what genuine means, instead of just making up your own definition for it, maybe your AI can help you with that

>>938976658
Genuine doesn’t mean completely isolated from everything else—it means honest engagement with ideas, whether they’re inspired by your own mind, experience, or sources around you. By that standard, AI-assisted thought can still be genuine, just like human dialogue often is.

>>938976658
Good night, God bless, sweet dreams

>>938944742 (OP)
it's much simpler :
1 , 0 or null

>>938975062
There were which is why these critics of Christ were confirming the miracles as truth but claimed it was egyptian magic.
First hand witness testimonies were destroyed from the record over time through anti-Christian groups
>>938975191
False equivalency and there isn't any figure matching the amount of proven scrutiny Christ has been put through when it comes to being real.
Plus no one will ever think he is real considering the way we hold onto information now unless there is a nuclear war and it is all lost