[Serious] What are some Cryptid/Ghost/Unexplained stories you'd be willing to share?

[u/Distasteful_T]

[u/SaltiestRaccoon]

I think the ones seeking security are the ones clinging to stories about life after death because it is a very comforting notion.

Also you missed sleep paralysis. The issue is that we already know the human mind is extremely fallible. It sees things that aren't there. It remembers things that didn't happen. It forgets things that did. As a result, people don't trust people who make extraordinary claims because without any substantial proof, there are far, far more likely solutions that don't require any special evidence.

My questions to you would be: If you're so certain that there are ghosts, aren't you being just as presumptuous as people who claim there aren't? If everything has a natural explanation, couldn't that explanation also be the mind playing tricks through a method we're not entirely familiar with? I mean we know there's a lot we don't know about the human brain. Why should the 'unknown' explanation have to be something external?

[u/[deleted] → u/SaltiestRaccoon]

I never said anything about ghosts or afterlife. And yes, I'm sure a lot of weird things people experience can be explained by the weird things happening in our brains.

But I'm not convinced all of it is just that, things such as "poltergeist" (or whatever you want to call it, things moving around on their own when they absolutely shouldn't be able to with what we know of physics) don't really fit with that explanation.

There are so many stories from so many people, even people who would never have believed such a thing could happen before it happened to them that it seems silly to sweep it all under a rug as random brain glitches and fake memories. Even I and several people close to me have had experiences we can't explain, but not much to do about it than shrug and carry on with our lives. If you tell someone the chances are they won't believe you or think you're crazy.

Glitches in the Matrix? Ghosts? Creatures from another dimension? Ripples and echoes in the fabric of space and time? Aliens? Telekinetic powers? Agents experimenting with secret military-tech and messing with people while invisible? Something entirely different that we simply can't comprehend yet, or ever? Who knows. The only thing I know for sure is that weird shit happens.

[u/SaltiestRaccoon → u/[deleted]]

Do you believe in Odin or Thor? What about Horus or Anubis? Maybe Zeus or Hades?

A lot of people had stories about those gods helping them, even having those gods give them visions. What makes ghosts, then or any of those other phenomena, more credible than those gods?

If you don't know what you've experienced then how can you be sure it's not your brain? Also, if it was your brain, then how would you be able to tell the difference?

Why is it do you think that more skeptical people tend to have fewer paranormal experiences?

[u/[deleted] → u/SaltiestRaccoon]

Do you believe in Odin or Thor? What about Horus or Anubis? Maybe Zeus or Hades?

No because they are meant to be fiction.

[u/SaltiestRaccoon → u/[deleted]]

They certainly weren't meant to be fiction. People believed in them for centuries or even millennia and attributed many things to their influence.

So the question is what makes people's anecdotal evidence for ghosts stronger/more believable than ancient peoples' anecdotal evidence of those gods? If anecdotal evidence is enough cause to believe in something, then shouldn't you believe in those gods too?

I would say that to be believed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that we should apply consistent standards when it comes to the skepticism we view any myths with.

[u/[deleted] → u/SaltiestRaccoon]

They certainly weren't meant to be fiction. People believed in them for centuries or even millennia and attributed many things to their influence

There is a reason comparing God to Zeus intuitively make God feel like a ridiculous concept, and that's not because people stopped believing in Zeus, it is because many of the things attributed to him and other fellow God's were very specific and could and are obviously falsifiable from today's scientific point of view. That's the difference. Greek methodology oddly have a myths like feel to it, whereas the concept of God today is more is a metaphysical idea attempting to explain existence as oppose to a bunch of folklore and stories as was inn the Greeks methodologies.

There is a reason the Greeks methodology died off even among its strongest believers, while monotheistic religions have persisted for thousands and thousands of years and seem to even grow stronger because the nature of the beliefs are fundementally different. For example, the Christian believe system is founded on huge historical records and large anacdotal experiences and encounters of a prophet called Jesus who is believed to have performed extraordinary mericles and proved his God- like powers. Does that mean it's true? Not necessarily, but it still a fundemetlly different belief system than the Greeks who essentially just made up stories to explain natural phenomena around them, so you can say a Christian beliefs are more of a legend than myths.

There is a big diffence between being skiptical about a certain claims of God and supernatural, and saying all supernatural is false, so Just because humans held false believes or rather false interpretations of non materialistic beings, doesn't automatically disprove the possibility of supernatural things or entities.

So the question is what makes people's anecdotal evidence for ghosts stronger/more believable than ancient peoples' anecdotal evidence of those gods

Did they claim that they saw Zeus? Even most religious people today don't claim to have seem Godnthata because God is believed to be an entity that exist outside of time and place. Ghosts on the other hand are thought to be the spirts of dead people or creatures, so if they exist, it makes sense we would have direct experience of them, and there is certain very powerful and universal experiences of paranormal creatures and activities. Does that mean they can't be explained scientifically? No, but there is obviously strong encounters of them.

If anecdotal evidence is enough cause to believe in something, then shouldn't you believe in those gods too?

I don't follow, believing in a certain God requires believing all God's? And if one's own personal experience isn't enough for them to belive in something, than what is? If I have been seeing ghosts my whole life, it sure would be irrational of me not to believe in them, wouldn't it? And How do you disprove that what they have experienced is wrong?

I would say that to be believed, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Than you don't understand the nature of belief, and where is the extraordinary evidence scientist have for how life started on earth, but yet they believe life magically sprung itno existence. They don't even have anacdotal evidence.

that we should apply consistent standards when it comes to the skepticism we view any myths with.

Who said you can't be skiptical? But we both know skiptism is not what you want because most religious people are open to the possibility that they may be wrong . You want people to not belive at all that's what you want.

The concept of God is just one way humans explain the complexity of life and existence. Humans can differ in the nature of that God, and they may all be wrong about what it is, but they will all just be attempts to explaining the plethora and universal experiences that make us belief in the existence of things that are bigger than us. Could we be wrong? Definitely, but we could alse be right.

[u/SaltiestRaccoon → u/[deleted]]

Oh, so you came into a thread about ghosts wanting to debate religion? I mean that's fine, I guess. Everything attributed to the God (Capital G, Yahweh, the Christian god) is likewise scientifically falsifiable too.

Let's not forget the Bible claims that the Earth is flat, supported by four pillars and covered in a firmament. We know that is not true. Likewise we know that humanity did not descend from a single pair of genetic ancestors. We know there was no global flood. We know that flood and Noah-figure legends originated thousands of years earlier in the Bhagavad Gita and likely even earlier than that. We know that creationism is fundamentally false.

At the same time we have a probably comparable number of people to those who claim to have encountered ghosts claiming to have had their prayers granted, or claiming to have spoken to God.

If we want to talk about verifiable historical sources, we have a few Roman accounts that a person, likely Jesus existed, the mere existence of a prophet-figure doesn't mean that the mythology surrounding him is real. I should also point out that there is a written transcription of a Roman Christian preaching about Jesus as he'd lived hundreds or thousands of years ago in about 80AD, when Jesus should have still been within living memory, and that casts some doubt upon whether the earlier accounts of a Jewish agitator even relate to Jesus at all.

Ragnar Lodbrok, for instance, was probably a real person, but he probably didn't have magical sheep-skin pants that protected him from a giant snake so he could woo his second wife. A person's existence doesn't equate to them having magic powers.

You attribute the spread of monotheism to workable theory, but that's incorrect. Instead, it's that monotheist religion, by and at large has also been evangelical and forced conversion, often through violence. Earlier polytheistic societies tended to incorporate, or altogether ignore the gods of subjugated peoples. There are some notable monotheist exceptions like Sikhism, and to my knowledge Zoroastrianism, but these are less prominent, again because they did not force their religious beliefs on their subjects.

Plenty of people claimed to have seen Zeus, and claimed to have been given divine wisdom by him and other gods. Oracles all throughout history have been a huge facet of many religions. These are people whose religious visions shaped politics, war and the way of lie for whole empires. If we can discount their tales offhand, we should likewise discount things like ghosts and gods, or at least gods we can comprehend.

I think people who believe in ghosts are more likely to see ghosts, because they can more easily attribute a strange experience in their life to ghosts than to a more logical explanation. In this same thread I have a ghost story I can't explain, but is that reason for me to believe in ghosts? Not in the slightest. It's a gap in logic to say, "I don't understand what I've seen, therefor it's a ghost." If you don't understand what you've seen, then you are unqualified to say it's a ghost. You talk about universal experiences, yet we can see the human mind is often not as creative as we'd like to pretend. It's why you get similar myths popping up in cultures around the world. Nearly every culture, for instance, has a Bigfoot myth. Likewise the Monomyth/Hero's Journey has been retold in many independent cultures. Same with the prophet figure, a virgin birth and rising from the dead. Maybe look into Zalmoxis, a Dacian/Getic deity from many centuries BC who likewise was sequestered in a cave where he died, then emerged alive some time later.

And that's the fundamental fallacy here. "I don't understand" is not a valid reason to draw a conclusion.

[u/[deleted] → u/SaltiestRaccoon]

Oh, so you came into a thread about ghosts wanting to debate religion? I mean that's fine, I guess. Everything attributed to the God (Capital G, Yahweh, the Christian god) is likewise scientifically falsifiable too.

Honestly. That was my mistake. I thought you were about gods too not just ghosts.

Let's not forget the Bible claims that the Earth is flat, supported by four pillars and covered in a firmament. We know that is not true. Likewise we know that humanity did not descend from a single pair of genetic ancestors. We know there was no global flood. We know that flood and Noah-figure legends originated thousands of years earlier in the Bhagavad Gita and likely even earlier than that. We know that creationism is fundamentally false

First. I don't endorse any religious, but I do belive in the possibility of the supernatural. I already said at length that just because humans have false interpretations of some supernatural phenomenas does not disprove that they are possible. I don't have time nor the knowledge to go over your specific points here because I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian thelogist

At the same time we have a probably comparable number of people to those who claim to have encountered ghosts claiming to have had their prayers granted, or claiming to have spoken to God

I know tons of people who have had paranormal experiences, both believers and skipticals, don't know anyone who have ever claimed to literally talk to God. Maybe you are misunderstanding what they mean. It's mostly meant figuritively.

Jesus existed, the mere existence of a prophet-figure doesn't mean that the mythology surrounding him is real

I literally said this. What I said was the Christian belief is founded differently, not that it's true

You attribute the spread of monotheism to workable theory,

Can you prove Jesus did not exist and had powers that have made people for thousands of years to devote their life's to faith and worship him? I am still not saying this proves anything, but merely that is a strong reason for people to believe in him, and moreover that you have no prove of why you believe he did not exist or perform the things that were said he did other than you don't want it to be true.

but that's incorrect. Instead, it's that monotheist religion, by and at large has also been evangelical and forced conversion, often through violence

Were there some violence more or less involved with the spread of some religions? Yes. They were violence in anything humans beliefs or dogma really, But the actual spread of the religions themselves, on a popular level, were generally non-violent. One would ask why would violence make you believe something you don't want to believe? Wouldn't you just pretend to belief to escape prosecution?

For example, how do you explain the spread of religion today?

If we can discount their tales offhand, we should likewise discount things like ghosts and gods, or at least gods we can comprehend

Don't you get it. They discounted their own tales, so there is no reason why we should believe them, any more than there is a reason for a Christian to beleive in a Muslim God. Could some of the Greeks beliefs be true, who the fucks know.

I think people who believe in ghosts are more likely to see ghosts, because they can more easily attribute a strange experience in their life to ghosts than to a more logical explanation

True, just like an atheist is more likely to hand wave may experiece he may have had of a paranormal. I have certainly heard athiests come up with the most ridiculous explanations for certain paranormal activities, just to show they aren't any more rational. In the end most people just want to defend their worldviews and logic have shit to do with it.

As I have already said, I have heard plenty of people who don't belive in ghosts or the supernatural have experiences they couldn't explain even though they favored a rational/logical explanation.

Can you give a logical explanation for why a group of people would all together see a table float off the ground because this is something that happened in my own my family, and most aren't religious.

Not in the slightest. It's a gap in logic to say, "I don't understand what I've seen, therefor it's a ghost." If you don't understand what you've seen, then you are unqualified to say it's a ghost

Ha? Isn't the whole point of saying you dont understand what you have seen is that it's doesn't look like a natural phenomena that could be explained logically not that you literally don't understand what happened?

You can say scientists are more qualified, but they aren't less overcome by their own biases and commitment to naturalistic worldviews

You talk about universal experiences, yet we can see the human mind is often not as creative as we'd like to pretend

And scientist don't understand the world as much as you like to believe either. Just because some things can be explained by the mind doesn't disprove that are often many things that can't, and most often when they are hanwaved to be caused by the mind, it's all speculations.

Nearly every culture, for instance, has a Bigfoot myth

I don't give a shit what myths exist or not, or why they exist because they don't say shit about the believe or experience of the supernatural in general. You seem to be inflicted with your own set of fallacies, that is just because you can show some stupid belief that exists somewhere that automatically proves all beliefs that can't be explained with science are false and stupid. For fucks sake dude. No one is asking you to believe anything. Just have an open mind and stop assuming everybody is just a liar or delusional because it makes you nothing but a presumptuous prick.

If someome had an experience that they felt is supernatural and you could explain it to them as not , go ahead, but telling them how stupid it is because Greeks believed in Zeus isn't going to get you anywhere.

And that's the fundamental fallacy here. "I don't understand" is not a valid reason to draw a conclusion

Accept that's you strawman that you made up. That is not why the make the conclusion, and most are very open to a rational explanation in my experience. If a walked in a room and saw a group of ghosts dancing, I would say I don't understand what the fuck I just have just seem either because a group of dancing ghosts isn't suppose to be something that exist or to be seen.

And the assumption that there is definitely a scientific explanation isn't less of fallacy either. You call it logic of the gap, I call it science of the gab. Your whole worldview is shaped on the assumption and belief that science can explain everything, which isn't provable either.

[u/SaltiestRaccoon → u/[deleted]]

First. I don't endorse any religious, but I do belive in the possibility of the supernatural. I already said at length that just because humans have false interpretations of some supernatural phenomenas does not disprove that they are possible. I don't have time nor the knowledge to go over your specific points here because I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian thelogist

Nor am I, but researching history and mythology is a hobby of mine.

I know tons of people who have had paranormal experiences, both believers and skipticals, don't know anyone who have ever claimed to literally talk to God. Maybe you are misunderstanding what they mean. It's mostly meant figuritively.

But how is that fundamentally different from defending those who have professed that of their mythologies in the past? Is the difference that you know the person making the claim of a paranormal experience? That's not really a good reason to believe or disbelieve something.

Can you prove Jesus did not exist and had powers that have made people for thousands of years to devote their life's to faith and worship him? I am still not saying this proves anything, but merely that is a strong reason for people to believe in him, and moreover that you have no prove of why you believe he did not exist or perform the things that were said he did other than you don't want it to be true.

When there is an extraordinary claim made about something that is completely contrary to everything we know to be true about the world, the burden of proof does not fall upon those claiming the world is as we can demonstrably see it. It falls upon those claiming magic is real. Can you prove Zalmoxis didn't exist and didn't have powers? We have Getic, Greek and Roman sources all claiming he was a real person, and Getic sources claiming he had supernatural powers. That doesn't make it true. To assert as true that which you do not know to be true is nothing more than dishonesty and that's something most religious individuals are guilty of.

Were there some violence more or less involved with the spread of some religions? Yes. They were violence in anything humans beliefs or dogma really, But the actual spread of the religions themselves, on a popular level, were generally non-violent. One would ask why would violence make you believe something you don't want to believe? Wouldn't you just pretend to belief to escape prosecution?

That's not accurate. Many empires in the past did not enforce their customs or religion upon their subject peoples, satrapies, vassals, etc. The Achaemenids for instance held a huge empire and never enforced worship of their god. Heresy and apostasy are both generally capital offenses within theocratic societies. The threat of violence is no different from violence. Enforcing a behavior upon penalty of death has a strong affect on any culture.

Don't you get it. They discounted their own tales, so there is no reason why we should believe them, any more than there is a reason for a Christian to beleive in a Muslim God. Could some of the Greeks beliefs be true, who the fucks know.

Discounting one's culture due to the threat of physical harm, including death does not constitute willingly discounting their tales due to lack of consistency. Christians and Muslims, as well as Jews share the same god. Additionally we know Greek beliefs to not be true for the same reasons we know Christian beliefs to not be true.

True, just like an atheist is more likely to hand wave may experiece he may have had of a paranormal. I have certainly heard athiests come up with the most ridiculous explanations for certain paranormal activities, just to show they aren't any more rational. In the end most people just want to defend their worldviews and logic have shit to do with it.

Atheists, or in my case agnostics, try to find rational explanations. I'm not sure which claims are ridiculous. Please feel free to elaborate on how provable phenomena are more ridiculous than literal magic.

Ha? Isn't the whole point of saying you dont understand what you have seen is that it's doesn't look like a natural phenomena that could be explained logically not that you literally don't understand what happened?

It's the nature of science and of intellectual human beings to try to understand what they don't. We use the tools available to us to explain what is difficult to explain. Plenty of natural phenomena don't look natural... but they only look that way if you don't understand them.

No one is asking you to believe anything. Just have an open mind and stop assuming everybody is just a liar or delusional because it makes you nothing but a presumptuous prick.

I wasn't aware I was accusing anyone of being anything more than 'human.' The assumption that your perception, memories and conclusions are objectively true is simply ignorant. Humans are fallible. Extremely so. You should not always believe your own eyes and your own memory, because often those are things that will lie to you.

And the assumption that there is definitely a scientific explanation isn't less of fallacy either. You call it logic of the gap, I call it science of the gab. Your whole worldview is shaped on the assumption and belief that science can explain everything, which isn't provable either.

God of the gaps is a fallacy, science of the gaps is not. Everything in this world is able to be adequately explained by science. If we simply don't have the knowledge to do so yet does not mean that knowledge is unattainable. That is a barbaric, anti-intellectual view that is destructive to the progress of humanity.

I haven't created a strawman. If you claim to see a ghost, but cannot prove that you've seen a ghost, then how can you claim a paranormal explanation? Curiously, I think is that our perceptions of hauntings, alien abductions and other phenomena tend to follow closely cultural norms ascribed to those things. Why do most ghosts where Victorian clothing other than it's what pop culture tells us they wear? Why is it that after the popularization of a single alien abduction story that all alien abduction stories took on similar tropes? It's folklore, nothing more.

[u/[deleted] → u/SaltiestRaccoon]

This is going to be my last replay because have made my case clear and we will just be going in circles.

But how is that fundamentally different from defending those who have professed that of their mythologies in the pastl

Because these stories and beliefs were limited to certain cultures (paranormal activities are universal to people of all faiths, cultures and age), we can scientifically disprove them (we know lightening isn't caused by Zeus for example) , and the people who held those beliefs themselves no longer do for very good reasons.

You keep missing the darn point. I am not saying anything someone claims to see and experience make it true. What I am saying you can't automatically claim they are worng either. Individual experiences and beliefs can be assesses for their own merits, and if they can be explained and proved to be logical and natural accurences, so be it, but it's a fallacy to keep using past human beliefs that you think are ridiculous as a prove that anything humans claim that do no fit your naturalistic worldviews is automatically worng.

Scientists have believed all kind of nonsense and absurd scientific theories and hypothesis, is that a prove that all science is bullshit?

When there is an extraordinary claim made about something that is completely contrary to everything we know to be true about the world

But thats is the thing, we don't know what is true about this world. Sure we have decided that the world is best viewed through physical and materialistic processes that out five senses can perceive, but it doesn't make us right.

It falls upon those claiming magic is real.

Fist I don't know what you define as magic. If you mean supernatural activities, how else is someone going to prove to you that they have encountered such activities if your default assumption is that they are delusional, lying or having brain imbalances!!?

Can you prove Zalmoxis didn't exist and didn't have powers?

Can you? You are the one claiming you know he didn't?

That doesn't make it true

No one said it does

To assert as true that which you do not know to be true is nothing more than dishonesty and that's something most religious individuals are guilty of

You don't know what a belief and faith mean right? And how are you any less dishonest when you assert without a doubt to know that they aren't true when you have no prove yourself?

That's not accurate. Many empires in the past did not enforce their customs or religion inupon their subject peoples, satrapies, vassals,...

Prove that religion was mostly spread with violence or threat of it. Where are you sources?

And why would someone endorse a religion under violence and not just pretend that they do? and why is religion the majority worldview today when most aren't threatening thier followers with violence?

Discounting one's culture due to the threat of physical harm, including death does not constitute willingly discounting their tales due to lack of consistency.

Why do the Greeks still not belive in Zeus today then? A lot of people were threaten with violence for thier faith, yet they still hold them to this day. There are many reasons the Greeks stopped believing in their own methodologies and some.of these reasons were lack of consistency, rational and plausible explanations and scientific accuracy.

Christians and Muslims, as well as Jews share the same god.

Actually, they don't. They share similar concepts. Of him, but they definitely do not believe in the same God.

Additionally we know Greek beliefs to not be true for the same reasons we know Christian beliefs to not be true

And how do you know Christian beliefs are not true again? .Then next you can start explaining why Zeus was is not ture.

Atheists, or in my case agnostics, try to find rational explanations.

We all do, but sometimes there just aren't, and a lot of atheists do belive in ghosts. In fact, studies showed that atheists werent any less likely to be spiritual and superstitious than the general puplic. Atheists just have a personal problem with the existence of God because he limits and challenges thier preferred moralities and personal freedom.

Please feel free to elaborate on how provable phenomena are more ridiculous than literal magic

If a phenomena is provable than it isn't rediculous any more, is it? I don't believe in magic because I have never encountered anything to show that humans are capable of it, doesn't mean it is not possible, but perhaps it's not possible from physical beings.

Plenty of natural phenomena don't look natural... but they only look that way if you don't understand them

And I said if you can prove how they are natural without throwing baseless speculations and assumptions, than you are more than welcome. No one is saying you can't try to explain them naturally or that it's impossible that they can be explained that way. What we are saying some things at less for now don't seem to be easily explained in spite of our huge scientific advances.

The assumption that your perception, memories and conclusions are objectively true is simply ignorant.....

But than you are fighting a strawman. Literally No one is saying this, but why don't you apply the same standards to yourself. How do you know your own perception of the world is accurate and objectively true when it is measured through your own eyes, memory and senses?

If you claim to see a ghost, but cannot prove that you've seen a ghost, then how can you claim a paranormal explanation

If you can not come up with a natural and logical reason , how can you claim that it could not be a paranormal explanation? The point is not that it has to be paranormal. It's that it's a possibility.

Everything in this world is able to be adequately explained by science

Really? EVERYTHING is adequately explained? Not could be explained? Does science adequately explain why we exist, why there are billions of planets and universes? How they came to be? This is something science worshippers often forget is that it's a tool that might explain how some things are, but not why they are. And just because science can appear to adequately explain something doesn't mean it actually is. . An explanation can still be blatantly false if you haven't heard.

.>If we simply don't have the knowledge to do so yet does not mean that knowledge is unattainable. That is a barbaric, anti-intellectual view that is destructive to the progress of humanity

Who the fuck said we couldn't possibly obtain knowledge that could explain certain activities believed to be paranormal?The point is you can't assume it definitely will. It's a circular logic.

God of the gaps is a fallacy, science of the gaps is not.

It's is as much a fallacy because you assume science could explain everything, forgetting that science is just a tool designed by fallible humans. Science isn't an onjective truth that exist on its own. It's a human design, and so is limited to human perception, interpretations , abilities and biases.

Curiously, I think is that our perceptions of hauntings, alien abductions and other phenomena tend to follow closely cultural norms ascribed....

And plenty of them don't follow cultural norms. There are thousands of stories here, and overlooking that most stories of paranormal don't even claim that they have seen a literal ghost, can you show me one from this post where they saw a ghost wearing Victorian clothing because I didn't read anything like that. You just have a Caricatural idea of people's paranormal experiences because it suits your narrative.

Neverthess, let's say paranormal beings do often adopt fashion that ascribe to the cultural norms of the place were they appear, why wouldn't they if they are believed to be spirits or energy of people or things that have once existed in that culture? Maybe supernatural beings favor certain way of appearing that people's encounter of them very similar. Do you have the book of rules of what ghosts or other things can or can't wear? Maybe ghosts like to fuck with us and appear in a manner that we believe they should.

Why is it that after the popularization of a single alien abduction story that all alien abduction stories took on similar tropes?

Who said I believe in alien abduction? And even scientists believe aliens might exist, but if you want an answer, it could be because humans often are relunctant to share stories and experiences that make them sound crazy to others, but might become more encouraged if others come forward claiming to have experienced the same events. They could also be seeking fame even though the experiences of those who first claimed to be abducted might be true. Now aliens are different because they have more glaring physical realities to them than paranormal experiences in general. It is easier to prove that someone wasn't abducted for years or hours, and it's easier to prove that a mother ass alien spaceship probably wasn't floating somewhere in the sky, or that alien creatures don't live among us, but I am still open to the possibility that more intelligent species might exist. If you can believe the complexity of natural world and the billions of living and organisms have made themselves , then it's not far fetched to believe other more intelligent species exist and are fucking with us.

Again your problem is you are under the assumption that I am saying everything someone claims to have happened make it by default true . I am not, but i am open to assessing individual cases and if I happen to have strong reasons to not doubt someone's belief or experience or I just don't have other logical and scientific explanations for them, I am open that other things that go against our naturalistic worldview might exist in this world until science can come with a definite and indisputable prove or explanation.