Alien Believer stated this at the end but it is a good referene for their way of believing the entire conversation. “I think this topic is just like religion, those who believe need no proof and those who don’t won’t be convinced.”

Do you Believe in Aliens, on Faith also?

I am Open.

I live an open life, have an open mind, and an open personality.

I try to hide nothing about myself or my life. Both aspects of my openness are just me being me and a political statement to inspire change in others or aid in the understanding of others.

I live such openness and feel strengthened by it, thus have an open willingness to share my triumphs as well as be open to admit that which could be seen as more shameful knowing it to can inspire positive thinking or behavior.

I will openly talk in this way to a stranger or friends alike. I think openly about ideas and am forever openly looking to improve but open also to loving myself for the effort even if I am slow to success or fail, again and again.

I see my life open before me and thus an event is but one point in my journey, not an endpoint I am bound thus I am always striving at struggles with an open willingness to improve. I am thus open to change.

Moreover, just as I openly want to be seen as right, I am open to being wrong, knowing that a mind willing to see itself as wrong it has become a freethinker.

I am open to asking for help as I am open to help. I am open to being a friend to the world and tend to act with openness and thus even friendliness to those being unfriendly to me. I am open to making a difference in the lives of others just to help them and am open to doing it in an open thoughtful way.

Lastly, I have an open marriage as well as have an open style of how I relate in relationships romantic or otherwise.

I am open,

I am a strong rationalist and defending reason is a lifes calling.

When you start thinking your “out, atheism, antitheism or antireligionism is not vitally needed just remember all the millions of children being indoctrinated and need our help badly. Ones who desperately need our help with the truth. Three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.” If you are a faith believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

Alien Believer, this might be a little out there but here goes:

We have several dimensions in this world, in fact 3+, when you find your Twin flame a certain attachment is formed, the Universe sent you to each other, to achieve a certain task for humanity. You immediately recognize your Twin, and the way you communicate is through your higher self in the fifth dimension. Damien, I seem to recall in one of his posts you say something about that the term Spiritual? What I mean by Spiritual is we are connected to one another in a Wifi sort of a way. Mind to mind.” – Alien Believer

My response, I don’t see value in spiritual to me its like soul. Thoughts on Spirituality?

My response, “The English word “spirit” comes from the Latin spiritus,but also “spirit, soul, courage, vigor”, ultimately from a Proto-Indo-European *(s)peis. It is distinguished from Latin anima, “soul” (which nonetheless also derives from an Indo-European root meaning “to breathe”, earliest form *h2enh1-). In Greek, this distinction exists between pneuma (πνεῦμα), “breath, motile air, spirit,” and psykhē (ψυχή), “soul” (even though the latter term, ψῡχή = psykhē/psūkhē, is also from an Indo-European root meaning “to breathe”: *bhes-zero grade *bhs- devoicing in proto-Greek to *phs-, resulting in historical-period Greek ps- in psūkhein, “to breathe”, whence psūkhē, “spirit”, “soul”). The word “spirit” came into Middle English via Old Frenchref

My response, “The distinction between soul and spirit also developed in the Abrahamic religions: Arabic nafs (نفس) opposite rūħ (روح); Hebrew neshama (נְשָׁמָה‬ nəšâmâh) or nephesh נֶ֫פֶשׁ‬ nép̄eš (in Hebrew neshama comes from the root NŠM or “breath”) opposite ruach (רוּחַ‬ rúaħ). (Note, however, that in Semitic just as in Indo-European, this dichotomy has not always been as neat historically as it has come to be taken over a long period of development: Both נֶ֫פֶשׁ‬ (root נפשׁ‬) and רוּחַ‬ (root רוח‬), as well as cognate words in various Semitic languages, including Arabic, also preserve meanings involving misc. air phenomena: “breath”, “wind”, and even “odour”).” Similar concepts in other languages include Greek pneuma and Sanskrit akasha / atman (see also prana).” ref

My response, “Some languages use a word for spirit often closely related (if not synonymous) to mind. Examples include the German Geist (related to the English word ghost) or the French l’esprit. English versions of the Bible most commonly translate the Hebrew word ruach (רוח; wind) as “the spirit”, whose essence is divine. Alternatively, Hebrew texts commonly use the word nepheshKabbalists regard nephesh as one of the five parts of the Jewish soul, where nephesh (animal) refers to the physical being and its animal instincts. Similarly, ScandinavianBaltic, and Slavic languages, as well as Chinese (气 qi), use the words for breath to express concepts similar to “the spirit”. ref

My response, And like all unreasoned claims, I reject the odd thinking that aliens where here in the past too, thus reject fake Ancient Alien claims.

Faith is an Empty Box

My response, What proof is faith, when there is not anything one could not claim faith about when wanting to believe something with no proof or evidence at all? Faith is an invalid method to know the reality qualities of the world. Thus, every theory proposed from or with faith is equally invalid and since all ghosts, gods, soul/spirit, Bigfoot, aliens and religions require faith at some point in the belief ownership process as or in place of evidence and/or valid reasoning about reality. Therefore, they are all automatically invalid due to the limitation of faith not being able to produce things into reality. Moreover, faithists like to claim I cannot see the truth of what they propose on faith, because I don’t have faith. This just sounds like a fideist mythology, they think faith is better than reason or possibly even evidence. But faith is strong belief either without evidence or contrary to reason or evidence. Thus, in the acquisition of knowledge faith is not worth believing in and furthermore if it takes faith to see a thing as real you’re admitting such a thing has nothing to do with reality.

My response, The term “Fideism” itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism. Ref

Alien Believer – “I am an alien believer here is a video “POLE SHIFT” that is quite fascinating and I am convinced that Reptilians inhabited/inhabit this planet. 👽👽👽👽👽

My response, “A shifting of the Earth’s poles has been predicted to occur in the near future by a number of psychics, including the renowned Edgar Cayce. This certainly is not a scientific prediction, but some scientists believe that it is at least possible that this could happen at some future date, and perhaps has happened many times in our planet’s past. Whether or not we could survive a physical shifting of the Earth’s poles is open to debate; it could be much more cataclysmic than described above.” ref

My response, “A geological or axial shift in which the Earth’s crust literally slips around its molten core — like a loose peel on an orange — altering the positions of land masses with respect to the planet’s rotation on its axis. This could happen by a few degrees or by many degrees. Antarctica could wind up at the equator and Miami could be the new North Pole. The effects on our civilization would be devastating.” ref

My response, “A shift of the magnetic poles only. As it is, the Earth’s magnetic north (the north that compasses point to) is not exactly the same as the true North Pole. This magnetic pole is not fixed and can move. In fact, scientists are fairly certain that it has shifted by as much as 180 degrees several times in the past. This change may be sudden or it may be gradual, taking place over hundreds or even thousands of years. The effects on life on the planet would probably be minimal, affecting perhaps the migratory or homing instincts of some animals.” ref

My response, “Unfortunately (if you put stock in such things), Cayce was referring to a shift of the first type. He wrote: “There will be upheavals in the Arctic and Antarctic that will cause the eruption of volcanoes in the torrid areas and pole shift.” And when asked what great change or the beginning of what change, if any, is to take place in the earth in the year 2000 to 2001 A.D, he replied, “When there is a shifting of the poles. Or a new cycle begins.” Obviously, he missed the date, but it is interesting to note our current concerns over climate change and the drastic receding of Antarctica’s glaciers and ice shelves.” ref

Have Cataclysmic Pole Shifts Actually Happened Before?

My response, “Aside from psychics’ predictions of pole shifts to come, supporters the cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis have suggested that cataclysmic geological pole shifts, like those predicted by Cayce have actually happened in the past. These shifts, they claim, resulted in extremely rapid changes in the locations of the Earth’s geographic — rather than magnetic — poles, as well as the axis and spin of the planet. In an 1872 article entitled “Chronologie historique des Mexicains,” Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, an expert in Mesoamerican and Aztec manuscripts, interpreted native myths, writings, and maps as indicating that at least four such pole shift-related cataclysms had occurred beginning around 12,500 years ago. In 1948, respected electrical engineer Hugh Auchincloss Brown claimed that the massive weight of accumulating ice at the Earth’s poles caused axial polar shifts every 4,000 to 7,000 years. By 1948, scientists had confirmed that the Earth does, indeed, “wobble” on its axis, causing the planet’s outer crust to drift on the mantel below it. Brown argued that this wobble and drift effect made future cataclysmic polar shifts inevitable and suggested the use of nuclear weapons to break up the polar ice caps in order to prevent future catastrophes.” ref

My response, “In his controversial 1950 book, Worlds in Collision, historian Immanuel Velikovsky, cites ancient manuscripts and archaeological artifacts from around to world as evidence that around 3,500 years ago, Venus, then in the form of a comet-like object ejected from Jupiter, passed near the Earth changing the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt with devastating results. Another near miss by Venus 52 years later completely stopped the Earth’s rotation creating even worse havoc. Similar such near misses of the Earth by Mars between 776 and 687 BCE caused more pole shifting disaster. In the case of Velikovsky’s theories, astrophysicists have confirmed that collisions and near-misses of the planets did occur as the orbits of the planets stabilized over the centuries. More recently, engineer and explore Flavio Barbiero’s 1974 theory suggests that a drastic polar shift triggered by the impact of a comet around 11,000 years ago is recorded in mythology as having been the cause of the destruction of the island of Atlantis. Due to the polar shift, Barbiero suggests that, if it ever existed, Atlantis would be found under the Antarctic ice sheet today. The 1998 theory of retired civil engineer James G. Bowles suggests that the combined gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon over the millennia has slowly eroded the geological link between the Earth’s crust and the inner mantle. This Rotational-Bending, or RB-effect, as Bowles calls it, creates a “plastic zone” that allows the curst to rotate or drift independently of the mantle. Bowles suggests that pull of centrifugal forces on the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will cause the poles to drift toward the equator, possibly sooner than later.” ref

What Science and History Say

My response, “While earth sciences experts agree that geographic movement of the poles has occurred in the past, the rate and extent have been far smaller and of a less catastrophic impact than those predicted by the pole shift theorists. According to scientists, the extent of past polar drift has been less than 1-degree per million years or slower. Geologic records indicate that the geographical poles have not deviated by more than about 5-degrees over the last 130 million years.” ref

Alien Believer – “Here is a Video (Non-Human DNA Found in Elongated Paracas Skulls).”

My response, I have looked at all the archaeology from 1 million to 2,000 years ago and not one hint of aliens. Show me the article from archaeology to support such claims? It is proven false that Elongated Skulls Found in Peru Could Be Aliens. 

Alien Believer – “Here is a Video (Egyptian Pharaoh DNA Not Of This World).

My response, “Ancient Egyptian culture is fascinating to travelers, and draws millions to the country every year (when the political situation in the country is not too volatile). But much of what we think we know about pyramids, mummies and hieroglyphics is not in fact true. Blame it on outdated research, or films like Indiana Jones and The Mummy. Here are 15 myths about ancient Egypt that we’ve decided to set the record straight on.” ref

My response, “Some believe the pyramids were built by alien colonies, or to communicate with them; others see evidence of aliens in ancient Egyptian artwork. TV Programs like the History Channel’s “Ancient Aliens” (in the U.S.A.) promote such ideas with the flimsiest of evidence. In fact, the Egyptians were skilled engineers and determined of their own accord — without the help of non-human life forms — that the multi-dimensional triangular shape of a pyramid was the most structurally sound way to build a massive tomb structure. And instances of alien-like figures in artwork and murals have perfectly mundane explanations, according to Egyptologists.” ref

DNA discovery reveals genetic history of ancient Egyptians

My response, “Findings in Nature Communications, the study concluded that preserved remains found in Abusir-el Meleq, Middle Egypt, were closest genetic relatives of Neolithic and Bronze Age populations from the Near East, Turkey (Anatolia) and Eastern Mediterranean Europeans. Modern Egyptians, by comparison, share much more DNA with sub-Saharan populations. The findings have turned years of theory on its head, causing Egyptologists to re-evaluate the region’s history while unlocking new tools for scientists working in the field. Analyzing samples spanning over a millennium, researchers looked for genetic differences compared with Egyptians today. They found that the sample set showed a strong connection with a cluster of ancient non-African populations based east of the Mediterranean Sea. The far-reaching data set gained from looking at mitochondrial genomes: “This is not just the DNA of one person. It’s the DNA of the parents, grandparents, grandparents’ parents, grand-grand-grandparents’ parents and so forth. “The genetics of the Abusir el-Meleq community did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300-year timespan we studied,” said Wolfgang Haak, group leader at the Max Planck Institute.” ref

My response, My blog on the ancient aliens has real truth. No aliens found by science ever, anywhere and certainly not in DNA of ancient Egyptians. 

Alien Believer – “Evidence for you, Scientists, Archeoligists, Geoligists speaking the truth of ancient aliens. Here is a Video (Something Is Not Adding Up Here.. THEY Are Hiding It! (2019-2020).”

Alien Believer – “Your comments on this Video, (This is crazy !!! I Couldn’t Believe What He Said ‘Aliens want to take over our United States), please 🤗.”

My response, I already gave you a link with an archaeologist which like me has informed you of the truth if you want to believe otherwise go for it I will not watch your anything as I want valid facts, not wishful thinking or conspiracy theories my opinion is that. I don’t have time for mythology old or new. According to smithsonianmag.com, The Idiocy, Fabrications and Lies of Ancient Aliens

My response, Here is some educated thoughts from Brian Switek, a freelance science writer specializing in evolution, paleontology, and natural history. He blogs regularly for Scientific American.

My response, “By Brian Switek, until now (2012), I have assiduously avoided Ancient Aliens. I had a feeling that if I watched the show—which popularizes far-fetched, evidence-free idiocy about how human history has been molded by extra-terrestrial visitors—my brain would jostle its way out of my skull and stalk the earth in search of a kinder host. Or, at the very least, watching the show would kill about as many brain cells as a weekend bender in Las Vegas. But then I heard the History Channel’s slurry of pseudoscience had taken on dinosaurs. I steeled myself for the pain and watched the mind-melting madness unfold. I’m actually glad that my editors don’t allow me to cuss a blue streak on this blog. If they did, my entire review would be little more than a string of expletives. Given my restrictions, I have little choice but to try to encapsulate the shiny, documentary-format rubbish in a more coherent and reader-sensitive way. The episode is what you would get if you dropped some creationist propaganda, Erich von Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods and stock footage from Jurassic Fight Club into a blender. What results is a slimy and incomprehensible mixture of idle speculation and outright fabrications which pit the enthusiastic “ancient alien theorists,” as the narrator generously calls them, against “mainstream science.” I would say “You can’t make this stuff up,” but I have a feeling that that is exactly what most of the show’s personalities were doing. There was so much wrong with the Ancient Aliens episode that I could spend all week trying to counteract every incorrect assertion. This is a common technique among cranks and self-appointed challengers of science; it is called Gish Gallop after young earth creationist Duane Gish. When giving public presentations about evolution and creationism, Gish rapidly spouted off a series of misinterpretations and falsehoods to bury his opponent under an avalanche of fictions and distortions. If Gish’s opponent tried to dig themselves out, they would never be able to make enough progress to free themselves to take on Gish directly. Ancient Aliens uses the same tactic—the fictions come fast and furious.” ref

Alien Believer – “Fair enough, you asked for Archaeological input so I gave it to you 🤗 and indeed you believe what you deem true and so do I 👽🤣.”

My response, You did not give what I asked for and the first one I have shown was wrong a misunderstanding or lack of understanding is called ignorance and when one looks at the unknown or non-understood and make a truth claim this fallacious thinking is in philosophy called an argument from ignorance which is what the videos you offered are doing. When you don’t really know wild guessing is intellectual lying if one is stating them as any kind of truth.

My response, “Argument from ignorance is also known as an appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”) is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.” ref 

Alien Believer – “Ok, so you are saying that the Archaeologists and Geologists interviewed don’t know what they are talking about?”

My response, This relates to Axiological “Presumptive-Value” 

My response, Claims such as bigfoot, god or aliens are a Presumptive-Value claim all requiring a valid and reliable justification to assure its soundness or claimed truth to assess accuracy actually available to reason so or it is a failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification. Axiological “presumptive-value” Failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking (unsound axiological judgment, lacking required evidence to make a “presumptive-value” success decision) lacking the support of a needed valid and reliable justification.

My response, Often I get disheartened to see that so many people can look at the unknown or that which is devoid of any and all understanding and claim to know that this is evidence for Bigfoot, god or aliens. How can they with all honesty even say that they somehow already know about an established scientific unknown, when all along it is what it ever was, which I will remind you, is currently holding a confirmed status of unknown. Thus, still fully intact as currently unknowable (I.e. you simply cannot justifiably claim that such unknown is Bigfoot, god or aliens or evidence of Bigfoot, god or aliens). What really is a Bigfoot, god or aliens anyway? The terms Bigfoot, god or aliens equals mystery that is used to explain the mysterious leaving us with yet more mystery, thus explains nothing. Claims of Bigfoot, god or aliens are a Presumptive-Value failure. Simply, if you presume a thing is of value that you can’t justify, then you have committed an axiological presumptive value failure. Axiological “presumptive-value” Success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

My response, There are no valid archeologists claiming that there is proof of aliens what you do have is pseudo-historians.

My response, “Pseudohistory is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record, often using methods resembling those used in legitimate historical research. Pseudohistory frequently presents a big lie or sensational claims about historical facts which would require the revision (re-writing) of the historical record. The related term cryptohistory applied to a pseudohistory based upon or derived from the superstitions inherent to occultism. Pseudohistory is related to pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology and usage of the terms may occasionally overlap.” ref

My response, “Pseudohistory presents many of the same challenges to mainstream academic history as pseudoscience does to science, but with certain significant differences. The most important difference is that history is an academic discipline, rather than a scientific one. This means that mainstream history is very dependent on a set of shared ethical academic standards and methods, and on peer review. However, supporters of pseudohistorical theories often specifically deny the validity of these mainstream standards and methods, and denounce the peer review process as prejudiced towards the academic establishment, attempting instead to gain popular appeal. This lack of common ground can often make it difficult for mainstream historians to refute the pseudohistorical claims. Pseudohistory is often born out of a desire to achieve a particular, predetermined result—often to justify some present-day action or agenda. Pseudohistory is often combined with pseudoarchaeology, as coupled with belief in alleged ancient civilizations such as Atlantis, or with the teachings of New Age sources such as Ramtha or the Urantia Book, claiming historical events and timelines which did not actually happen. “Ramtha”, for example, is a channelled being who claims to have led a conquering army over 2/3 of the earth 35,000 years ago. National mysticism is the combination of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology with an alleged history of a particular racial or national group, claiming an ancient and sometimes supernatural origin of a modern people (perhaps linked with claims to a modern homeland) unsupportable by genuine history.” ref

My response, If you believe in aliens then likely you know the con Zecharia Sitchin. Skepdic.com addresses, Zecharia Sitchin and The Earth Chronicles

My response, “Zecharia Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, make up the holy trinity of pseudohistorians. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin’s claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. [Of course, he didn’t announce this by taking out an ad in the New York Times but by implying it with his “translations” that do not jibe with the work of legitimate scholars in the field.] If Sitchin is right, then all other scholars have misread these tablets, which, according to Sitchin, reveal that gods from another planet (Nibiru or Niburu, which orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and created humans by genetic engineering of female apes. Niburu orbits beyond Pluto and is heated from within by radioactive decay, according to Sitchin. No other scientist has discovered that these descendants of gods blew themselves up with nuclear weapons some 4,000 years ago (The War of Gods and Men, p. 310).* Sitchin alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets (ibid., p. 46).* Yet, he doesn’t seem to know that the seasons are caused by the earth’s tilt, not by its distance from the sun.” ref

My response, “Sitchin was born in Russia, was raised in Palestine, and graduated from the University of London with a degree in economic history. He worked for years as a journalist and editor in Israel before settling in New York.” ref

My response, “Sitchin, like Velikovsky, presents himself as erudite and scholarly in a number of books, including The Twelfth Planet (1976) and The Cosmic Code (1998). Both Sitchin and Velikovsky write very knowledgeably of ancient myths and both are nearly scientifically illiterate. Like von Däniken and Velikovsky, Sitchin weaves a compelling and entertaining story out of facts, misrepresentations, fictions, speculations, misquotes, and mistranslations. Each begins with their beliefs about ancient visitors from other worlds and then proceeds to fit facts and fictions to their basic hypotheses. Each is a master at ignoring inconvenient facts, making mysteries where there were none before, and offering their alien hypotheses to solve the mysteries. Their works are very attractive to those who love a good mystery and are ignorant of the nature and limits of scientific knowledge. They are especially attractive to those who are ignorant of biblical and historical scholarship. Sitchin promotes himself as a Biblical scholar and master of ancient languages, but his real mastery was in making up his own translations of Biblical texts to support his readings of Sumerian and Akkadian writings.” ref

He’s let us know he’s going to twist the translations around to support his thesis. Indeed, a reader of Sitchin’s book would do well to keep a couple of Bibles handy to check up on the verses Sitchin quotes. Many of them will sound odd or unrecognizable because they have been translated from their familiar form (this is made harder by the fact that Sitchin rarely tells you just which verse he is quoting). This would be much more acceptable if he wasn’t using the twisted translations to support the thesis that led to the twisted translations (Hafernik).

My response, “Most of Sitchin’s sources are obsolete. He has received nothing but ridicule from scientific archaeologists and scholars familiar with ancient languages. His most charming quality seems to be his vivid imagination and complete disregard for established facts and methods of inquiry, traits that are apparently very attractive to some people. Sitchin’s ideas have been appropriated by Raël, another wise man, who has started his own religion (Raëlian Religion) around the idea that humans are the result of a DNA experiment by ancient visitors from outer space. Raël has even written a channeled book, dictated to him by extraterrestrials. It is called The Final Message. We can only hope it is. See also alien abductionancient astronautsSiriusdoomsday & doomsday cults face on MarsUFO, and Velikovsky.” ref

Alien Believer – “Damien Marie Athope, Interesting that you should mention Sitchin! He is one of many acknowledging advanced civilizations. But hey, it doesn’t worry me, really it’s neither here or there, the fact that Nibiru was observed through the Hubble telescope either, I am simply interested in our origins, and how the hell humans built those pyramids with technology unavailable to us today. 🤨

My response, “According to space.com (2018), “Nibiru, is linked to the close of the Mayan calendar, a variety of rumors spread regarding ways the world could end back in 2012. One popular contender was Nibiru, a supposed planet that some claimed would collide with Earth at the end of that year. But despite the buzz, there’s no scientific evidence supporting the alleged planet’s existence — and, of course, our planet survived 2012 without absorbing a massive impact. Nibiru has been linked to NASA by various bloggers. Because of this claimed connection, space agency officials put out a statement saying that no big planet was coming to destroy Earth in 2012. What follows below is the true science and history of this supposed rogue planet, with reference to a real object, Comet Elenin, that somehow got mixed up in the whole mess. And we’ll also talk about another hypothetical world that may actually exist in the far outer system — Planet Nine. [The Evidence for ‘Planet Nine’ in Our Solar System (Gallery)]” ref

The origins of the Nibiru myth?

My response, “The story began in 1976, when Zecharia Sitchin wrote “The Twelfth Planet,” a book which used Stitchin’s own unique translation of Sumerian cuneiform to identify a planet, Nibiru, orbiting the sun every 3,600 years. Several years later, Nancy Lieder, a self-described psychic, announced that the aliens she claimed to channel had warned her this planet would collide with Earth in 2003. After a collision-free year, the date was moved back to 2012, where it was linked to the close of the Mayan long-count period. When Comet Elenin appeared in 2011, many were concerned that it was the mysterious planet in disguise, despite the fact that planets and comets appear very different under a telescope. (A comet has a gas atmosphere, called a coma, and a tail, while a planet does not.) But instead of slamming into the Earth, the comet strayed too close to the sun and broke into pieces. The leftover fragments will continue on their path to the outer solar system for the next 12,000 years, still bits of comet and not a more cohesive planet.” ref

Evidence for Nibiru?

My response, “Proponents of the fictitious planet note that, in 1984, a scientific paper was published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters which discussed several infrared sources with “no counterparts” that turned up in a survey of the sky. Such surveys are common in astronomy and usually involve follow-ups that individually detail the more interesting sources. In the follow-up of the 1984 survey, most of the sources turned out to be distant galaxies. None were identified as planets. Both papers are available to the public. A planet with an orbit so eccentric that it took 3,600 years to orbit the sun would create instabilities inside our 4.5-billion-year-old solar system. After only a few trips, its gravity would have significantly disrupted the other planets, whose own gravitaitonal pushes would have changed the hypothetical world’s orbit significantly. The easiest and most verifiable piece of evidence arguing against the existence of the theoretical planet can be performed by anyone: According to the information available, a planet with a 3,600-year-long orbit that was due to impact Earth in 2012 should be available to the naked eye. Easily performed calculations show that, by April 2012, it would have been brighter than the faintest stars viewed from a city, and almost as bright as Mars at its dimmest. This would have made it visible to astronomers everywhere. The most common rebuttal to this is the cry of “Cover up!” However, there are hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers around the world, many of whom own their own telescopes. On top of that, most of the thousands of professional astronomers are linked not to the government but rather to private universities. Astronomer David Morrison pointed out in 2012 that “NASA and the government get most of their information from these outside astronomers, not the other way around.” Between the amateur and professional astronomers, there are plenty of people who would have noticed a new “star” in the sky.” ref

Nothing to fear

My response, “Doomsday reports across the internet frequently incite fear, but it’s interesting to note they are nothing new. People have been decrying the end of the world for hundreds of years. Rumors spread like wildfire on the internet, but the same technology can make it easier than ever to delve into the scientific evidence about such events.” ref

Alien Believer – “I get into debates with other atheists on a regular basis about Alien life, they will back you up all the way 🤗 and it’s ok, I still love them and they still love me, and I love you too my friend. 😎

My response, Please get informed on this he s not what you think. Sitchin’s ideas have been rejected by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. His work has been criticized for flawed methodology and ministrations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin And Michael Tellinger is another con I bet you believe right? Michael Who? South African Crank of the week: Michael Tellingerin 2005 when he published Slave Species of God. Slave Species is essentially a plagiarism retelling of the ideas of Zecharia Sitchin. The idea goes like this: There is another large planet in our solar system, unknown to science, named Nibiru. It spends most of its time in the outer solar system, but its highly elliptical orbit brings into the inner solar system once every 3,600 years or so. When that happens, it has weird gravitational interactions with Earth, causing all manner of catastrophes including, but not limited to, geographic pole shifts. Nibiru is also inhabited by a super-intelligent race of aliens called the Annunaki. From time to time, they’ve visited Earth and its inhabitants, meddling with, creating and enslaving the local apes – essentially founding the Human race, as well as laying the foundations for all our technology and our entire civilisation. If the terms “Nibiru” and “Annunaki” sound familiar to you, you’ll recognise that they are names that arise from Sumerian mythology. Sitchin and Tellinger use a creative silly wrong set of translations of ancient Sumerian texts and symbols to “prove” that just about all ancient mythology should be taken as literal, historical fact – just replace terms like “gods”, “angels” and so on with “aliens”, and you’re all set. http://01universe.blogspot.com/2012/05/south-african-crank-of-week-michael.html

Alien Believer – “I am a fairly practical individual Damien and seriously? You will never convince me human beings built the pyramids. 💖🤗

My response, I know full well about the pyramids and they are connected to a larger religious behavior linked to china and Europe as well as Siberia and Turkey as well as other areas in the middle east and other parts of Africa. The pyramids in 4,000 connect to Kurgans 7,000/6,000 years ago/Dolmens 7,000/6,000 years ago.

Alien Believer – “Ok, can we agree to disagree? Yes ….. there’s too much practical information to say that nah we didn’t build those. 🤗

My response, No, wrong, wrong, and wrong, there you go again with more false claims. I have facts for everything I say you offered a claim I debunked with facts and the other is also an argument from ignorance so you can illogically disagree but I will not agree. I as I said do care what you choose to believe but you don’t get to beg me to check it out or offer it as any kind of truth without me challenging it. I was letting it go as It does not matter to me but you wanted my response so I gave it I find that what you asked and I offered, if you now wish to move-on, cool, I was blowing this off anyway already. I find such beliefs odd but not harmful like theism.

My response, “According to livescience.com, Over the past two decades, researchers have made a number of discoveries related to the pyramids, including a town built near the pyramid of Menkaure, a study showing how water can make blocks easier to move and a papyrus found by the Red Sea. These have allowed researchers to gain a better understanding of how the Giza pyramids were built. The new finds add to older knowledge gained over the last two centuries. The techniques used to build the Giza pyramids were developed over a period of centuries, with all of the problems and setbacks that any modern-day scientist or engineer would face. Pyramids originated from simple rectangular “mastaba” tombs that were being constructed in Egypt over 5,000 years ago, according to finds made by archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie. A major advance occurred during the reign of the pharaoh Djoser (reign started around 4,630 years ago). His mastaba tomb at Saqqara started off as a simple rectangular tomb before being developed into a six-layered step pyramid with underground tunnels and chambers.” ref

My response, “Another leap in pyramid-building techniques came during the reign of the pharaoh Snefru (reign started around 4,575 years ago) who built at least three pyramids. Rather than constructing step pyramids, Snefru’s architects developed methods to design smooth-faced, true pyramids. It appears that Snefru’s architects ran into trouble. One of the pyramids he constructed at the site of Dahshur is known today as the “bent pyramid” because the angle of the pyramid changes partway up, giving the structure a bent appearance. Scholars generally regard the bent angle as being the result of a design flaw. Snefru’s architects would correct the flaw; a second pyramid at Dahshur, known today as the “red pyramid” — so named after the color of its stones — has a constant angle, making it a true pyramid. Snefru’s son, Khufu, would use the lessons from his father and earlier predecessors to construct the “Great Pyramid,” the largest pyramid in the world. Researchers are working to understand the sophisticated planning that would have been involved in pyramid building, which required constructing not just the pyramids, but also the temples, boat pits and cemeteries located near the enormous structures.” ref

My response, “Researchers have noted that the Egyptians had the ability to align structures to true north very precisely, something that may have helped in planning the pyramids. Glen Dash, an engineer who studies the pyramids at Giza as part of Ancient Egypt Research Associates (AERA), noted that Khufu’s pyramid is aligned to true north within one-tenth of a degree. How the ancient Egyptians did this is not fully clear. In a report published recently in an AERA newsletter, Dash wrote that a circumpolar star like Polaris and lines of rope were likely used as part of the method. Over the past few years archaeologists with AERA have been excavating and studying a port at Giza that would have been used to bring in supplies, food and people. The papyri found at Wadi al-Jarf allude to the importance of Giza’s ports, saying that limestone blocks, used in the outer casing of the pyramid, were shipped from quarries to the pyramid sites within a few days using boat transport. The port that AERA archaeologists found is located by a town built near Menkaure’s pyramid. This town had sizable homes for high officials, a barracks complex that likely held troops and buildings where large numbers of clay seals (used in record keeping) were found. The ordinary workers likely slept in simple dwellings near the pyramid site.” ref

My response, “Estimates given by various archaeologists for the size of the workforce at Giza tend to hover around 10,000 people for all three pyramids. These people were well-fed; in a study published in 2013, Richard Redding, the chief research officer at AERA, and colleagues found that enough cattle, sheep and goats were slaughtered every day to produce 4,000 pounds of meat, on average, to feed the pyramid builders. The finding was detailed in the book “Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the ICAZ Working Group ‘Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas’” (Peeters Publishing, 2013). Redding used the animal bone remains found at Giza, and the nutritional requirements for a person doing hard labor, to make the discovery. Redding also found that animals were brought in from sites on the Nile Delta and kept in a corral until they were slaughtered and fed to the workers. The workers’ meat-rich diet may have been an inducement for people to work on the pyramids, Redding said. “They probably got a much better diet than they got in their village,” Redding told Live Science in 2013.” ref

My response, “To move the stones overland, the Egyptians would have used large sledges that could be pushed or pulled by gangs of workers. The sand in front of the sledge was likely dampened with water, something that reduced friction, making it easier to move the sledge, a team of physicists from the University of Amsterdam found in a study published in 2014 in the journal Physical Review Letters. “It turns out that wetting Egyptian desert sand can reduce the friction by quite a bit, which implies you need only half of the people to pull a sledge on wet sand, compared to dry sand,” Daniel Bonn, a physics professor at the University of Amsterdam and lead author of that study, told Live Science in 2014. The scientists said scenes in ancient Egyptian artwork show water being poured in front of sledges. Most Egyptologists agree that when the stones arrived at the pyramids, a system of ramps was used to haul the stones up. However, Egyptologists are uncertain how these ramps were designed. Little evidence of the ramps survives, but several hypothetical designs have been proposed over the last few decades. New data may come from the Scan Pyramids Mission, an initiative being undertaken by researchers at three different universities, the Heritage Innovation Preservation Institute and the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities. This project’s scientists are in the process of scanning and reconstructing the Giza pyramids using a variety of technologies. In addition to finding out more about the construction of the pyramids, the project may also reveal if there are any undiscovered chambers within the structures. ref

My response, You stated (“there’s too much practical information to say that nah we didn’t build those”) and with no support at all, when you have a burden of proof obligation, yet you still fail to meet the neds of intellectual honesty and the ethics of belief require. “there’s too much practical information to say that Nah we didn’t build those” No, there actually is no evidence but humans doing all of it, don’t state untruth as truth.

My response, “The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of fact to consider a disputed claim. After participants have met the burden of production and their claim is being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts. The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. The party that does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption of being correct, they are presumed to be correct, until the burden shifts after presentation of evidence by the party bringing the action.” ref

My response, “Burden of proof (philosophy) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens’s razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. ref

Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth.

My response, “There are disincentives to intellectual honesty. Academics may find themselves pressured to argue for the stances of their benefactors, including governments and private entities that fund grants (in fact, this is trained into them in education, as the same pressures are exerted by teachers and professors upon their students). Judges may face political pressure to render a judicial opinion endorsing a legal argument that they know to be flawed. Auditors may issue a favorable opinion of a company’s financial statements, despite having serious misgivings about their adherence to generally accepted accounting principles, in order to continue receiving business from that company. (In general, perverse incentives and conflicts of interest provide highly fertile ground for intellectual dishonesty.) The more complicated the issue and the murkier the facts, the easier it may be for an intellectual to get away with presenting a plausible but flawed argument. In a world where people, including intellectuals, often pursue incentives more eagerly than they seek after high ideals, it is important that ways be found to make the interests of intellectuals coexist with the interests of those whose well-being depends on their intellectual honesty, if intellectual dishonesty is to be consistently avoided. Some intellectual dishonesty can be subtle. For example, relevant facts and information may be purposefully omitted when such things contradict one’s hypothesis, or facts may be presented in a biased manner or twisted to give misleading impressions. Broadly speaking, any of the following behaviors would fall under intellectual dishonesty.” ref

Common forms of intellectual dishonesty include plagiarism, applying double standards, using false analogies, exaggeration and overgeneralization, presenting straw man arguments, and poisoning the well (not literally). A form of intellectual dishonesty common on conservative sites like Conservapedia is the suppression of evidence that contradicts their orthodoxy by reverting without explanation any edit that links to or otherwise presents such evidence. ref

My response, Read my blogs if you want interesting history as what is real is still amazing.

Alien Believer – “lift a 70 ton rock at the top of a pyramid? The air vents are so precise that even modern engineering cannot replicate this accuracy and I can go on but I am not about trying to change your opinion you are entitled to it.”

My response, So you don’t know something to make a truth claim? NO.

According to the-Vintage-News.com (2017), “It took 12 men two hours to carve out the 70-ton rock. The block of limestone was loaded onto the modern boat using a crane, but Mohammed believes the Egyptians’ rocks were cracked before loading to make the work easier. The rocks had to be in very specific positions to keep the boat upright. As the quarries were upstream of the valley, the workers could easily row with the current and then use their sails to move the empty boat back up the river for another load. When Muhammed’s boat was sailing, they tried to move across the river rather than along with the current and found this was nearly impossible. They realized in order to succeed, they must mimic the ancient Egyptians and arrived with the limestone and boat intact. ref

It’s believed by Egyptologists that the Great Pyramid was originally built to serve as the tomb of the Old Kingdom’s Sixth Dynasty Pharaoh Khufu (Khnum Khufwy) and was sealed with all the funerary equipment and other things needed by the deceased king in the afterlife.

Here is an actual picture to disprove your false claim“The air vents are so precise that even modern engineering cannot replicate this accuracy” Again, NO, it is not beyond modern engineering. This picture is one of your claimed precise air vents,The picture is from inside one of the small shafts in the Great Pyramid. There were some regions in these shafts, like this one, that were less than expertly carved. https://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/star-shaft-pointing-busted-debunking-star-shaft-theory-great-pyramid-003643

Alien Believer – “The Pyramids as I understand are not tombs, but merely electrical factories, have a read of Nicola Tesla if you feel like it, and one application which hasn’t yet been discovered is the outside chamber and it’s vibration and sound in Hertz. Okay, my poor English, in my opinion ……. and that way I don’t come across as telling a fact yes? And yes I will study your videos I am not biased, as I said, just fascinated. The above I know, Teams of Scientists from the World over have stated that the Pyramids have been built using unavailable technology to this day. Well the evidence presented isn’t by myself but eminent Scientists?”

Power station “theory”

“The Giza pyramids have been the cause of more extreme wingnuttery, pseudosciencebullshit, and woo than any other ancient monument on the planet. They are popular focal points for theories concerning ufology, the IlluminatiAtlantis, and certain sects of Christianity. People who espouse such ideas in relation to the Giza pyramids are referred to as pyramidiots (similar to, but not to be confused with “IDiots“). In a classic example of extreme wingnuttery, Christopher Dunn, a mechanical engineer with an interest in history, claims that the Egyptians used machine tools to build the Giza pyramids. He argues how the Great Pyramid (the others don’t matter) was, in fact, a massive power plant that used the magnetic poles and “vibrations” channeled through “harmonic resonators” and the dimensions of the structure to generate huge amounts of power, before being destroyed in a massive fire caused by its use of hydrogen. Central to his argument is the supposition that the ancient Egyptians had a generally ultra-high level of technology, as evidenced by the accuracy and quality of their stonework. In support of this he points to examples of work with hard stone around the Giza pyramids and the Serapeum at Saqqara.” ref

He fails, however, to mention several key points:

Whilst the achievements in accuracy and quality of engineering and workmanship in both the Pyramids of Giza and elsewhere in Egyptian sculpture and architecture are humbling, it was well within their capabilities as a Bronze Age civilization thanks to an efficient bureaucratic and social organisation that was able to control the quality and speed of work, availability of labour, tools, and supplies, and provide literate expertise to oversee and guide the work being done. The theory that the Great Pyramid was some kind of machine was also postulated by author Alan Alford, in his book Gods of the New Millennium, although he later retracted this in the foreword to his follow-up book, The Phoenix Solution.” ref

“Most were built as tombs for the country’s pharaohs and their consorts during the Old and Middle Kingdom periods.” ref

Alien Believer – “Nicola Tesla, please have a look. Peace man ….. I am interested not uncompromising.

My response, “The original purpose of a tomb was to protect the dead and provide the deceased with a dwelling equipped with necessities for the afterlife. Tombs probably arose from the prehistoric practice of burying the deceased in their own homes. Eventually, tombs were replaced graves and funerary urns, and the practice of building tombs died out during the Renaissance. Some of the most famous tombs in the world include the pyramids of Egypt,” https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-egypt/tombswith

Alien Believer – “Damien Marie Athope, As you are aware there news and the forbidden news but I might be wrong, hey.”

My response, To me, there simply is and rightly must be an intellectual “ethical-belief-responsibility” (burden of proof) to justify the believed truth that is claimed to others is actually demonstrably as being true with valid and reliable reason and/or evidence when it is stated as such. Yes, intellectually one should provide (justificationism) for their assertions that map the sort of governing good habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment.

The Way of a Sound Thinker?

“Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.”

Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasonedmethodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparativemore reasonedsuperlativemost reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradictionprinciple of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. It is the second of the three classic laws of thoughtLastly, let me make this clear, Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH!

According to Ancient-Origins.net, “Let’s address your reptilian extraterrestrials, like different rare blood. Most people who have the Rh blood type are Rh-positive. There are also instances, however, where people are Rh-Negative. Health problems may occur for the unborn child of a mother with Rh-Negative blood when the baby is Rh-Positive. This has led some to suggest that Rh-Negative blood must be of a non-human origin. Theories range from supernatural ones such as being of divine descent or membership in a divinely chosen people-group, to more scientific or pseudoscientific explanations such as interbreeding with extraterrestrials. The majority of scientists who have studied the blood type have concluded that it is most likely just a random mutation. This explanation seems to be the one most consistent with available evidence and the one that is most able to withstand Occam’s Razor. This unusual trait can, however, also be explained in terms of relatively mundane human genetics and natural selection. One possibility is that the gene for Rh-Negative blood has some sort of selective advantage that outweighed the negative consequences of having Rh-Negative blood.” ref

“A well-known example of this phenomenon would be the case of sickle cell anemia and malaria. A large percentage of the population in west Africa where malaria is common consists of carriers of the gene for sickle-cell anemia, although they don’t have the disease themselves. The reason is that just carrying the gene for sickle cell anemia gives the person carrying it immunity to Malaria. Although sickle-cell anemia is harmful, even deadly, carrying the gene gives a selective advantage and therefore it is much more common than would be expected. The extraterrestrial explanation is even more problematic because the Rh-Negative gene is clearly a variation of an otherwise completely human gene. Unless it was specifically engineered by extraterrestrials from a pre-existing human gene, it is unlikely that it comes from anything other than Homo Sapiens.” ref

“The other problem with the Rh-Negative blood type being the result of hybridization with extraterrestrials is that extraterrestrials are likely to have a completely different biology and genome than human beings. Their genome might not even be based on DNA – but something else such as RNA, or some exotic form of genetic storage that never evolved on Earth. This would make any viable hybrids very improbable if not impossible. As the astronomer Carl Sagan would have put it, it would be easier to make a human-tulip hybrid, than a human-extraterrestrial hybrid. The unlikelihood and uncertainty of the other options make the explanation that the Rh-Negative blood type is just a mutation that became common in some populations due to a selective advantage the most likely option. It is also the one that most easily survives the application of Occam’s Razor. If this blood type was because of another human species, let alone extraterrestrials, many more unnecessary assumptions that are difficult to verify have to be made. As a result, the evidence currently points toward little more than an ordinary mutation as the cause of the Rh-Negative blood phenotype.” ref

My response, You are wrong on all your odd claims, which I have show again and again with facts and I know how wrong as I study thousands of archaeology documents every few months and have thousands of archaeology friends on Linkedin (4,232 Connections many archaeologists or anthropologists) who post real archaeology facts others are unaware of all the time and I have the archaeology news link that gets all archaeology that relevant in the world, so I know more that the pseudo-scientific and pseudo-historians you seem to believe even if they have debunked claims and yet doubt me, when I back up all I claim with facts and sound reason, which you need to work on.

“The term Chinese pyramids refers to pyramidal shaped structures in China, most of which are ancient mausoleums and burial mounds built to house the remains of several early emperors of China and their imperial relatives. About 38 of them are located around 25 kilometres (16 mi) – 35 kilometres (22 mi) north-west of Xi’an, on the Guanzhong Plains in Shaanxi Province. The most famous is the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, northeast of Xi’an and 1.7 km west of where the Terracotta Warriors were found. The earliest tombs in China are found just north of Beijing in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and in Liaoning. They belong to the Neolithic Hongshan culture(4700 to 2900 BC). The site of Niuheliang in Liaoning contains a pyramidal structure.” ref

Here is some wild facts about the connections with ancient Egypt and China: Haplogroup X in China, Egypt, North Africa, Caucasus, Central Asia, and European alludes to shared connected similarities and in ideas or behaviors.

Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be “right” reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties and other relevant issues resulting in the most clear optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability.

Alien Believer – “Cool, but still, study Nicola Tesla and he is not a pseudo-scientist. Interesting theory, also based on Tesla and the wi-fi energy. You have an open mind you say? Have a look at Tesla, Love and Peace man. You should have been a Lawyer. lol 🤗

Free energy (pseudoscience) – RationalWiki

My response, Nicola Tesla was a top-notch electrical engineer, but almost all of the fanciful inventions attributed to him by conspiracy theorists are fictional. Why a Conspiracy Theory about Nikola Tesla just can’t be True and almost all of the fanciful inventions attributed to Tesla by conspiracy theorists are Fake.

Alien Believer – “Including the car named after him?”

My response,  Well, Tesla Motors founded in July 2003, by engineers Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, under the name Tesla Motors, is not the same as the person. The company’s name was derived from physicist Nikola Tesla. I believe one idea at a time, not a group nor all of a person as if they all individuals must have sound justification or they are not worthy to believe so even if someone was right on 50 out of 100 that only means they have demonstrated the 50 it means nothing to the other 50. everything is separate and must be approached as such.

What it’s like to own a Tesla Model S – Part 2 – The OatmealAlien Believer – “I hope you don’t discredit this brilliant man. 🤗 Here is aVideo, (Brilliant Nikola Tesla Inventions That Never Got Built).”

My response, I will not credit anything not proven and as I don’t hold sacred anything I and don’t blindly follow any idea or person and as I hold open everything for challenge. So, yes, I will challenge anyone no matter there claimed intelligence. you need to learn critical thinking and logic as many ways you’re expressing your beliefs are built on fallacies not sound thinking as I have outlined for you.

According to the Foundation for Critical Thinking:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking. ref

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills (“as an exercise”) without acceptance of their results. Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’s own, or one’s groups’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of “idealism” by those habituated to its selfish use. ref

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor. ref

Alien Believer Two

“Damien: I asked if you could explain how Machu Picchu was built. I looked it up myself but just like the pyramids, some aspect like how were large boulders moved and cut still is a mystery. The Incas used dry stone technique to build the city. No mortar was used, the stone bricks were simply put together without any material to stick them together. All rocks used were split perfectly and the bricks were put together like a huge puzzle. Some of the bricks are so tightly put together that one cannot even put a knife between them. The rocks were probably cut with the so-called wooden wedge technique: holes were drilled into the rocks and wet wooden wedges were inserted into them. After that the constructors waited until the wet wooden wedges froze. The ice having bigger volume than water, forces the rock and creates fissures. But the wooden wedge technique cannot explain the smoothness and perfect straightness of the bricks. We do not know how the Incas made measurements, calculations. The did not write, but they managed to construct such complex cities. It is also interesting to mention that the the Incas did not know the wheel! I saw Veron’s video on UFO’s,and the dude also mentioned god. My UFO experience went like this. AT 10:05 pm many years ago, I saw a bright star which I assumed was one of our planets. It was standing still. After couple of minutes of viewing, it took off vertically at a decent speed. One week later, at the same time and place, I witnessed it again. I called Mufon and the guy said we have anti-gravity space craft, but when I checked out their website, they denied it.”

Alien Believer one “I think this topic is just like religion, those who believe need no proof and those who don’t won’t be convinced. So I call it truce my friend.”

Alien Believer Three –

“I don’t need to believe. I’ve seen aliens, many of them cloaked in human appearing form. They were always here, we were never alone.”

My response, Evidence please?

Alien Believer Three –

“You kidding me right? What makes you think I care you believe me or not? Adios.”

My response, Why are you referring to your thinking on the options others, when the issue is your truth, I did not ask you to do anything but provide proof of what you claim as truth and as you have a burden of proof I am asking for intellectual honesty in dialogue. If you now wish to shrug off your reason-required need to justify what you said as truth that “ethics of belief” failure is your choice about it is irrelevant about what you think on me believing or disbelieving, you. the Half the world could agree and that does not remove your personal burden of proof for your claims of truth. So again, please provide evidence.

Arguing over Aliens?

Challenger – “Damien, you may not believe in ancient aliens but I believe in aliens. I didn’t use to but I became convinced. Look up Fermi paradox. You fool.”

My response, Check out the blog I attached I debunk ancient aliens.

Challenger – “I don’t care. Debunk Fermi paradox.”My response, And what about it do you think proves aliens?”

My response, “In physics or engineering education, a Fermi problem, Fermi quiz, Fermi question, Fermi estimate, or order estimation is an estimation problem designed to teach dimensional analysis or approximation, and such a problem is usually a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Fermi problems typically involve making justified guesses about quantities and their variance or lower and upper bounds.” – Wikipedia

My response, So, the Fermi paradox.is not proof of your claim.

Challenger – “Did you even look it up? It basically says the universe is so big that there are probably aliens.”

My response, Yes, it’s not proof as you tried to imply and let’s debunk a claim that Fermi paradox provides proof of aliens. https://www.space.com/25325-fermi-paradox.html

Challenger – OK WTF that long article doesn’t debunk the Fermi paradox at all.

My response, Even a good probably is still not proof or confirmation.

Challenger – “Did I say there was proof of aliens, you fool?”My response, I said it debunks the pseudo-knowledge claims as in it doesn’t provide proof of ancient aliens.

My response, Your set of claims: (1) “I believe in aliens.” (a claim of truth, unless you believe things not true, right) (2) “I didn’t used to, but I became convinced.” (a claim that you have truth to be convinced about which you are calling me a fool seems to imply you have truth I do not thus you hold the burden of proof, thus a claim of truth, unless you believe things not true, right) (3) “Look up Fermi paradox. (a claim of truth, unless you believe things not true, right)(4) “You fool.” (You have a burden of proof to claiming I am a fool and I am obviously a debater with a higher level of character as you name call rather than providing valid and reliable reason or evidence. name calling is when you are failing to let the evidence speak for you.) So, evidence, please?

Challenger – “Nobody said anything about “ancient” aliens in particular? So why talk about them? It doesn’t debunk anything.”

My response, Yes, you did make a truth claim that is not true nor actually applying a valid proof for your claim.

Challenger – “Are you thick? I said nothing wrong. Honestly, you think you’re smart but you’re nowhere near as intelligent as you think. You’re acting like because I can’t prove aliens exist with 100% probability, therefore I’ve made some logical mistake in saying I believe in them. Pathetic.”

My response, You made a truth claim you have the burden of proof and stated Fermi paradox as if it proves your proof. Wrong, it is a guess at a probably not knowing anything to act otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. Do you get probably is not proof?

Challenger – Quote the truth claim I made, cuck.

My response, You claimed I was a fool, you claimed aliens, you offered “I became convinced. Look up Fermi paradox.” and you have a burden of proof for all four. 😀

Challenger – “No, I don’t. Fool. I said I believe there are aliens. That’s true.. I didn’t say I know for an absolute fact there are aliens. I presented my reasoning. Fermi. Drake equation. The sheer size of the universe. Get over yourself you insufferable ignorant dafty.”

Marquis Amon I’ll simplify Damien’s point. The statistical probability of likelyhood being high does not satisfy the physical burden of proof.