Reddit reviews Secret Life: Firsthand, Documented Accounts of Ufo Abductions

David M. Jacobs.

You should try Secret Life, it's both fascinating and scary :

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Firsthand-Documented-Abductions/dp/0671797204

>edit: anyone have a good book about experiences with entity contact?


https://www.amazon.com/dp/0671797204/

This one was mentioned on the show some time back, I've wishlisted it but have not read it.

Edit: just bought a 0.01$ used copy heh.

> Now this is just not true. It does give evidence for a case that there were prophets who had "guidance from the True God". If you were to actually live back then and you heard them warn people about stuff and then that stuff happening, that would definitely be evidence, right? Now tell me please. How exactly is not a piece of pottery, which has writing about the prophets and that they warned about stuff, and that the stuff actually happened after the time we think the pottery is from, not evidence that at least one prophet had 'guidance from the True God" i.e. is a real prophet. Isn't the definition of a real prophet that the stuff actually happens? What would you accept to be an evidence for a real prophet? Of course one time hit makes nobody a real prophet, but this was about evidence.

Incorrect. It provides evidence that people believed in seers and prophets, not that the seers and prophets actually had supernatural powers or that there were any gods involved. The fact that thousands of people have testified to seeing alien spacecraft or support the testimony of alien abductees doesn't mean that aliens actually visited us. The evidence doesn't support it.

In this case what it means is that the Lachish Ostraca and its contemporary books of the Bible were most likely written in the same time period, like this and this.

> Let's challenge this! Have you ever loved anyone? Can you reproduce it, or prove it in any objectional way to me? If not, by your own words, surely you have only deluded yourself.

Yes, I can. I can demonstrate it by clear patterns of behavior that can be observed. I can verify it by the way that behavior is reciprocated. Sure, it's possible that I'm deluding myself but according to the commonly accepted definition of "love" my observations can be confirmed. It may be that future information will invalidate those observations, but for now I can say with high confidence that I've been in love and I'm not just deluding myself.

> Also, yes I can reproduce me becoming christian. By preaching and helping others become christian.

Your self-identification as a Christian is not in question here. The issue of whether or not you're worshiping a fictional entity is.

> Examining both points of view is not to actually believe in something. EDIT: It is being without bias.

If you accept a hypothesis without confirming it, then you're introducing bias. If you reject any hypothesis that has no evidence to support it, then you are avoiding bias. That's how science works. Assume nothing is true without evidence to support it. Once you have evidence, test your assumptions further.

> I'm not going to argue that. Thus I'm not going to try to change your mind. Thus, my point stands.

Actually, you demonstrate my point: your beliefs are not falsifiable. They are irrational, because you won't allow for the possibility that you might be wrong, just as in the hypothetical situation where there's an invisible, ethereal dragon floating in my garage I come up with endless excuses to explain why the dragon can't be observed.

> You mean that you have considered that you would be willing to follow Jesus even when that could easily mean losing all respect from people, losing friends, job, family, money, health and/or your life for it? For that was what it means to follow Jesus.

Yes. I used to preach this stuff, until I couldn't maintain the cognitive dissonance any further. What I was taught to believe, and was conveying to others, didn't match reality until I stepped down from the pulpit.

> If you mean that, your experiment indeed is without clear conclusion. If you don't you should maybe consider how you go around gathering the evidence.

That is, in fact, what I mean. I am continuing to study and gather evidence. Thus far, I've seen no evidence that supports any mystical belief as anything other than wishful thinking and confirmation bias.