Definition. I’ve already given you something to dive into. The Skinwalker Ranch. You can listen to the story on this channel. Great voice, and visuals.

If that’s your stance, it’s ok. We can agree to disagree. I still choose to sit on the fence.

You’re reluctant for some reason. If you don’t challenge your beliefs, how do you expect to grow? There’s more to it than just cattle mutilations and alien abductions.

An interesting case for you to dive into: The Skinwalker Ranch.

They have their bailey, belief in things like the occult, ghosts, demons, etc, that are almost certainly bullshit. To the extent that they can be falsified, they have been. This is the typical definition of what people think when you say “supernatural” and people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in it.

You say that people are right to answer “no” when asked if they believe in this stuff. That is just not true at all. That’s because that as much as good evidence can be hard to come by for supernatural stuff, there is also no official evidence whatsoever that proves that such things do not exist. Therefore, the most accurate answer should really be “I don’t know”, because of the subject’s unfalsifiable nature, and how it’s outside scientific testing. You still have a right to say “yes”, or “no” though.

But then you have OP falling back on their motte when this happens, taking a nebulous definition of supernatural and asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown. The fallacy is that these questions do nothing to strengthen or refute the original argument about the supernatural.

That “nebulous” definition of supernatural that I keep using IS the literal definition of the word. You even described it yourself how I described it on your second paragraph, first line. Yes, I have been “asking philosophical questions about reality, perception, and the unknown”. And why can’t I do that? My post is an open-ended question. This means that the conversation can go anywhere, provided that the context continues to match the topic of the post. What do you mean by “original argument about the supernatural”? Again, this post is meant to be an open-ended question where others contribute their thoughts on the supernatural, I share my opinions on their thoughts, and we agree, or disagree. There is no “original argument about the supernatural”.

Nobody is here to argue that nothing is unknown and even unknowable but that doesn’t make the things that people typically call “supernatural” any less bullshit. Demons and ghosts are just not the kinds of things that are waiting around to surprise us. And shifting the conversation from your bailey to your motte to protect your feelings on the former is not a good way to have a friendly debate.

Actually, people here have argued such, as supernatural phenomena is a mysterious topic. Nowhere have I declared that there are no BS claims in the supernatural world. However, saying that all supernatural claims are complete BS without evidence supporting it is a biased take. Some are debunked, and some aren’t, which is how we end up with unexplained claims that are beyond rational explanation. A scenario like this is the reason why we should stay open-minded about supernatural phenomena, instead of completely denouncing it.

Alright, bro.

If you think the word supernatural is so unneeded, you can petition for it to be taken out of dictionaries and Wikipedia.

Ok lmao. You just keep saying I’m lying but won’t say why. It’s not that hard to look up ‘Pentagon UFO footage’.

You are one of the reasons why people don’t report such things. You just went straight to ridiculing him without even knowing the context.

But they are the ones who released those videos of US navy pilots encountering a UFO, and labeled it as unexplained. Why are you saying that I’m lying?

You haven’t really said anything. You just said that my argument isn’t valid, refused to elaborate why, and when asked to do so, you said that others have told me why, when I’m getting completely different opinions from multiple people. Also, disagreeing with people is literally what makes a debate a debate. What do you want me to do? Agree with everyone even if I don’t? That’s not how a genuine conversation works.

Yes, that’s what I’m trying to tell you. Unexplained. That means that The Pentagon has tried to figure out what they were looking at, but they left it as unexplained. We’ve also had many UAP hearings in congress where they disclosed a bunch of UFOs, and alien stuff. Anyway, yeah. The US govt is embracing the possible existence of extraterrestrial life running around here on Earth.

The Pentagon.

Yeah, most unexplained videos go through verifications to make sure it’s not FX, and when it’s not, it’s how they end up unexplained. This is especially common in the UFO community.

My goal really is to convince people to sit on the fence about it.

That doesn’t make them worthless. Have you ever listened to stories that may involve potential supernatural forces?

I want to hear your opinion. That’s the point of this post. It’s how we have healthy debates.

Yes, there’s going to be stuff we don’t know about. That’s why I’m advocating for open-mindedness to supernatural phenomena. That’s my goal.

What? Supernatural stuff has been talked about throughout history.

But you’re still leading yourself into a fallacious argument. It’s not any better.