Extraterrastriality: The Birth of a New Religion

reply to post by HankMcCoy


Are you seriously suggesting there exists government documentary evidence for the existence of god?

Are you seriously suggesting that gods and goddesses get visualy corellated on mulitple radar screens exhibiting electromagnetic effects on aircraft?

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by HankMcCoy

 

Are you seriously suggesting there exists government documentary evidence for the existence of god?

Are you seriously suggesting that gods and goddesses get visualy corellated on mulitple radar screens exhibiting electromagnetic effects on aircraft?

No, Im seriously suggesting that Extraterrestrialists believe that the government has evidence of ET and that the Extraterrestrialists believe visual correlation of multiple radar screens exhibiting electromagnetic effects on aircraft are Extraterrestrial in origin.

Your 'evidence' is not conclusive, if it were, it would be a different discussion.

Why don't Gods and Goddesses show up on radar? The same reason aliens don't show up in oil stains on the sides of churches. The faithful look for their 'supernatural beings' in the places they expect to find them.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
This is very raw..

Clearly. You seem to be mixing up a lot of stuff that quite honestly doesn't deserve to be mixed.

There's a difference between ufology - the study and investigation of UFOs and related phenomena - and whatever Bill Meier and Steven Greer do.

I would agree with most of your assessments when talking about these pseudo-religious movements such as the ones Meier and Greer are behind, but you seem to be lumping everything remotely related to UFOs as part of this new religious movement.

People today still adore animals (such as cows), for example, as divine or Gods. How fair would it be to say that zoology is a religious movement and zoologists are 'prophets' or 'priests' for that particular religious or spiritual movement?

You put Friedman, and what he does, on par of what Billy Meier does. I'm not sure if it's a deliberate attempt on your part to pass the impression that everything UFOs is nonsense and part of this pseudo-religious notion your presenting, but it's undoubtedly, in my opinion, a sign of you making generalizations and mixing up together things that shouldn't be, effectively weakening your argument - regardless of how 'raw' it is.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
This is very raw..

Clearly. You seem to be mixing up a lot of stuff that quite honestly doesn't deserve to be mixed.

You are under the impression that it's in any way different. Regardless of the message, regardless of who is saying it, every one of those people, and every other person involved in Ufology is playing to the same crowd. Sure within the crowd there will be people that believe one prophet over another, but you will have that in every religion.

They are all speaking to the believers. A Priest of Extraterrestriality tending to his flock.

I don't know about you, but when Disclosure happens (either the good one or bad one), I definately won't go and start worshiping these beings. Why should I when I know that all beings in the cosmos are equal from the One, just on different levels of progress? Of course i will be happy they showed up and i will be excited and all, admire them, but worshiping them as Gods? No. They would have to brainwash me to do so.

[edit on 15/11/09 by Cybernet]

I think you are right, it is becoming a Religion. But I don`t think it therefore must be dangerous or negativ. It will just be another one in a long line. Of course there will be fanatics, but they are already here. We will get used to it.
Cheers

Originally posted by Cybernet
I don't know about you, but when Disclosure happens (either the good one or bad one), I definately won't go and start worshiping these beings. Why should I when I know that all beings in the cosmos are equal from the One, just on different levels of progress? Of course i will be happy they showed up and i will be excited and all, admire them, but worshiping them as Gods? No. They would have to brainwash me to do so.

[edit on 15/11/09 by Cybernet]

What about your children, and your children's children? I wonder how many generations will have to be removed from this current one before what is being discussed becomes less about what actually happened and more about the legend of what happened? That might have big implications on how future generations feel about the UFO stories we are telling here.

I don't think ET is coming. I think its just fabrication and wishful thinking. I think we are doing the same things that the ancients did when trying to come up with reasons why things happen outside of what they no to be possible. they create a supernatural entity.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
You are under the impression that it's in any way different.

It's my conclusion that not everyone in ufology is a leader of a cult as you make it out to be, yes. Just because Meier, for example, is associated with UFOs doesn't mean he's even in ufology per se, or is a ufologist.

Regardless of the message (...)

You declare upfront that UFOs and anything associated with the subject is bunk, so no need to even look at the data. It's quite clear now that you're a pseudo-skeptic and denialist. No point in debating with someone who doesn't even want to look at the evidence.

I don't even understand why start this discussion at all if you've already decided what UFOs aren't.

Maybe you're just interested in presenting this notion of yours, combining your disdain for religion and UFOs, and pretend you're on to something insightful. As if people, namely serious UFO researchers (non-existent people in your perspective) for example, haven't pointed out everything you have, in more accurate and eloquent ways, 40 years ago when the contactee movement was up-and-coming.

Regardless of whatever gets you going, have fun.

Originally posted by convergeNo point in debating with someone who doesn't even want to look at the evidence.

I've seen the evidence. You've seen the evidence. The evidence wasn't enough to sway me into believing Extraterrestrials are real and visiting Earth. For you, the evidence was enough to attach the belief that ET is real.

Also..

Cult is your word, not mine.


[edit on 15-11-2009 by HankMcCoy]

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
For you, the evidence was enough to attach the belief that ET is real.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't speak for me. I've yet to mention on this thread what I think UFOs might be.

Another generalization on your part, perhaps? Since I'm defending the notion that not everyone in ufology is a cult leader surely that can only mean that I must believe "ET is real"!

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
For you, the evidence was enough to attach the belief that ET is real.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't speak for me. I've yet to mention on this thread what I think UFOs might be.

Another generalization on your part, perhaps? Since I'm defending the notion that not everyone in ufology is a cult leader surely that can only mean that I must believe "ET is real"!

And because you didn't mention your beliefs.. in this thread.. then it is impossible for me to go into another one and see them posted quite clearly.

And there you go with Cult Leader again..

Yawn. Another pseudo-skeptic who confuses evidence and proof whenever it suits him best and who also doesn't seem to grasp te simplest facts of scientific methodology.

Some clues. Evidence does not come labeled. Chastising people for interpreting events as extraterrestrial is merely a display of your own frustration because you do not agree with that interpretation (regardless of justification).

Claiming UFO evidence cannot be "scientific" is ludicrous. You did not even define what "scientific" means. I need merely point to the Condon report to show that a scientific investigation is not only possible, but that reports can be analysed and scrutinized in a scientific manner. Also, the proposition that UFO events would need to be repeatable is absurd and pointless. Events do not need to be repeatable to be studied scientifically since you adopt your procedures to the phenomenon you are stuyding. The Big Bang is not repeatable yet can be studied. So can UFO reports and other evidence (trace evidence, radar and photographic evidence, etc.).

The point is, you've moved the goal posts way back, you want the proverbial dead alien and saucer and there is nothing else that will be sufficient. You want proof before evidence.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
I don't think ET is coming. I think its just fabrication and wishful thinking. I think we are doing the same things that the ancients did when trying to come up with reasons why things happen outside of what they no to be possible. they create a supernatural entity.

Ah yes, show us your presuppositions. Because it is trough these rose-colored glasses that you view the evidence. You'v already made up your mind, you're not here to debate, you're here to dish out your beliefs.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by jclmavg]

Originally posted by jclmavg
Yawn. Another pseudo-skeptic who confuses evidence and proof whenever it suits him best and who also doesn't seem to grasp te simplest facts of scientific methodology.

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results

By all means, please show me some evidence that has stood up to the scientific method and squarely points to Extraterrestrial Intelligence and I will concede.

The point is, you've moved the goal posts way back, you want the proverbial dead alien and saucer and there is nothing else that will be sufficient. You want proof before evidence.

Other than what I have asked for in this thread, I am not asking for proof of anything. I am simply stating the world as I see it.

Extraterrestriality is becoming a Religion complete with its own system of beliefs, prophets, and mythos.

reply to post by HankMcCoy


If we analyse the differences between any generalised belief in god and generalised belief in aliens, then there are vast differences.

Firstly belief in any god implies belief in a creator, but not all beliefs in ET will have beliefs of creation.

Now, aliens are in a sense going to be just another evolved creature much like ourselves, and the rest of life on planet earth. Hence, we would be an alien to them, as much are they are alien to us.

Extraterrestrial means "from another body (planet, moon etc) in the galaxy or universe etc, i.e. not originally from or born on earth".

Although if humans migrate to mars and have offspring, then they are technically a martian?

There's scientific evidence backing the assertion that life probably exists elsewhere as well. There's zero scientific evidence of a creator.

I think it's a fair to say that aliens are just what we can call people like ourselves. The definition of people may have to be expanded, but I'm sure they have hobbies, likes, dislikes etc just like ourselves. I wouldn't worship these "people" anymore than I worship people on earth.

If we go a step further and state we think they are visiting, then that requires some form of faith, until we have sufficient evidence for proof of visitation such as some form of physical evidence. But do these believers also worship them like an invisible god? Do the majority have their ufology idols, or actually does the majority of those claiming to witness a UFO just feel curious and a bit more open-minded than they previously were?

[edit on 15-11-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by HankMcCoy

 

If we analyse the differences between any generalised belief in god and generalised belief in aliens, then there are vast differences.

Firstly belief in any god implies belief in a creator, but not all beliefs in ET will have beliefs of creation.

This is incorrect. Religion doesn't need to have a creation story, many of them have one, all it needs is the belief that a supernatural being or force is influencing their destiny.

There's scientific evidence backing the assertion that life probably exists elsewhere as well. There's zero scientific evidence of a creator.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. The same standard is actually used for both examples.

I think it's a fair to say that aliens are just what we can call people like ourselves. The definition of people may have to be expanded, but I'm sure they have hobbies, likes, dislikes etc just like ourselves. I wouldn't worship these "people" anymore than I worship people on earth.

If we go a step further and state we think they are visiting, then that requires some form of faith. But do these believers also worship them like an invisible god?

Read some of the posts at ATS. It's fair to say that many people do worship the aliens are terrible gods bent on destroying us.. or malevolent protectors helping us along our paths.

reply to post by HankMcCoy

This is incorrect. Religion doesn't need to have a creation story, many of them have one, all it needs is the belief that a supernatural being or force is influencing their destiny.

I wouldn't call aliens anymore supernatural than cats or dogs. Everything influences us in some way, so that can hardly be used as a distinguishing factor.

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. The same standard is actually used for both examples.

I'm not stating we have direct evidence, but there's plenty of indirect evidence such as recent discoveries of protein sequences in the outer solar system to support theories that RNA travelled to earth via comets, and heavier elements like carbon and iron could only have been formed in cores of stars, and that would make us all star matter. Astrobiology is a big part of science now, yet I don't see astrotheology becoming a science anyday soon!

Read some of the posts at ATS. It's fair to say that many people do worship the aliens are terrible gods bent on destroying us.. or malevolent protectors helping us along our paths.

It's hardly a true sample of the population to determine the answers to those questions.

Anyhow, even if a significant number of believers do worship some form of alien entity, it hardly changes the perspective that it's probable there are "people" having the same discussion elsewhere in this universe or even megaverse, using whatever tools or methods of communications they have forged. Much like if another human being worshipped another imaginary human being as a god, it doesn't make us become less human.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by john124]

This isn't new. Mankind has been seeing beings in the air for thousands of years. Back in the old days they called them gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc. Now they call them greys, reptilians, whatever. Same old same old. Just as once people were taken up into heaven by angels or gods, now they're taken up by aliens.

Whatever these things "really" are, they're probably neither angels nor aliens. It is likely that as our knowledge and society changes, the nature of what we see will also change to fit into our new conceptions.

Believe what you feel is right because in the end no one knows whats really going, i only wish you had an open mind towards all aspects of life.

You are probably correct, a religion can and possibly will/could form due to the info presented to us, but isn't religion just another form of man trying to understand what surrounds like science, aren't they 2 of the same. Isn't money a religion as well.I guess what im getting at is you will never know until YOU and YOU alone actually experience things that can't be explained i only wish you could humbly see the truth in some of these people, because 11 million+ people around the world have witnessed or felt things of an ET kind. Its okay to not believe because it can be a scary thing to believe in something we have no control over.
As you can see i think, almost know that there is life away from earth, maybe its just because i refuse to believe humanity is the smartest thing in the universe because humans are pretty stupid.

theres enough evidence to support/disprove anything you want its all up to personal beliefs

I'm sure as others have said in this thread that ET centric religion, is nothing new. Ever heard of Heaven's gate? Scientology?

Personally I think the deification of anything is detrimental to the growth and free will of a sentient being. Deifying ETs would be just as bad as deifying a literary character, and personally I don't think that most ETs would want to be deified. Unless of course they are among the rogue "pirates" as Alex Collier puts it.