Could ancient gods be aliens?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
sounds like somebody's been watching too much stargate...


No, child. Star Trek

Who mourns for Adonais?




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   
You seem failry knowledgable on Anti Matter. This is something I would like to learn more about.

Perhaps even in a seperate thread.

I don't mean to go off topic and would rather not hijack a thread.

As for the Ancient Astronaut, I do feel than von Daniken did bring up some major points that were never dispelled. While on the whole his take is shaky (considered Fringe), it says something when you can not completely sink a persons ideas. Some of these still hold merit. (That is why I love outside the box thinking, even if it's very off base. All it takes is having one RIGHT idea, and then some one else taking that idea and working towards a rational answer.)

Ancient art depicts actually flying vessals, and not just replicas of the non flying vessals of its time (like the Chariot) but actually non-Era crafts. And even the portraits of flying ships could be a closely accurate to a space craft.

Not saying Daniken hit the nail on the head, but sometimes the absurd can lead to the truth.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
You seem failry knowledgable on Anti Matter.


Not really, I just crashed coursed myself on the topic using Google. What I did know before hand was the impossibility of achieving any speed close to light speed and that no thrust system is ever going to make the vast distances between stellar bodies traversable. If you decide to do a thread on antimatter I'd be happy to contribute what I could.


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
I do feel than von Daniken did bring up some major points that were never dispelled. While on the whole his take is shaky (considered Fringe), it says something when you can not completely sink a persons ideas.


But von Daniken does not even begin to address the inherent physical restrictions to the type of inter-stellar interactions he suggests. You have to make this series of continuous leaps of disbelief to accept his notion. So that alone does completely sink his ideas. Exercising the imagination is great, it leads to great works of art and literature and can open up whole vistas of concepts and ideas. If we seriously want to learn the reason or the meaning behind something then logic and rationality behoove us to find the simplest, most reasonable explanation available with the data at hand. Von Daniken, Stichen or Icke's work can be quite educational if taken with a grain (okay a cup) of salt.


Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Ancient art depicts actually flying vessals, and not just replicas of the non flying vessals of its time (like the Chariot) but actually non-Era crafts. And even the portraits of flying ships could be a closely accurate to a space craft.


Art history, mythology and symbology are really much stronger areas for me than the hard math and physics involved in matters like antimatter. I'm not really sure why anyone is startled by any image they see in a work of visual art. There are so many potential explanations for what a given flying object or strange being might be that, without working on a specific image by image basis, it would be next to impossible to enumerate them. One thing we must remember about the producers of any known work of art, no matter how ancient, is that biologically and genetically they were exactly the same as anyone living in the modern era. They had imaginations and they utilized them, it is as simple as that. I can imagine, and draw, any number of impossible, weird, unreal images. Right now I'm imagining a man who lives in a giant fish bowl resting in the branches of a concrete tree with windows like a skyscraper. His head is the sun and his legs are bananas. Instead of hands he has walrus heads. If I can think that up then any ancient could just as easily think up anything else as equally or even more bizarre. Why, when we as a species are so prone to poetic thought and language, are so many people so mystified by it?

Some readily available examples of works of art thought to depict UFOs were posted by Gazrok on the first page of the (far more ridiculous than this discussion) thread I Think Jesus Was an Alien, Don't You?
I've seen these particular Renaissance-Baroque era images presented before as UFO evidence (note that they can hardly be considered ancient). Gazrok didn't state what the sources for the images are or (quite unfortunately) who painted them, which would make discussing them much easier. I don't immediately recognize the styles so I'd say it's safe to assume that they aren't by any of the major artists of the era (not that that has any relevance to the subject at hand). The top image looks quite Northern European. Round circles of light in the sky casting beams of light toward the Earth. Seeing as these images are so obviously Christian iconography then certainly we should all realize that the most reasonable explanation for the "UFOs" is that they depict the radiance of God emanating from Heaven. If anyone has any more concrete information about these images, like who painted or drew them and when and where please share it.

Thanks for engaging in this conversation in an intelligent, constructive and receptive manner. I was sure the next point the pro-side would bring up is that the limitations of human space travel don't apply to extraterrestrials. Anyone want to explore that area of the topic?

Seeing as you seem interested in exploring the possibilities of what might lie behind the symbolism of ancient mythologies, I'm directing you to my thread
Ragnarok as Celestial Allegory which is an "outside the box" exploration that remains rooted in rationality and reasonability.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
that the "Laws Of Physics" that contain us could very well have been 'defeated' by superior technology of an even greater intelligence. However, as we don't have even the first shred of evidance to represent that take, I can not nor will I stand by it. I only leave it as the open ended statement that it is.

The immense size of the universe makes it only rationale that intelligent life exists. That same size, as I believe you pointed out, makes it unreasonable to suggest that travel between those intelligent lives would be possible.

However, I suggest this theory. Let us say that your time table for stellar travel is dead on (doesn't matter if it is, or isn't. We merely need some sort of table to start from.) Now, let us say you simply can not reach or exceed the speed of light. So far all seems well.

Now, I give you this. Purely speculative, and not the THOUGHT of von Daniken. But just illustrating what outside thinking can lead to. Again, I don't state this as truth, merely a THEORY. If it is completely absurd, please do tell me.

Another intelligent life form travelled from their world to ours. We are in the infancy of man kind. These intelligent beings teach us the tip of their knowledge. We gain the ability to build (pyramids and the such, which are found in most of the ancient cultures in some form) and such things as preserving the bodies of our dead (embolming sp?) or ridding the waste of dead bodies from us (such things as the Vikings setting sail to the corpse in a buring ship or other creamatorian examples). Math is also given to us.

Almost every religion has a RETURN, a period of time where we are on are own to use what we have learned, and then our "God" returns. Now, let me suggest this. These life forms could take there time in travel, and wait a long time to return, because their life spans are many multiples longer than ours. This would explain their greater knowledge and the ability to traverse the galaxy. And it can be found right in most religious ideals.

Most religions are built on a Great Teacher (i.e. Jesus, or numerous others.)
Most religions state that teacher will return many years later. (Space travel takes extended time).
All religions state that their teacher is either immortal or is 're-born' during time. (Long life spans of the intelligent life).

Now, this is not Daniken's take, but it is a logical conclussion that following his lead can come to. Of course, their is no way to evidance any of this, and therein lies the problem SCIENTIFICALLY. Philosophically, it works.

Thanks for the invite to the other Symbology thread, which I will go to when I have time! Thanks for the discussion!



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I think the human mind wants to believe in something higher than us to follow. We see no value in following or trusting something less than we, so that's why we think of amazing things that we can not become. Thus, you have gods in the sky. We are driven by what we believe, that's all I know.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glooper23
I think the human mind wants to believe in something higher than us to follow. We see no value in following or trusting something less than we, so that's why we think of amazing things that we can not become. Thus, you have gods in the sky. We are driven by what we believe, that's all I know.



Those gods from the sky are aliens..we worshipped them because they posses the greater technology and wisdom then we do..we strive to be like them..you will believe in them soon enuff!



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
that the "Laws Of Physics" that contain us could very well have been 'defeated' by superior technology of an even greater intelligence.

Everything has to work consistantly (otherwise we couldn't formulate laws.) Agreed that if there are advanced civilizations in this or other galaxies that they would know far more about physics than we do; problems that seem impossible to us might be trivial to them (as flying is fairly trivial for us but was impossible for the ancient Egyptians.)


Another intelligent life form travelled from their world to ours. We are in the infancy of man kind. These intelligent beings teach us the tip of their knowledge.

The timeline problem crops up here.

There's no sudden HUGE leap in technology... the flint-kanppers of Europe don't suddenly (in less than 500 years) develop large metropolital cities with glass windows and wooden doors and paved floors and forges and blacksmithing and smelting technology. Nor does it show up all over the world.

We see things develop when people start living in large groups... but it's from them exchanging ideas. We see ideas begin in one civilization and travel slowly to other civilizations... techniques developed by one group of craftsmen (porcelain) don't show up in other places for many years.

If aliens were influencing a civilization, they wouldn't show up JUST in Sparta to teach them how to do bronze. They'd show up in a number of civilizations at the same time and we'd see all the world's civlizations acquiring the same technology at the same time.

They don't.


We gain the ability to build (pyramids and the such, which are found in most of the ancient cultures in some form)

No, not really. They are found in many, but they're a simple structure to make.

It would be evidence of a group of aliens, however, (or something) if the major civilizations suddenly went from stick huts to building stone cross-shaped buildings with huge spires and flying buttresses (that takes a LOT of engineering.)

But replicating something you can create on the beach out of sand? No. that's not "advanced."


Almost every religion has a RETURN, a period of time where we are on are own to use what we have learned, and then our "God" returns.

Beg to differ with you here. I think if you'll look at Buddhism, you will find this is not true. Ditto Shintoism, Zorarastrianism, all the Pagan religions, etc. None of the more primitve religions (shamanism) have such a concept. The Jews (from which Christianity sprang) had no such idea (the Messiah is to be a war leader, not a religious leader, and born of human parents.)

Many religions have great philosphers, but very few of them think they reincarnate... the notable exception is Hinduism, of course, and Buddhaism...and the Bah'ai. Except for Christianity (and perhaps Islam), I believe that the few that believe in reincarnating avatars all believe the avatars will be born of completely normal human parents.

I could provide some links if you're curious.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
what one is able to learn. Flying Buttresses were well beyond the grasp of the early man. I would not call the building of the Pyramids in Egypt, or those (Mezzanones?) similiar flat topped steppes in South America as easy things to accomplish, if not merely for the size of the projects.

Step by step is how the story goes.

Not that it has bearing, but doesn't Buddism more lean towards PHILOSOPHY than RELIGION? And yes, I'd love some links to learn from!



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
All religions are philosophies.

BradKellBrrexkl,

If you don't trust my timetable (I could be wrong, I'm no astrophysicist, and I'm generalizing to make a point) do some simple research and try it for yourself. I could be off by hundreds of thousands of days but it isn't going to make the timetable more manageable.

As I've said multiple times, I have no problem with fantastic notions and conceptions. It is the abject certainty with which some people speak of them that perturbs me. I love having conversations with people with different ideas and philosophies than I have, I'm here to learn, and I am willing to consider anything as long as the person presenting it seems like they care enough to think about the plausibility of what they are saying. I don't like to be preached at and I don't think many people do. I'll reiterate one of my main points on this thread. As interesting as the concept of alien astronauts might be to explore, it in no way makes any enigma of human existence or the universe more comprehensible, it only raises exponentially bigger and bigger questions. I live in and feel great respect for nature and I do not need artificial constructs to make it either more wondrous or more understandable. Whole-heartedly believing in literal gods or aliens are superstitious notions, and that type of convoluted reasoning does not lead to the "advancement" that will enrich us with a more profound ability to comprehend the natural universe and our place in it.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada
All religions are philosophies.

BradKellBrrexkl,

If you don't trust my timetable (I could be wrong, I'm no astrophysicist, and I'm generalizing to make a point) do some simple research and try it for yourself. I could be off by hundreds of thousands of days but it isn't going to make the timetable more manageable.

As I've said multiple times, I have no problem with fantastic notions and conceptions. It is the abject certainty with which some people speak of them that perturbs me. I love having conversations with people with different ideas and philosophies than I have, I'm here to learn, and I am willing to consider anything as long as the person presenting it seems like they care enough to think about the plausibility of what they are saying. I don't like to be preached at and I don't think many people do. I'll reiterate one of my main points on this thread. As interesting as the concept of alien astronauts might be to explore, it in no way makes any enigma of human existence or the universe more comprehensible, it only raises exponentially bigger and bigger questions. I live in and feel great respect for nature and I do not need artificial constructs to make it either more wondrous or more understandable. Whole-heartedly believing in literal gods or aliens are superstitious notions, and that type of convoluted reasoning does not lead to the "advancement" that will enrich us with a more profound ability to comprehend the natural universe and our place in it.


Nice post.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
forgive me if I seemed to be preaching or some such thing. Merely putting up a point on the time table. (As I said, the actually time it takes is meaningless for the example.) For us, 300,000 years seems an eternity. For another entity this could be a day. Meaning that such long distance travel could be acheived by such.

As for such things leading to more questions, all answers do that. That is the perpetual circle of Science. You ask a question. You get an answer than rises more questions. Rarely does an answer simplify a problem... it usually only adds more to the situation.

A notion of gods or aliens helping craft mankind would leave the debate (what about those gods/aliens) as open as if we found it all had to do with chemicals and the such (what about those compounds and chemicals?) Questions needs answers, and answers birth questions.


If I happened to be out of line on my previous post, I am sorry. I am, as you stated you are, here to learn. I was merely intending to suggest that such things that seem impossible to us would indeed be minor inconviences if such a higher intelligence existed. I do not claim such an intelligence exists.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I have read through certain early indian books (cant recall names) where they believed that we once had all the technology we have in some form or another. We became so advanced that we ended up destroying ourselves.
Sort alike how atlantis was so far advanced and then just dissapeared.

If aliens did come to earth they would prabably not physically show us anything. They would however probably search out the most advanced of societies and search among those societies for the most intelligent people to teach them advanced forms of math. It would then take many years for those students to teach there fellow man.

Why would i suspect math. Well most things (especially science and engeniering) begin as a math problem. If they taught us advanced problem solving thru math then there would be no need to teach us everything else.

So if aliens did come and teach us then there probably would be no huge boom in technology. We go to school for years to learn these things why would it be any different just because the aliens were teaching us....



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada

If you don't trust my timetable (I could be wrong, I'm no astrophysicist, and I'm generalizing to make a point) do some simple research and try it for yourself. I could be off by hundreds of thousands of days but it isn't going to make the timetable more manageable.


Cicada,

The poster here that mentioned the theoretical FTL drive was probably referring to the "Warp" drive envisioned by Mexican mathematician Miguel Alcubierre. Here's the abstract of it:
FTL Warp Drive

Here's a BBC article about it and concerning certain refinements which may have brought this idea into the realm of possibility (sometime in the future):
BBC News on Warp Drive

This drive would allow faster than light travel without relativistic effects.

This is fairly old news. Don't know if there's been any recent findings or refutations on this topic. Thought you might be interested.
It seems that the ftl argument against alien intervention may no longer be the best way to go.


Originally posted by CicadaAs I've said multiple times, I have no problem with fantastic notions and conceptions. It is the abject certainty with which some people speak of them that perturbs me...


Everyone take my word for it. Cicada will brook no absolutist statements such as "There never, ever was an Atlantis." I know this from experience!



Originally posted by CicadaI'll reiterate one of my main points on this thread. As interesting as the concept of alien astronauts might be to explore, it in no way makes any enigma of human existence or the universe more comprehensible, it only raises exponentially bigger and bigger questions.


God forbid that I be viewed as a VonDaniken, Sitchen, Hancock or Cremo supporter. Notwithstanding my link about the "warp" drive, I agree with you and Byrd. In addition to your statements about how the idea only adds complications to the situation, the archaeological evidence is more than enough for me.

Most of the people that give the pseudohistorians credit tell us that we need to "keep an open mind", "don't believe what the first guy tells you", "academia has been hiding this for years to protect their grants, reputations, positions", etc. I have found that such "believers," if you will, have done exactly what they tell us not to do. The one poster here musing about how VonDaniken was never proven "completely wrong" or whatever he said. People need to realize what that really means. Couldn't I say that my grandfather was an alien, though he's been dead for 30 years now, and never be proven "completely" wrong?

There was another poster that made the outrageous claim in this thread that the Sumerians knew of all nine planets. Fifteen minutes on google will show anyone that cares to look that that statement is just plain not true. It's an idea that was put out there by Zecharia Sitchen, a man with a degree in economics that has never provided one whit of evidence that he can even read the cuneiform tablets he purports to have used to come to this ridiculouis theory.

My point being that many of the people that believe these things have simply never taken the time to examine the evidence, other than what their favorite pseudoscientist has re-interpreted and shown them (with blinders on and out of context.)

Harte


[edit on 12/26/2005 by Harte]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
hey whoever said sum1s been watchin too much stargate hey! i watch stargate too!!! any way there might be a slim possibility that they might be tgods but still keeps hopes up



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
BradKellBrrexkl,

I don't feel that you are preaching and wasn't trying to imply that you were. I appreciate your posts and the manner in which you are pursuing this issue. I never felt that you were out of line. I'm not the judge of such things anyway, thank goodness. Investigations, scientific and otherwise, should open new channels for exploration and discovery. This is not really the same thing as the conceptual problems that are incurred by systems dependent upon extraterrestrial contact. Sure there are more questions to be answered about the chemicals and their compounds, but at least these things are observable and we have a realistic chance. When you add aliens you also have to worry about their chemicals and compounds.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Harte,

Alcubierre's work is fascinating and obviously totally beyond me. I would like to point out that it still based on the as of now theoretical existence of exotic matter. I'm in no way opposed to the possibility of there being an exotic matter and from what little I know about it there's sound reason behind such theories. Of course this is fascinating and I'd be quite interested in hearing more on the subject if anyone has additional or updated information. As I've said I'm thrilled to learn about and explore any theory as long as it is properly termed as such. Here's an excerpt from the BBC article:


Alcubierre's idea was a good one, but his work seemed to suggest that building a warp bubble would be impossible in practice. More energy than the entire universe could supply would be needed to create the space-time distortions.

However, Dr Van Den Broeck's analysis suggests a far lower amount of energy is required, reduced by a factor of one followed by 62 zeros.

This is not to say that it is time to go out and start building a warp drive. As Dr Van Den Broeck says in his forthcoming paper in General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology: "This does not mean that the proposal is realistic."

Building a warp drive is currently far beyond our technological abilities and there are severe theoretical arguments that say it may never be possible.

But it just might be. Dr Van Den Broeck concludes his analysis by saying, "The first warp drive is still a long way off but maybe it has now become slightly less improbable."


So again, as fascinating as the concept is, it does nothing to justify a certainty in ancient astronauts.


originally posted by HarteEveryone take my word for it. Cicada will brook no absolutist statements such as "There never, ever was an Atlantis." I know this from experience!


That's true. I never said I wasn't obnoxious.



[edit on 26-12-2005 by Cicada]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada
Harte,

Alcubierre's work is fascinating and obviously totally beyond me.

Of course this is fascinating and I'd be quite interested in hearing more on the subject if anyone has additional or updated information. As I've said I'm thrilled to learn about and explore any theory as long as it is properly termed as such.
So again, as fascinating as the concept is, it does nothing to justify a certainty in ancient astronauts.

I absolutely agree, but with the presentation of this theoretical drive, Alcubierre has supplied a toehold to the ancient astronaut theorists claims, for the possibility of ftl travel without relativistic effects has now been broached. You know the argument, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I call it the Jesse Jackson truism.
Better now to refute them on archaeological and geophysical grounds.


Originally posted by Cicada

originally posted by HarteEveryone take my word for it. Cicada will brook no absolutist statements such as "There never, ever was an Atlantis." I know this from experience!

That's true. I never said I wasn't obnoxious.

Then I'll say it for you:
Cicada, a thoughtful, deep and highly sophisticated philosophical thinker, and perhaps a bit quick witted, is not obnoxious, at least by my definition of the term.

Harte



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I absolutely agree, but with the presentation of this theoretical drive, Alcubierre has supplied a toehold to the ancient astronaut theorists claims, for the possibility of ftl travel without relativistic effects has now been broached.


I don't know. I get your point but that's why I quoted those last few paragraphs from the BBC article. Those are some pretty big theories that are not likely to become resolved within our lifetimes. Maybe I'll concede the ftl issue when (if) someone comes up with something more concrete on the exotic matter front. But manipulating the structure of space-time? Eek. These are big jumps. This relates to the as usual quite astute point Byrd was making about the inability of an individual within a certain cultural viewpoint, as defined by their technological limitations, to envision the potential conceptual breakthroughs of an alien (used in it's most general definition) culture with a longer, linear progression of scientific discovery (Sorry about that sentence but I'm struggling to avoid value-laden terms like "advanced"). The difference between flying and ftl travel is that we have numerous examples in observable nature of flying and airborne heavier-than-air objects, both plant and animal. We have no such observable natural example of ftl travel outside of what is, at least for now, theoretical quantum physics. We should not underestimate how vital the observation of nature was in the development of flying vehicles.



originally posted by Harte
Then I'll say it for you:
Cicada, a thoughtful, deep and highly sophisticated philosophical thinker, and perhaps a bit quick witted, is not obnoxious, at least by my definition of the term.

Harte


Wow, I never expected that. Thank you. I really appreciate it.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Cicada]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
what one is able to learn. Flying Buttresses were well beyond the grasp of the early man.

Actually, they aren't. Nor are the arches that Romas built.

The cathedrals were built with some fairly primitive math and the engineering was quite possible once someone learned how to hew rocks. Nor are pyramids the be-all and end-all... take a look at some of the complex temples that the Egyptians built BEFORE the pyramids... and ditto the complex monuments and so forth that predate pyramids in other cultures.

They're not that special. Really. There is no great feat of engineering needed to stack blocks into a pyramid shape. Arches and huge gates and so forth, yes. Indoor plumbing, yes. Viaducts and canals that ran above the landscape, yes.

But pyramids... no.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Those following this discussion may be interested in the information on my new thread:

UFOs in Works of Art





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join