It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFOs and religion have no connection, none!

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I don't want to derail, it's just I used to be quite into Bertrand Russell and logical positivism. I'm a bit of a fan. I've forgotten a great deal too, but still have a reasonable grasp of Peano-Russell logic notation. One of those things I did trying to make sense of the world as a teenager.

Although it must be said that in Why I Am Not A Christian Bertrand Russell does acknowledge that many of the teachings ascribed to Christ are good. For me the lecture was almost an argument that being moral is a good thing, but that being a moral person should no longer be tied to religion:

users.drew.edu...

I think it's a independent logical progression from Thomas Jefferson's attempt to make a rational form of the Bible, or Kant's Categorical Imperative. Although Kant, and Thomas Jefferson (not in the same way at alll) believed in god:

en.wikipedia.org... (I find it amazing, given the arguments about religion's place in government in the last administration, for many years copies were given to new members of Congress).

I'm not a believer, but I strongly believe in religious freedom, and don't believe that in many cases belief in a higher being means someone is irrational. There are plenty of irrational atheists, and we're all irrational to a point. I do think it's possible to separate their religious beliefs, and that it is not always a contingent bias.

I think UFOs under their strictest definition, including celestial and astronomical events were likely interpreted through religion prior to science's precursor in the form of natural philosophy, even then many natural philosophers believed in all kinds of stuff we'd consider irrational today (Isaac Newton being a good example). I think there is a strong argument that UFOs have no connection with religion now, but I think they (I don't believe in the ETH) were interpreted through a religious lens in the past.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I don't want to derail, it's just I used to be quite into Bertrand Russell and logical positivism. I'm a bit of a fan. I've forgotten a great deal too, but still have a reasonable grasp of Peano-Russell logic notation. One of those things I did trying to make sense of the world as a teenager.


You're not derailing, you're on topic and I appreciate your comments. You really are at a disadvantage as a teenager trying to make sense of a world controlled by adults who may not always act intelligently, making you wonder even more for the way some humans act. But it looks like you did okay.


Although it must be said that in Why I Am Not A Christian Bertrand Russell does acknowledge that many of the teachings ascribed to Christ are good. For me the lecture was almost an argument that being moral is a good thing, but that being a moral person should no longer be tied to religion:

users.drew.edu...


We have a problem when people such as the respected Russell speak for while they may have certain knowledge that places them above those with less education, it does not give them extra knowledge. So, in reality, it doesn't matter what Russell says outside of his field of expertise because when he speaks about other matters such as religion, he is expressing personal opinion and it is not from experience. Since there is no historical evidence for the reality of a Jesus, he cannot be quoted not only because he didn't exist, as claimed in the new testament, but because even if he did there was no one sitting around writing down everything that he said for if that had been the case we would have historical evidence. What is ascribed to him came from other individuals and humans are very creative as evidenced by much beautiful music lyrics, poetry, etc. Nothing special there. How's this for a creative bit on my part?: "You Stepped Out Of A Stream" by Darwin And The Evolutionaires"


I think it's a independent logical progression from Thomas Jefferson's attempt to make a rational form of the Bible, or Kant's Categorical Imperative. Although Kant, and Thomas Jefferson (not in the same way at alll) believed in god:


Remember, the jewish bible was written by many individuals and most of them are not historically supported. The bible cannot be taken logically; it doesn't apply to all humans, just those who were experiencing the times in those regions and who were all equally like-minded. And there are so many different interpretations of the bible it makes your head spin. You should read books by Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for example. He always starts off by telling the reader about the lack of historical evidence for jesus although as you read his books you know he's a believer!


en.wikipedia.org... (I find it amazing, given the arguments about religions place in government in the last administration, for many years copies were given to new members of Congress).


Regardless of position here, there, and everywhere, the majority of humans are religiously mentally conditioned and can only follow their religions' dictates. You could say that the major reason why we, Americans (and other peoples), have not progressed to where we should be technology- and emotionally-wise is because our government representatives are lost to the dictates of religion, especially the Vatican's.


I'm not a believer, but I strongly believe in religious freedom, and don't believe that in many cases belief in a higher being means someone is irrational. There are plenty of irrational atheists, and we're all irrational to a point. I do think it's possible to separate their religious beliefs, and that it is not always a contingent bias.


You may claim to not be a (religious) believer but you are a believer and the worst thing you could believe in would be to support religion. I know it's normal for you but I understand "where you're coming from." The one main thing religious believers don't understand is that beliefs are created by the mind. There is nothing "out here" to support the rationality of religions. They are irrational. They force you to believe in and accept mythology in running your life. There is no human happier than an atheist for we are free of religious baggage. When we do a good deed we don't do it because we are going to be rewarded in a mythical heaven by a mythical god. We do it because it is normal to help others. The joy of helping someone cannot be equaled with a desire for a reward.


I think UFOs under their strictest definition, including celestial and astronomical events were likely interpreted through religion prior to science's precursor in the form of natural philosophy, even then many natural philosophers believed in all kinds of stuff we'd consider irrational today (Isaac Newton being a good example). I think there is a strong argument that UFOs have no connection with religion now, but I think they (I don't believe in the ETH) were interpreted through a religious lens in the past.


I agree that celestial/astronomical phenomena influenced the ancients but I don't include nuts-and-bolts in any influence.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by The Shrike]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
nuts-and-bolts


Define a 'nuts-and-bolts' UFO, please.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
You're not derailing, you're on topic and I appreciate your comments. You really are at a disadvantage as a teenager trying to make sense of a world controlled by adults who may not always act intelligently, making you wonder even more for the way some humans act. But it looks like you did okay.


I'm not a teenager now. I wish. I'd be a lot healthier. It's not entirely clear from my statement, but the reason I've forgotten some was that it was some time ago
.


We have a problem when people such as the respected Russell speak for while they may have certain knowledge that places them above those with less education, it does not give them extra knowledge. So, in reality, it doesn't matter what Russell says outside of his field of expertise because when he speaks about other matters such as religion, he is expressing personal opinion and it is not from experience. Since there is no historical evidence for the reality of a Jesus, he cannot be quoted not only because he didn't exist, as claimed in the new testament, but because even if he did there was no one sitting around writing down everything that he said for if that had been the case we would have historical evidence. What is ascribed to him came from other individuals and humans are very creative as evidenced by much beautiful music lyrics, poetry, etc. Nothing special there. How's this for a creative bit on my part?: "You Stepped Out Of A Stream" by Darwin And The Evolutionaires"


I wasn't arguing over the lack of evidence for Jesus, I was arguing that what has been ascribed to him, in terms of moral teachings wasn't a bad thing in the absence of the modern social, political, philosophical, scientific and legal frameworks. I agree absolutely that the history of the Bible is murky. Things like the First Council of Nicaea and the prior Hellenisation/incorporation of Mithra elements are fascinating subjects. Or the way St. Aquinas was treated. But if someone wants to believe in the Bible I don't see it as my business.


Remember, the jewish bible was written by many individuals and most of them are not historically supported. The bible cannot be taken logically; it doesn't apply to all humans, just those who were experiencing the times in those regions and who were all equally like-minded. And there are so many different interpretations of the bible it makes your head spin. You should read books by Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for example. He always starts off by telling the reader about the lack of historical evidence for jesus although as you read his books you know he's a believer!


I'm not arguing that the Bible could or should be taken logically, I'm arguing that believers should not be considered wholly irrational because they're believers.


You may claim to not be a (religious) believer but you are a believer and the worst thing you could believe in would be to support religion. I know it's normal for you but I understand "where you're coming from." The one main thing religious believers understand is that beliefs are created by the mind. There is nothing "out here" to support the rationality of religions. They are irrational. They force you to believe in and accept mythology in running your life. There is no human happier than an atheist for we are free of religious baggage. When we do a good deed we don't do it because we are going to be rewarded in a mythical heaven by a mythical god. We do it because it is normal to help others. The joy of helping someone cannot be equaled with a desire for a reward.


I'm an atheist, I've never followed a religion, wasn't brought up in a religious environment (although I did go to church schools, but opted out of religious stuff in my teens), and I'm not even baptised. I don't support religion, but I support the right to believe in whatever people want within moral bounds.

I have friends who are religious and I don't think their religion has made them wholly irrational people. I think that is too black and white. I don't think all religious people follow their faith fundamentally. I think making sweeping statements about religious people is as bad as people making sweeping statements about atheists or atheism.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by emeraldzeus
 

Yes, I was willing to read and I did. But you used up all 6500 alloted characters that I was not able to reply point by point as your reply needs to be.

However, be that as it may, your reply is heavily religious so I would just be beating my head against a wall as I've done with almost everyone who has joined the thread. Nothing I counter with will make a dent in your religious firewall so we'll just let it sit. However, everything you said is strictly religious belief and everything you said can be dismantled with common sense, logic and reason.


Emeraldzeus, those words your wrote are for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. Like so many dogmatic atheists in today's world, as soon as you mentioned the word "God", you lost him.

Shrike, may I suggest that everytime you hear the word 'god' you make an attempt to think of the word 'energy'. You may be surprised how many times the terms fits so well. It's only when people anthropomorphize this universal energy that it doesn't fit. Which is, I suspect, your disdain for religion.

 

p.s. UFO work with energy. I have no proof for this but common sense, logic and reason says it's true.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo__

Emeraldzeus, those words your wrote are for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. Like so many dogmatic atheists in today's world, as soon as you mentioned the word "God", you lost him.

Shrike, may I suggest that everytime you hear the word 'god' you make an attempt to think of the word 'energy'. You may be surprised how many times the terms fits so well. It's only when people anthropomorphize this universal energy that it doesn't fit. Which is, I suspect, your disdain for religion.

 

p.s. UFO work with energy. I have no proof for this but common sense, logic and reason says it's true.


No, sorry, there's no way that I can substitute the word "god" for anything other than the character that has been painted by religion for that is the only definition that goes with it. Energy has nothing to do with religion.

I don't have a disdain for religion for if that was the case I wouldn't be allowed to post a thread about it. My main complaint and the reason for the thread, which many have forgotten in their replies, is the constant linking on threads about UFOs and religion as if one couldn't exist without the other. Religious expression is a personal mind-set based on beliefs and have nothing to do with people seeing unidentified aerial objects. Those aerial objects don't have gods from humans' religions, they don't have satans, they don't have angels, they don't have devils. What they may contain is unknown but I'll be the farm whatever they turn out to be won't be connected to religious myths. Especially judeo/christian myths.

I do not have a disdain for religious believers 'cause I understand why they're religious. It does bother me, to a certain extent, why adults don't wake up and realize that as religious believers they are not exercising common sense, logic and reason, for once they are exercised religion has no hold.

The humans I do have disdain for because of their religious affiliations are the politicians who use religion as a form of control, restricting needed research, control of what women can do with their bodies, control of what children may be taught in public schools, etc. THEY are our enemies, except to those that support them.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


To be helpful, I can: a nuts and bolts UFO is just like a car, a plane or a boat, or any other item built: It has parts, it's made of metal, plastic, or other synthetic materials, It has a power source, engines which take this power and covert it to electricity to run lighting, gauges, and controls, and a motive source, so the thing can move in any direction. There is no: mystical power sources, ethereal materials, or 'magic'.

To be brutally basic, it's the same diff as a car and a dragon. One, you can actually get in and drive, and one, writers and artists for thousands of years make 'em up, and even can do pictures of skeletons, life cycles, ect- but they aren't real at all.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


To be helpful, I can: a nuts and bolts UFO is just like a car, a plane or a boat, or any other item built: It has parts, it's made of metal, plastic, or other synthetic materials, It has a power source, engines which take this power and covert it to electricity to run lighting, gauges, and controls, and a motive source, so the thing can move in any direction. There is no: mystical power sources, ethereal materials, or 'magic'.

To be brutally basic, it's the same diff as a car and a dragon. One, you can actually get in and drive, and one, writers and artists for thousands of years make 'em up, and even can do pictures of skeletons, life cycles, ect- but they aren't real at all.


Thanks for "taking over" but I think he was just busting my chops.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


My 71 year old friend you have one of the best minds on ATS regarding the control and lies of religion. You are 1000% on point! I would sit at your table anytime...


Sometimes wisdom is something only age can deploy.

S&F



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Level X
reply to post by The Shrike
 


My 71 year old friend you have one of the best minds on ATS regarding the control and lies of religion. You are 1000% on point! I would sit at your table anytime...


Sometimes wisdom is something only age can deploy.

S&F


I read your reply to my wife, with some pride I admit, and she said you can sit at our table only if you say grace!


Thank you and you are, indeed, welcome at my table. Linda just made a fantastic beef stew. I'll save you some.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If I had a dollar for everyone who said religion was created to control the masses, I would have been a millionaire by now.


With all due respect Shrike, especially as you are my elder, you sound like a fanatic. You are being completely unreasonable and not really engaging anybody in critical discussion over your opinion. You are just reiterating your opinion in response to criticism, as if by mere repetition they will be shown to be valid. In that respect you share similar characteristics to a religious fundamentalist. And although you claim atheism is not a religion, your militant representation of it speaks to the contrary.


Doesn't that tell you something?


No, repetition of something does not show something to be valid. If was the case then repetition of "Jesus is the saviour" would be true, do you accept that? It is ironic how religious your mentality is.


You need to study your history a little more. "...leading to the development of science..."? Tell that to Galileo!


Well for somebody telling me to study history, you don't seem to understand that Galileo and ancient Egypt and Sumeria are in diffeent time periods. If you did study history you would know that the ancient Egyptians and Sumerians made huge progress in the sciences, namely in the field of astronomy and mathematics:


The Babylonian astronomers were very interested in studying the stars and sky, and most could already predict eclipses and solstices. People thought that everything had some purpose in astronomy. Most of these related to religion and omens. Mesopotamian astronomers worked out a 12 month calendar based on the cycles of the moon. They divided the year into two seasons: summer and winter. The origins of astronomy as well as astrology date from this time.

During the 8th and 7th centuries BC, Babylonian astronomers developed a new approach to astronomy. They began studying philosophy dealing with the ideal nature of the early universe and began employing an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems. This was an important contribution to astronomy and the philosophy of science and some scholars have thus referred to this new approach as the first scientific revolution.[15] This new approach to astronomy was adopted and further developed in Greek and Hellenistic astronomy.

In Seleucid and Parthian times, the astronomical reports were of a thoroughly scientific character; how much earlier their advanced knowledge and methods were developed is uncertain. The Babylonian development of methods for predicting the motions of the planets is considered to be a major episode in the history of astronomy.


The Mesopotamians used a sexagesimal (base 60) numeral system. This is the source of the current 60-minute hours and 24-hour days, as well as the 360 degree circle. The Sumerian calendar also measured weeks of seven days each. This mathematical knowledge was used in mapmaking.

The Babylonians might have been familiar with the general rules for measuring the areas. They measured the circumference of a circle as three times the diameter and the area as one-twelfth the square of the circumference, which would be correct if pi were estimated as 3.



en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, the first studies in science, arts, philosophy and technology emerged out of religious reasons and in very religious socities.
If you look at ancient Indians, which are also very religious, you find even more amazing discoveries in science and technology:


The people of the Indus Civilization achieved great accuracy in measuring length, mass, and time. They were among the first to develop a system of uniform weights and measures......Harappan engineers followed the decimal division of measurement for all practical purposes, including the measurement of mass as revealed by their hexahedron weights.

These chert weights were in a perfect ratio of 4:2:1 with weights of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, and 500 units, with each unit weighing approximately 28 grams, similar to the English Imperial ounce or Greek uncia, and smaller objects were weighed in similar ratios with the units of 0.871.

Unique Harappan inventions include an instrument which was used to measure whole sections of the horizon and the tidal lock. In addition, Harappans evolved some new techniques in metallurgy and produced copper, bronze, lead and tin. The engineering skill of the Harappans was remarkable, especially in building docks after a careful study of tides, waves and currents.

In 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of two men from Mehrgarh, Pakistan, made the discovery that the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation, from the early Harappan periods, had knowledge of proto-dentistry.

A touchstone bearing gold streaks was found in Banawali, which was probably used for testing the purity of gold (such a technique is still used in some parts of India).[39]


It is clear you know nothing about the history of science and technology, so I am going to give you reading material on it after which you should realise that science and technology was developed in very religious societies for religious reasons. Maths developed out of the need to construct altars for religious rituals; astronomology developed out of astrology; philosophy developed out of occultism; medicine developed out of exorcism; justice developed out of moral commandments; psychology developed out of spirituality; linguisics developed out of the need to interpret scripture.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Excerpts:


During the 1st millennium BCE, the Vaisheshika school of atomism was founded. The most important proponent of this school was Kanada, an Indian philosopher who lived around 200 BCE.[51] The school proposed that atoms are indivisible and eternal, can neither be created nor destroyed,[52] and that each one possesses its own distinct viśeṣa (individuality).[53]




Brahmanic hospitals were established in what is now Sri Lanka as early as 431 BCE.[35] Ashoka (reign: 273 BCE to 232 BCE) also established a chain of hospitals throughout the Mauryan empire (322–185 BCE) by 230 BCE.[35]



Pingala presents the first known description of a binary numeral system. He described the binary numeral system in connection with the listing of Vedic meters with short and long syllables. His discussion of the combinatorics of meter, corresponds to the binomial theorem. Halayudha' s commentary includes a presentation of the Pascal's triangle (called meru-prastaara). Pingala's work also contains the basic ideas of Fibonacci number (called maatraameru ).



Muslim scientists placed a greater emphasis on experimentation than previous ancient civilizations (for example, Greek philosophy placed a greater emphasis on rationality rather than empiricism),[13][16] which was due to the emphasis on empirical observation found in the Qur'an and Sunnah,[70][71][72][73] and the rigorous historical methods established in the science of hadith.[70] Muslim scientists thus combined precise observation, controlled experiment and careful records[16] with a new[13] approach to scientific inquiry which led to the development of the scientific method.[74] In particular, the empirical observations and experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) in his Book of Optics (1021) is seen as the beginning of the modern scientific method,[75] which he first introduced to optics and psychology.


After reading these links and perhaps doing further reading on them, you will start to appreciate that the biggest developments in science and technology were made in very religious socities(Sumeria, India, Arabia) long before Galileo even lived. Thus religion has not at all suppressed science, but rather given birth to it and nutured it. If you do not revise your myopic view after reading this, then it safe to say old man, you have become senile.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


I agree, absolutely.

I think religion is evil as it is a man-made tool for mind control and it has always caused misery, suffering, wars, hatred - everything that Satan loves.

Belief and spirituality, on the other hand, are marvellous. Humans need a spiritual input in their lives.

UFO's are a mystery, as you say - maybe they are the key to our spirituality.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
Thank you and you are, indeed, welcome at my table. Linda just made a fantastic beef stew. I'll save you some.


Wow, a positive comment from The Shrike! Did your wife throw some Prozac tablets into the mix when she fed you that stew through your feeding tube, Grandpa?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by hermantinkly

Originally posted by The Shrike
Thank you and you are, indeed, welcome at my table. Linda just made a fantastic beef stew. I'll save you some.


Wow, a positive comment from The Shrike! Did your wife throw some Prozac tablets into the mix when she fed you that stew through your feeding tube, Grandpa?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


No, the chunks of beef that kept getting stuck in the tube interfered with the Prozac. She's gonna ask Christina Ricci (hubba, hubba!) to give her a hand with the Prozac. Experience, ya know.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by The Shrike
i]Originally posted by Level X
reply to post by The Shrike
 



I read your reply to my wife, with some pride I admit, and she said you can sit at our table only if you say grace!


Thank you and you are, indeed, welcome at my table. Linda just made a fantastic beef stew. I'll save you some.


Well sir, I'll have to take you and your wife up on the invite... Maybe the folks at "Religious Airlines" will send over that miracle ticket



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Thanks for "taking over" but I think he was just busting my chops.


No, I'm not 'busting your chops'. I want you to define your term.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


You are entitled to your opinion. Understand, though, it is JUST an opinion. Reading through your post, I noted several things. One, severe arrogance. You assume that your mindset is the only one that can possibly be correct, and seem willing to ignore and evidence to the contrary. Two, you made some statements that are simply not true. Children are not born with "empty minds", as you claim, and anyone that has actually raised kids knows this. Children are born with a sense of wonder, and an understanding of God, that is enviable. Then you go on to state that no one knows what UFOs are (clearly not true), and yet assume that you can know they have no connection to any religious belief? That's some leap there. Three, your attitude towards people with a different opinion is quite ridiculous. Why should you be offended or upset that threads addressing a religious angle grow? If you don't agree, state your opinion. If it bothers you that much, simply don't read tose threads. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, and that being different from yours doesn't automatically mean they are wrong.

As for the general statements on religion? You clearly understand nothing about religion, beyond some atheist talking points list. Religion is simply the organized practice of a belief system. People have a wide variety of beliefs, and to dismiss all of them as false, or only a "controlling" system, is showing a complete lack of understanding of human beings. I would love to hear an explanation of who, exactly, is "controlling" me, since I have what you would call religious beliefs. No one tells me where to be or when, or how to dress, or what to eat, or controls my finances. So, where is the control? Maybe you should do some real research into various belief systems before attacking them all, and painting all with such a wide brush.

Finally, to address your basic premise, I disagree. I think that IF UFOs are something other than test aircraft and the like, that a spiritual connection is the ONLY one that makes sense of many of the details. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
My only concern with connecting UFOs/Aliens to religion is people who anoint these creatures as Gods and Saviors simply because they equate technological superiority to spiritual superiority.


And here is an example of that type of thinking, from another thread which was one of my complaints in my OP: "The proof of Aliens is nothing new, go back to ancient times and look at the art and read the scriptures.
They all depict aliens and UFOs."

No they do not! Nowhere in the jewish bible nor in the new testament can you find any mention of aliens and UFOs. This is strictly modern interpretation by those who have some kind of mental block to common sense and logic.

...


You broke your own rule. Since you did, allow me to correct your mistake. Angels and demons were created before the earth, and thus are, by definition, extraterrestrial. Plus, the wheel-thing that Ezekiel saw could easily be imagined to be what people see now as a UFO. Based on those two things, one could easily form the hypothesis that UFOs are manifestations of fallen angels (or the more numerous ones that didn't fall). Refusing to admit even that possibility is showing that you are the one not using your whole 199%, and are in fact brainwashed with atheist dogma.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Not one single person can back up any claim linking religions to UFOs. I'm confident of that.


Over-confident. From experience, I can relate to you some information that convinces me of the validity of labeling some UFO/alien activity as spiritual in nature. Had a friend (now deceased) that spoke of being abducted. Not to many people, and not often, but those close to him knew about it. He was never hypnotized, either, so this wasn't some false memory. This friend knew of my Christian beliefs, but had not decided what he believed. When he visited once, I told him that he didn't have to worry while at my house, if I was right, because such things were simply not allowed in my home. He simply said, "ok", and left it at that. I knew he didn't want a discussion of religion. A day or so later, he came to me, and told me that he felt safe there, and that he appreciated that. Told him to give the credit where it's due (not with me). He seemed much more at peace, too. Now, say what you will, but this not-Christian friend started believing in my theory, which is quite opposed to yours. Still so confident?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

No one that has replied has done any decent research for if they had, they would have emerged better educated about the reality of religion, any religion.


What utter arrogance! Because people don't agree with you, you assume they did no research? You can't accept the fact that people might draw different conclusions from yours? Is it comfortable standing so long on that soapbox?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join