It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Beliefs in "UFOs" no different from "religious beliefs"

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

So, according to you..
I have to believe......

ghosts, spirits, talking animals, poltergeists, weeping statues, werewoves, vampires, fairies, elves, bigfoot, living dinosaurs, living Elvis, ghosts, Flying dutchmen, UFO's, aliens, gods, angels......
and who knows what else......

I think not, sorry Charlie!
see the fallacy in your thinking?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by OldDragger

We are a young race. We have only walked the earth for about 5 million years in a similar form. We only walk the earth as modern man for about 100.000 years.

The universe is estimated to be 13. something billion years old. So the universe is about 130.000 times older then the age of modern man.

There has been a lot of time for any other intelligence to learn how to travel the stars.
As humans it is theoretically possible to achieve at least one 10th of the speed of light, and this is from only about 150 years of technology.

Fiction has proven to be a step towards an exciting future. Star trek the original series has only a few things we have not been able to reproduce just yet.

Even the bible states. When the people worked together and started building the tower of Babel, God said, "let us go down and make them not understand each other anymore." The reason given is because we are able to make our widest imagination come true if we all worked together. This was what...? About 6000 years ago ?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by OldDragger
Two very very different questions, that UFO fans don't seem to get!
Question one, are there other intelligent beings? Probably.
Totally seperate question 2: Are they visiting us? Probably not.
The laws of pysics ans the tremendous distances of space would seem to pretty much rule it out.

I am not sure how knowledgeable you are in physics but to say physics rules it out is false statement. Physics is in it's infancy and will more than likely change many, many times.

Technology will advance and so will our scientific understanding, so if there is one thing that a well-educated physicist will tell you is that almost nothing is impossible, improbably, maybe, but nothing is impossible.

Why would they not be visiting us, we have been sending out radio waves for 100 or so years and well, that is kind of like a radio beacon within 100 or so light years, that would lead them right to us.

Maybe their curious, who knows? I would be.

Any WHY assume so much? Because you were raised on science fiction, keyword FICTION.
Why assume "we are a young species"? Whats your evidence/

Ummm the fossil record. 100,000 + years is even a short and infant species for just on Earth. Our sun is only 1/3 the age of the universe. If we were to have a inhabitable planet, that had life, that was older of course there would be more advanced beings on it.

Life throughout Earth's history has become more complex, leading to more intelligent life-forms. Read some evolutionary biology.

Why assume anybody else would invent, or even WANT TO invent space travel? Because of science fiction.
things like 'warp drive' don't exist, they are plot devices for science fiction space opera stories. we are no closer to zipping anywhere in space very quickly than we were a million years ago!!!

I never once said all of them would want to invest time in space travel, but in order to guarantee the success of your species the only intelligent thought would be to not have all your eggs in one basket. I am sure you heard tat before right?

We were not here a million years ago, btw.

Also if you fully understood relativity, there is a possibility of bunching space/time front us and shooting it out behind us. Our technology is the only thing holding us back. Now that sounds like sci-fi and is plausible.


[edit on 10-7-2010 by predator0187]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by OldDragger

There is no fallacy in my thinking. I never said you should believe anything.

What I mean is that you should not dismiss anything, just because it lacks evidence and only is an eye witness account.

I am absolutely convinced there is other intelligent life out there. I belief some of them have visited earth. I think there is a lot of evidence this could really be the case, but it is only my own interpretation of what others showed and told me.

I know from experience I'm often wrong so...
Anyway, you can say it is like a religion . However I do not set up rules and rituals. It is just a personal feeling.

Personal conclusion :
Believing in ET's visiting earth is everything but a religion as it only has one similar concept. Faith without evidence. Unless one has have real contact. However... We will never know for sure if that person is lying or not.

[edit on 7/10/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:20 PM
Shouldn't we take into account that not all who witness these ufo's, ghosts, etc. had a desire to do so. Such a thing can really shake people. Seems like you'd have to desire a religious conversion. Are all of those witness mistaken, deluded, or lying?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Norio Hayakawa
Vallee and Keel basically came with a conclusion that this whole phenomenon goes beyond the physical and that it may be impossible to study it through the so-called "scientific" or "empirical" method.

Well yeah but reality itself goes beyond the physical. The nature of reality is consciousness, not the physical. The physical is just an illusion. Matter, energy, time, space...all of these emerge from non-local transpersonal consciousness. The subject/object dichotomy is false.

That means that the gods and the aliens are archetypes of the collective unconscious, but in different symbolic forms. They are a part of us all. Tat tvam asi.

Since the nature of reality is mind-stuff, we are psychic beings. We unconsciously use our psi to literally project the archetypes of the collective unconscious into the "real world".

"One of the first to explore the notion of mythology manifesting as physical reality was psychoanalyst Carl Jung, who in 1957 published the book Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky. More recently, authors Jacques Vallee (Dimensions: A Casebook of Alien Contact) and Keith Thompson (Angels and Aliens: UFOs and the Mythic Imagination) and folklorists Peter Rojcewicz and Thomas Bullard have written about the parallels among UFOs, folklore, and mythology.

“Space-Age myth” does not imply that UFO sightings or encounters with angels, aliens, fairies, sprites, elves, or demons are fantasies. Rather, it suggests that some of these experiences may literally be psychophysical, blurring conventional boundaries between objective and subjective realities. Some may object that this proposal doesn’t account for the physical traces associated with some UFO reports, but this misinterprets what Jung and others have proposed. They suggest that the manifest world emerges from mind, that is, that mind shapes matter. Where have we heard this before?"

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Student X]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

No lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen to you. You have to understand the difference between subjective and objective. If you have a subjective alien encounter it may be very convincing to you and in every way real but that doesn't mean I should believe it.

But why should the eyes of another get labeled as unreliable just because you didn't see it and the witness forgot to bring his forensic evidence gear.

Again if we used subjective experience as the burden of proof we'd all be members of every religion and believers in every unsupported pseudoscientific idea. The "eyes of another" have seen aliens, Krishna, unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Jesus on toast, etc etc etc. The fact is that human perception is unreliable that's why things in science have to be the same for multiple observers in order to gain acceptance. I'm not advocating we all carry around forensics kits I'm just saying the burden of proof is on those making the claim and if they have no evidence aside from subjective experience than we are just taking them at their word and are wide open to being misled, lied to and conned.

Claiming the the experience is a lie, for whatever reason...

Excuse me for not taking people's word about little green men as truth right away. Exactly how mind-numbingly gullible do you want me to be?

If I told you I just ate a pancake

A pancake is mundane, normal, and would not change the course of human history. Alien contact is extraordinary and would change human history forever. Also it is a well established fact that pancakes exist and are tasty even before you make the claim. The example is invalid.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:09 PM
I must agree with the OP on this one. Take any religion and dissect it, replace God with an alien spacecraft. Replace Angels with Aliens and you have UFOlogy.

Allow me to make a demonstration,

Post on a thread something that believers find offensive. Post a comment that insults Jesus on a religious form. Insult Mohamed on am Islamic forum and lastly post something negative on a UFO forum and they will all induce the same responses. Actually, there is no need to do this because it has already been posted on this thread. People will always defend what they believe and they will grow angry if you oppose their belief.

S&F to the OP and star to Titen-Sxull for intelligent comments.

And to those who are against what I just posted, please don't insult my God/UFO

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Norio Hayakawa
Beliefs in "UFOs" as physical extraterrestrial spacecraft are no different from "religious beliefs".
Carl Sagan mentioned the connection between UFO beliefs and religious beliefs back in 1966, starting a little after 3 minutes in this video:

(click to open player in new window)

We live in very unsettled times. It used to be possible to believe in a personal, benevolent, powerful, all-knowing God, who cared about individuals, who you could pray to, but now there's very few people who really believe that, I think.

Science, for good or for ill, has destroyed a lot of the traditional theologies, and yet people have the same need to believe that they always did...perhaps more so because of the times we live in.

The flying saucer myths are a really clever compromise. It's a way of having beings that come from the sky that are worried about us, that are powerful, that are going to step in and prevent us from destroying ourselves (which we very well might) and yet have the cloak of no one can say "nonsense, that doesn't match science", it's all very pseudoscientific.

I would think that for at least the contact myths, and probably for a lot of the events of people that just see things they don't understand flying overhead, what's involved is psychology and theology, and not so much the physical sciences.

He says that people have a need to believe is a higher power, like one that might prevent us from destroying ourselves. But with advancements in science making it harder to believe in a traditional God, it seems more rational to believe our saviors will be extraterrestrials, since even if we have no evidence they've visited the Earth, we think it's at least scientifically possible for them to do so.

Originally posted by predator0187
Physics is in it's infancy and will more than likely change many, many times.

Technology will advance and so will our scientific understanding,
I'm glad you corrected yourself to admit that it's our understanding that will change, and not physics.

The way I see it, there are at least two options:
1. The speed of light is not as limiting as we currently think it is. Or,
2. It is.

I'm open to either possibility. That video also refers to "God's quarantine" in the event that #2 happens to be the case.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Physics will change though, just our physics. Not our basic tried and proven laws but the understanding of it.

Physics will always be physics but maybe we only have a grasp on 10% of its entirety.

i hope you understand what I am trying to say, because I am confusing myself a little.

Our understanding advances hand in hand with our technology, so when one moves forward the other follows.

I have had discussions with you about physics in the past, and would not mind having another one...


[edit on 10-7-2010 by predator0187]

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

I'm fully aware of objective and subjective evidence and the difference.
I know the mind is easily duped and our senses are unreliable.

I never ever said you should believe someone just because they say so.
The reason for my pancake example even. It does not matter if a pancake is a proven thing and aliens are not.

What matters is that an objective account could be 100 % real and you dismiss it because there is no evidence it happened. Why ?
I understand, I want to see some proof to, I will not take ones word for it. It would however be ignorant to say it can't be.

I said that it is not a religious thing to believe in aliens.
A religion is an institute with rules, rituals and it is build on the willingness of people to believe in something.

Believing in visiting aliens is just that. Nothing to do with religion. When you start comparing religion to new age philosophies and any other esoteric stuff. I agree, that is a religious thing.

No offense. I only respond with my interpretation of the replies. Please tell me if I mis understand ?

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:44 PM
A video of Carl Sagan. His way of saying religion is nonsense.
I posted this in a thread a few hours ago.

Carl Sagan - A world not made for us.

I agree with him.

What he says about religion being a silly thing also counts for ignorance when there is no evidence. IMO

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:51 PM
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Its not religion but it is reminiscent of it as it requires faith to make positive claims about what UFOs are without evidence. Some UFO believers act like a religion and form into UFO cults with their own sets of new age and pseudoscientific beliefs.

What matters is that an objective account could be 100 % real and you dismiss it because there is no evidence it happened. Why ?

A subjective personal experience could be 100% real to the person experiencing it but I would still dismiss their account. Its a default skepticism, I'm not trying to say they are lying but if they cannot produce evidence than I am left unconvinced. It's quite possible someone has had an alien encounter but I'm not going with the look before I leap approach and buying into their account just because they might seem trustworthy or honest.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by predator0187
Physics will always be physics but maybe we only have a grasp on 10% of its entirety.
I am not sure about the 10% but that could be right. For sure there is much we don't understand.

i hope you understand what I am trying to say, because I am confusing myself a little.

I have had discussions with you about physics in the past, and would not mind having another one...
I think we are on the same page.

The real physical laws of the universe don't change, according to my understanding. (though I suppose it's possible that they do, but I've never seen any evidence for this).

So if the real physical laws of the universe don't change, the only thing that CAN change is our understanding of them, which has changed in the past and I'm sure will change in the future as we learn more.

Yes, we've had some interesting discussions my friend.

We have already theorized the "warp drive":

Alcubierre drive
but it's still

a speculative mathematical model
. It's a pretty creative way to go faster than light without going faster than light locally. It would be interesting if we can ever show it's more than just theoretical, but it would take enormous amounts of power, probably a matter-anti-matter reaction just like Star Trek suggested.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Then what I'm saying is actually the same from a different perspective.

I believe
we agree.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by Norio Hayakawa
Hello Norio,

'Beliefs in 'UFOs' is no different from 'religious beliefs,' is too sweeping a statement....people are always more complicated than this and too hard to nail down

For some people, believing UFOs are ET is very similar to religious belief. Of these, a number believe 'disclosure' will lead to the redemption of humanity by alien saviours. Our souls will be saved by these powerful, benign beings who have come bearing gifts of world peace and spiritual evolution. All the dark forces of government and armed forces will be swept away as our world transcends. They've given aliens the same power for good as Christ. Just as Christians believe Jesus must be invited into our hearts to be saved, many believers say the same thing about aliens. In essence, they've given aliens the same powers to save as any religious icon.

Some areas of ufology have created the good/evil imagery that features in most religious texts. Often called the 'dark side of ufology,' the likes of Bill Cooper and John Lear created ideas of evil aliens in the image of demons. To believers in this 'reality,' aliens share the same powers and behaviours as demons...they rape, ruin and torture humanity for pleasure. Some go further and believe these satanic creatures can be warded off by belief in Christ and God.

Other people have drawn conclusions that UFOs may represent ET craft as a logical extension of the abilities and behaviours of the objects. Whereas Krishna hasn't been chased by jets...UFOs have. Jesus hasn't been recorded on the radar screens of civilian and military Air Traffic Control. When reports are made of unidentified objects in the skies, accounts rarely describe a bearded man like Mohammed.

When we look at the most prominent UFO cases in reports like Cometa, Condon and Blue book, we see radar traces, eye witnesses, scrambled jets and physical trace incidents. Some of these incidents describe actual footage of physical craft.

Vallee may have had a point about the difficulties of studying the phenomena, but 'impossible' is a step too my opinion.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:16 PM
Well, I think the two beliefs are different, not the same.

People who believe in UFO's dont go knocking on peoples doors trying to get others to believe in them as well.

People who believe in UFO's don't neccasarily think a UFO is going to come and save them, but all religions believe a 'god' is coming to save them and give them eternal life.

People who believe in UFO's (in my experience) don't attend weekly meetings and be expected to cough up money.

People who believe in UFO's don't start wars over whose UFO is the best.

People who believe in UFO's don't adhere to any particular rules whereas religion is all about rules and regulations.

- just a few reasons why I don't see the connection.

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:48 PM
the belief of UFOs are speculation on something that can be proven or debunked. people do not worship or kill in the name of UFOs. also the belief of UFOs encourage the advancement of science and the mind. religion dose exactly the theory is that early in human history we needed religion as a safeguard to explain things we did not understand and to give us moral standards. if you stay up late on Christmas you wont get presents from Santa and if do bad things in life you will go to hell its the same principle and the same tactic. but this was in a time were we were our minds were morally undeveloped. at this time we do not need the moral safe guard of religion or the baggage that comes with it. religion brings groups of people together and then it turns them against each other. when people are willing to fight and die irrationality over something that will almost certainly never be proven then nothing but bad things will happen. to put the belief of UFOs and religion in the same is an insult.

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by Norio Hayakawa

I agree, except in the case of people who have actually seen a UFO. I highly doubt anyone has physically viewed the face of God or an angel, so while there are UFO witnesses I don't think there are really any God witnesses. That is what separates the UFO phenomenon from a religion.

(You could argue that people claim to have seen God mentally or in dreams, but I don't think many people claim to have seen God physically)

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 12:33 AM
I have seen several Unidentified Flying Objects and to the best of my knowledge I am not prone to psychological delusional manifestations.
I know I saw what I saw.

I have always believed that what I witnessed was very advanced technology and that as time passes our own spacecraft will evolve and advance to that level inevitably as well.

As far as "religious beliefs" , after I read the Holy Bible it did convince me that the book was written Based upon biblical accounts as a handbook of basic rules in which to lead one's life.

In the book of Matthew for example: Judge not that ye be not judged

But much of these biblical accounts were described in the terminology and in a means in which they had no scientific knowledge or understanding.
So much of it is subject to interpretation.

We have faith in religion partly due to societal pressure. For religion is a form of societal control.

But my own belief in UFOs is primarily based upon my own experiences whereas my belief in religion unfortunately is not.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in