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.

 

Why Aliens don't land? Its religion of course.

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Whoa now, I think maybe my statement might have been slightly misleading. I'm not implying that we should mix science and religion into some all empowered stronghold. I'm simply suggesting that we do not claim spirituality has no place in the modern world. Religion in its purest sense helps people understand values and morals. The idea of faith supersedes religion in that it is the act of believing what hasn't been proven.




posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegoodcause
Religion in its purest sense helps people understand values and morals.


Yes, but so does episodes of star trek. the problem with religion in my view is that they link principles and a moral code to a bunch of nonsense...

dont steal...ok, reasonable enough..stealing will only harm a growing society, a good philosophy...but in religous context, its...dont steal, and on the same note, the space ghost hates gay people and shrimp cocktails...both are abominations.

I think the core values...the real basics of religion (most religions, not focused in on christianity or judism) teach good and obvious lessons on how to get along in civilization
dont steal stuff, dont kill people, treat people good, help out those in need.

why does religion feel the need to attach a endless supply of nonsense on top of that? if instead of the bible, we had just a small piece of paper saying those 4 things as our entire sum of moral guidance, imagine how peaceful and progressive the world would be.

again, I have no problem with personal spirituality...its when its pushed onto others in convenient book format is when disasters happen. that, I feel, is when a decent message of the 4 principles of society becomes a burden of progress towards our civilizations advancement and enlightenment.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Hey OP and Contributors,

First--off, I believe there are more than one race of ebes. Below, On and monitoring from Above -- this ball.
Secondly, they do land in my opinion. Godfrey was one of the first to lose his police job not long after his encounter in England. And Lonnie Zamora (link: xenophilius.wordpress.com... ) experienced/witnessed a landed craft w/two ebes outside.

Great post OP. Lots of noteworthy comments from ATS people too.

Decoy



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I agree with all those points and all that extra nonsense is just humans being humans. Adding and contradicting without realizing. Any word that denies acceptance of a fellow human being should not be practiced ever. For most of my life I considered myself an atheist so I am by no means a religious person. My faith is in mankind, truth, and what is yet to be discovered.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Considering it's not altogether impossible that we were "created" a split second ago with fabricated memories of a time that never truly existed by cream cheese monsters from the 678th dimension? Even if the world was a computer simulation, wouldn't that make the programmers "God(s)"?

The problem is your subsets are subjective and not at all objective, logical or scientific. Please don't take this the wrong way, but; who exactly are you to judge others beliefs? What makes you right over them? You share the same limitations, you share the same problems, your both people. And just because an entity doesn't sit on our shoulders spouting divine commandments or flying around like some cosmic superman does not mean one does not exist. Simple logic man, Argumentum ad Ignorantum is a logical fallcy thus NOT LOGICAL.

And before you feed me more lines of about all the bad things done in religion's name I would like to point out the fact that mankind will generally use whatever excuse he can to get what he wants. We both know this to be true. You see it nationalism and any of a gazillion other ideas that have nothing to do with proposed entities and etc mankind uses as excuses for his percieved right to take what he wants. The problem is quite simply NOT RELIGION, it's us.


edit on 1-10-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Your reply to my reply cannot be replied to since you just ramble on not stating anything worthwhile to counter my comments. And your reply is unnecessarily long. Look up the meaning of the word "concise" and learn how to use it. And since I'm not a blind believer, or a believer period, all of your examples have no validity therefore no argument.



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Aliens can do anything they want and they are in total control they can show themselves or not. Aliens have experienced religion of all kinds in our Galaxy and Universes. Religion is not new to them if they want you they will get you in your sleep at 3am Religion or not. They do not have to show themselves but when the Elite Powers that Be on this Earth need the aliens to show themselves they will to take advantage of controlling the masses.

Why do you think an envoy is being set up by the UN to make contact with aliens. Hate to rain on your parade but contact has already been made but you and I do not know about it publicly. The UN wants to be the Big Cheese for they can take control and not lose control with the support of the aliens. One World Order and World Dominance call it what you want the UN wants total control of this Earth with the help of the aliens. Now this sounds like science fiction but folks you do not set up a person within the UN to meet or make contact aliens if something isn't up already.

We do not need the UN to set up an envoy to meet with the aliens We The People can vote who ever we want to meet with them if need be. For you naysayers watch how this all plays out. ^Y^



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Considering it's not altogether impossible that we were "created" a split second ago with fabricated memories of a time that never truly existed by cream cheese monsters from the 678th dimension? Even if the world was a computer simulation, wouldn't that make the programmers "God(s)"?

no, it would make them programmers.
and besides, I don't actually have a problem with a God, I have a problem with religions that pop up in his name that demand all sorts of nonsense.
a greater order of the universe...a slowly awaking consciousness on a grand scale..its a interesting concept overall. its when people take that interesting concept and create a irrational religion out of it which twists the whole concept into a shallow, local fantasy soaked in blood and ignorance.



who exactly are you to judge others beliefs? What makes you right over them?

I am a human dealing with this as everyone else...and I have equal rights over "them. I am exactly on the same level as the pope, a imam, and a rabbi. The difference is, they use faith to create their worldview, I use logic and reason. I personally see my viewpoint and how its established to be more advanced than their methods, and advancement in thinking typically is closer to a truth than primitive thinking.



You share the same limitations, you share the same problems, your both people.

Wise man said, “There are no limitations to the mind except those we acknowledge”



And just because an entity doesn't sit on our shoulders spouting divine commandments or flying around like some cosmic superman does not mean one does not exist. Simple logic man, Argumentum ad Ignorantum is a logical fallcy thus NOT LOGICAL.

and here we go, the worst potential argument ever.
you know what...just because I cannot see demons on my bed doesn't mean they are not there...and just because I dont see invisible flying unicorns wisking by me all the time doesn't mean there not there.

you cannot disprove a negative...science 101...you measure what is there and base theories on what can be measured. We can measure life, we can measure stars, we can measure planets around stars..we can make calculations of probable life statistics in the universe...we cannot measure a deity, or a fairy, or a unicorn until one presents itself, or at the very least, gives effects off in some surrounding area.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Your reply to my reply cannot be replied to since you just ramble on not stating anything worthwhile to counter my comments. And your reply is unnecessarily long. Look up the meaning of the word "concise" and learn how to use it. And since I'm not a blind believer, or a believer period, all of your examples have no validity therefore no argument.


ok, then let me shorten it and dumb it down a bit.



Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You cannot post anything about aliens trying to sound as if you and your link friend know anything about aliens.


I can speculate based on reason, logic, and understanding of some basic functions of all life.


Aliens is just a name given to a mythical being alleged to ride in what we have termed UFOs.

incorrect. Aliens are intelligent life forms not of earth.


Yes, UFOs can be discussed but only the "craft"

Actually, I wasn't really talking about UFOs as the main subject, but if I wanted to discuss what their stereo system they used inside sounded like, I can...in a speculation thread, I can even talk about how they may detail the interior.



as no one knows anything else.

prove it...or change your sentence to "you are not aware of anyone knowing more


To suppose is just to play mind games.

Yep, mind games...also known as pondering and theorizing


There is no evidence for the reality of alleged aliens and any tales put forward are, so far, just tales

Sure there is...just no proof from the evidence yet.


No one can call them extraterrestrial because there is no evidence for such.

I can call the subject of this thread Extraterrestrials because its a theory...speculation...hell, I will go further and label them the Nords...


The only evidence we have is that we are the only beings in the universe.

The only evidence we have is every planet we have fully tested supports life. earth being the only planet we truely know about offically.
We know of water on mars
we have seen some water on the bloody moon
etc etc etc. but one thing we are sure of, is that earth, the only planet we truely have the ability to test, supports life. now, with the other stuff in the news lately about life supporting planets being discovered, I would venture to say your evidence is no longer up to par. bit like saying the earth is flat as old Chris is sailing off...its no longer common sense...sure, technically it still stands, but only technically

oops, I went over my word allotment on that last one...let me replrase that:

nuh-uhh

you can reread the original post to read the more in depth explanation.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by amari
 


Everything you wrote is assumptions on something unknowable followed up by a lack of understanding on the latest news.

now, I will say one last thing in regards to your post. You say we don't need the UN should an alien appear...that we will vote for whom speaks.

I assume you mean the world

which means the aliens will be speaking to either a chinese ambassador, or a indian ambassador...considering those are the two most populous nations on earth...one person, one vote.
Welcome to red china earth.

I think the UN made a fine choice in the event that ET comes knocking...can you imagine what the world would put forward in a democratic vote? look at the US...even a small nation like that gets up in arms and ready to take the pitchforks and torches to the street when their side loses an election...you didn't think that through, did you.



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Remote viewing Tibetan monks see Extra Terrestrial powers saving the World from destroying itself in 2012


Between 2010 and 2012, the whole world will get polarized and prepare for the ultimate dooms day. Heavy political maneuvers and negotiations will take place with little progress. In 2012, the world will start plunging into a total destructive nuclear war. And at that time something remarkable will happen, says, Buddhist monk of Tibet. Supernatural divine powers will intervene. The destiny of the world is not to self-destruct at this time. Scientific interpretation of the monks’ statements makes it evident that the Extra Terrestrial powers are watching us every step of the way. They will intervene in 2012 and save the world from self-destruction.


www.indiadaily.com...

Tibetan Monks See Aliens Saving Earth From Humans In 2012!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


erm....Zorgon...I think you meant to hit "new thread"...ya?

from your article though:


In world politics something will happen in and around 2010. At that time the world powers will threaten to destroy each other.


Granted, year is not over yet, almost...but nope, nothing saying that...just your typical year to year grump sessions..but actually, it has been better than the past few years in regards to stepping down in iraq, israel/palistinians talking again, etc...

sounds like they are way off.


edit on 2-10-2010 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Aliens is just a name given to a mythical being alleged to ride in what we have termed UFOs.

incorrect. Aliens are intelligent life forms not of earth.


Incorrect..


a·li·en (l-n, lyn)
adj.
1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
n.
1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.
tr.v. a·li·ened, a·li·en·ing, a·li·ens Law
To transfer (property) to another; alienate.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

As you can see Alien means many things, but #4. A creature from outer space: It's not required to be intelligent. Better to use ET as a term, but even an ET can exist that has no intelligence



edit on 2-10-2010 by zorgon because: You do NOT have the need to know



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



according to the Oxford dictionary, the relevant definition is:
a hypothetical or fictional being from another world
Oxford



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


no, it would make them programmers.
and besides, I don't actually have a problem with a God, I have a problem with religions that pop up in his name that demand all sorts of nonsense.
a greater order of the universe...a slowly awaking consciousness on a grand scale..its a interesting concept overall. its when people take that interesting concept and create a irrational religion out of it which twists the whole concept into a shallow, local fantasy soaked in blood and ignorance.


Ah. So long as people meet with your approval their beliefs are fine? Once again. Who are you to judge? And semantics. A programmer would constitute a "god" for denizens of that simulation. A being that exists outside the simulation that created the simulation. Sounds like the basic idea of a "god" to me.


I am a human dealing with this as everyone else...and I have equal rights over "them. I am exactly on the same level as the pope, a imam, and a rabbi. The difference is, they use faith to create their worldview, I use logic and reason. I personally see my viewpoint and how its established to be more advanced than their methods, and advancement in thinking typically is closer to a truth than primitive thinking.


Logic and reason you say? You are no doubt aware of the logical fallacy Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. It cuts both ways and if your argument includes a fallacy that obviously means that argument is not logical. Why exactly do you get to claim the label when you commit the same fallacy as those you oppose?
Then you follow it up with a subjective opinion comment that is treated as objective truth. I am amazed you did not catch it yourself. I mean that. You do appear to be an intelligent fellow. You do not get to be right simply because you are you. I wish people would get over that particular vanity.


Wise man said, “There are no limitations to the mind except those we acknowledge”


Not a very wise man then. Shall we now list the ways in which the human body is limited? Shall we talk about all the ways the 5 senses are limited? How about the limitations of the human mind it's self? How about how the human mind is more geared towards reinforcing existing framework at the expense of newer perhaps more factual information? I could go on. But my point is ignoring those limitations exacerbates them, it does not make them go away.


and here we go, the worst potential argument ever.
you know what...just because I cannot see demons on my bed doesn't mean they are not there...and just because I dont see invisible flying unicorns wisking by me all the time doesn't mean there not there.

you cannot disprove a negative...science 101...you measure what is there and base theories on what can be measured. We can measure life, we can measure stars, we can measure planets around stars..we can make calculations of probable life statistics in the universe...we cannot measure a deity, or a fairy, or a unicorn until one presents itself, or at the very least, gives effects off in some surrounding area.


No it's the most logical argument. If you're going to claim to have logic on yourside at least learn to understand it's workings. Not the specialized version that supports your viewpoint. In the abscence of evidence it is not logical to declare it non-existant or existant as absense of evidence does not necessarily constitute evidence of absense and vice versa.

As stated, the rule "You can't prove a negative" is demonstrably false.

For many phenomena, the existence of the phenomenon would have some consequences that are themselves falsifiable. You can easily prove that there is no dragon in your refrigerator. (A dragon, or any dragon-sized creature, would provably not fit into a box the size of your refrigerator. More generally, you could simply look in the refrigerator -- do you see a dragon? Do you see any place large enough that a dragon could hide? Ergo, no dragon!) With some cleverness, you could easily prove that there are no leaking pipes in your house. While far more difficult (and probably impractical), you could even prove that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

One might observe too, that the designation of statements as "negative" is arbitrary. The "negative" claim that "no swans are green" is equivalent to the "positive" claim that "all swans are non-green."

The claim of "You can’t prove a negative" is generally intended to argue that:

There ought to be no expectation that general laws can be proven, and the inability to prove a general rule does not disprove that rule.

@SkepticWiki.com

That's not science btw. It's philosophy. What we are talking about is Epistemology, not science. Which is philosophy. Don't believe me? Here:

Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη – epistēmē, "knowledge, science" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions:

What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.

The term was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).

SOURCE

Science is simply the Scientific Method. Or this:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.


And talking about limitation:

Beliefs and biases

Flying gallop falsified; see image below.Belief can alter observations; the human confirmation bias is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer would disagree. Researchers have often admitted that the first observations were a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts". Eventually, factors such as openness to experience, self-esteem, time, and comfort can produce a readiness for new perception.

Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying gallop' image as an example of observation bias: In these types of images, the legs of a galloping horse are depicted as splayed, while the stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge show otherwise. In a gallop, at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, a horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying gallop observation.

This image demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; their beliefs will affect their observations (and, therefore, their subsequent actions, in a self-fulfilling prophecy). It is for this reason that scientific methodology prefers that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by multiple researchers. With the scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility, cognitive biases are diminished.

And in extension.....

Certainty and myth
A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain. Theories very rarely result in vast changes in human understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science.[29] Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and retained, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.

In contrast, a myth may enjoy uncritical acceptance by members of a certain group. The difference between a theory and a myth reflects a preference for a posteriori versus a priori knowledge. That is, theories become accepted by a scientific community as evidence for the theory is presented, and as presumptions that are inconsistent with the evidence are falsified.

SOURCE


edit on 2-10-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: Tidying up.




posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Thanks for the response...I like the way you debate.

lets start


Ah. So long as people meet with your approval their beliefs are fine? Once again. Who are you to judge?

I judge for myself, and if others see the logic in my judgement, they will also judge for themselves. This is the basis of all ideas shared. People whom have a completely opposite viewpoint (say, God made mudman and ribwoman 8000 years ago) lack logic and I deem their understanding of the universe to be nonsense. Is it nonsense absolute? no..just my judgement on it and I put forth the best reasons why I come to this conclusion.


And semantics. A programmer would constitute a "god" for denizens of that simulation. A being that exists outside the simulation that created the simulation. Sounds like the basic idea of a "god" to me.

I play a game called Secondlife (more of a virtual environment). I manipulate some aspects of the environment...by your defination, the people whom create and maintain the servers are also Gods as they exist outside the simulation, they are creators and ultimate manager of the environment.

designers, creators, programmers, are not deitys...they are simply creators. I am open to the idea of creators actually, I find the alien creators of our world to be a interesting subject to read up on...but even they would not qualify as gods.

There was a show called The Watchmen..a character in there, Doctor Manhattan, had near godlike powers and could indeed create life from nothing...he was not a God.

Michau Kaku did a bit on how we could one day create a universe ourselves, (would take alot of power). This would make us the creators of a universe (a small one) with billions of little galaxys and billions of little stars within the galaxys, etc...this would not make us Gods...just technologically advanced.

Perhaps our defination of what qualifies as a god may be clashing here...but I think this is just a interesting, yet pointless, part of the argument.



Logic and reason you say? You are no doubt aware of the logical fallacy Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. It cuts both ways and if your argument includes a fallacy that obviously means that argument is not logical. Why exactly do you get to claim the label when you commit the same fallacy as those you oppose?


There is mounting evidence of extraterrestrials visiting our blue ball...no proof yet mind you, but ultimately enough to warrant serious discussions worldwide.
on the other hand...
the biblical religions have actually already been proven wrong.
Without going into endless discussions about the plethora of examples, lets use just one.
Satan lead Jesus up on top of the mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the world from his vantage point. will clip it here.
This could only happen on a flat earth. it is simply impossible for a mountain of any size to see the other side of the earth. The bible was completely disproven by this single instance the moment the earth was found to be a sphere.
I admit I am picking on the biblical based religions moreso than others...but meh, they can take it, they have a monopoly on the worlds belief system.


Not a very wise man then. Shall we now list the ways in which the human body is limited? Shall we talk about all the ways the 5 senses are limited?

Here is where we can go into endless debates about psychic phenomona, yet I know a losing argument. There is no solid proof for such phenomona that would be acceptable yet..so I will leave this as a point to you..however I reserve the right to weigh in more should any psychic phenomona become proven
For now, I will accept that we do seem to have physical limitations.


The rest of your response spoke of a variety of things.
I never said my conclusions were based on scientific thinking...I I am saying my views are based on logical and rational thinking that favors science overall. at the end of the day,
the theories come from likelyhoods based on scientific understandings of nature
is it right? who knows...but I would deem this to be far more likely to be than alternative theories of space pirates and demons.

all speculation of course, I just deem this line of speculation more likely to be the ultimate truth than others..in the end though, we "won't know until we know"



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Thanks for the response...I like the way you debate.


Your welcome and thank you for saying so. Just hope you actually read the information I am posting to you then ponder the consequences.


I judge for myself, and if others see the logic in my judgement, they will also judge for themselves. This is the basis of all ideas shared. People whom have a completely opposite viewpoint (say, God made mudman and ribwoman 8000 years ago) lack logic and I deem their understanding of the universe to be nonsense. Is it nonsense absolute? no..just my judgement on it and I put forth the best reasons why I come to this conclusion.


Yet your own argument is not logical. As I have pointed out.


I play a game called Secondlife (more of a virtual environment). I manipulate some aspects of the environment...by your defination, the people whom create and maintain the servers are also Gods as they exist outside the simulation, they are creators and ultimate manager of the environment.

designers, creators, programmers, are not deitys...they are simply creators. I am open to the idea of creators actually,


Always wanted to try Second Life.
And yes in a sense they are gods. Within the confines of the simulation. They have ultimate power over it do they not?


I find the alien creators of our world to be a interesting subject to read up on...but even they would not qualify as gods.


So you replace a supernatural "source" with a extraterrestrial "source". How quant. Using the very criteria by which you reject the "supernatural source" you should also reject the "alien source".


There was a show called The Watchmen..a character in there, Doctor Manhattan, had near godlike powers and could indeed create life from nothing...he was not a God.


Must be nice to be able to pick and choose what applies to what in an effort to support your stance. If he has the attributes one associates with a god then that particular label can be used.


Michau Kaku did a bit on how we could one day create a universe ourselves, (would take alot of power). This would make us the creators of a universe (a small one) with billions of little galaxys and billions of little stars within the galaxys, etc...this would not make us Gods...just technologically advanced.


In a very real sense we would be. What I am detecting here repeatedly is a simple bias against the word "god".


Perhaps our defination of what qualifies as a god may be clashing here...but I think this is just a interesting, yet pointless, part of the argument.


Then why exactly spend so much time on it? And what is your definition of a god?


There is mounting evidence of extraterrestrials visiting our blue ball...

no proof yet mind you,

but ultimately enough to warrant serious discussions worldwide.


Every bit of which has plausible counter-arguments that don't include ET. Don't get me wrong I think "they" are here too. Though not in the capacity you believe.
And, I highlighted the part I find most contradictory. Didn't you say there is no proof for "religion" as you put it? Yet you whole heartedly believe in aliens sans proof by your very own admission? Even going as far as believing they created this planet none the less.


on the other hand...
the biblical religions have actually already been proven wrong.
Without going into endless discussions about the plethora of examples, lets use just one.
Satan lead Jesus up on top of the mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the world from his vantage point. will clip it here.
This could only happen on a flat earth. it is simply impossible for a mountain of any size to see the other side of the earth. The bible was completely disproven by this single instance the moment the earth was found to be a sphere.


Not being Christian I have not put much thought into their theology. Not my place nor something I wish to waste my time on.


I admit I am picking on the biblical based religions moreso than others...but meh, they can take it, they have a monopoly on the worlds belief system.


Actually, no they don't. The other religions would strongly tend to differ on that point.


Here is where we can go into endless debates about psychic phenomona, yet I know a losing argument. There is no solid proof for such phenomona that would be acceptable yet..so I will leave this as a point to you..however I reserve the right to weigh in more should any psychic phenomona become proven For now, I will accept that we do seem to have physical limitations.


And what about the cognitive provable and testable cognative limitations I spoke of? The thread in my signature "Denying Ignorance and the Mind's Tendency to Reinforce It" goes exhaustively into that. So I shant be cluttering up your thread with it.


And, incidentally, another unproven thing you allow yourself to believe in despite your condemnation on that basis of others.


The rest of your response spoke of a variety of things.
I never said my conclusions were based on scientific thinking...I I am saying my views are based on logical and rational thinking that favors science overall.


Once again, you don't seem to be getting this.

If a argument commits a logical fallacy it is not logical to start.


And rational?

The term "rationality" is used differently in different disciplines.

In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason, a key method used to analyze the data gained through systematically conducted observations.

In economics, sociology, psychology and political science, a rational decision is one that is optimal, given the available information, in terms of achieving a goal, and individuals or organizations are called rational if they take rational decisions in pursuit of their goals. Thus one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. In this concept of "rationality", the individual's goals or motives are taken for granted and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise. Thus, rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment, whatever those goals may be. Sometimes, in this context, rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a given situation.

Debates arise in these four fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as whether it make sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of bounded rationality makes more sense for such models. Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term homo economicus (economic man: the imaginary man being assumed in economic models who is logically consistent but amoral) was coined largely in honor of this view.

Rationality is a central principle in artificial intelligence, where a rational agent is specifically defined as an agent which always chooses the action which maximises its expected performance, given all of the knowledge it currently possesses. Whether or not people are capable of rational thought is a key question in the psychology of reasoning.

SOURCE
And reason:

Reason is a mental faculty found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies.

Reason is particularly associated with human nature, that which is unique and definitive about being human. As a way of coming to conclusions, it is often contrasted not only with the ways in which non-human animals appear to make decisions, but also with decisions based upon authority, intuition, emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith. Reason is thought by rationalists to be more reliable in discovering what is true or what is best. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and potentially in conflict with reason.

The essential difference between reason and other modes of consciousness is in explanation: thinking is more reasoned or rational if it is more consciously thought through in a way which can be expressed in language.

SOURCE

Now. With the information above I provided you. You tell me what your statements sound like. Very much like the spoutings of a lot of Christians who haven't clue one about what the supposed person they worship's actual message was save their specialized and self serving interpretation.
I am honestly and truly not here to insult you. I am merely trying to point something out.

Then, you called Epistemology, science. When you said this:

you cannot disprove a negative...science 101



all speculation of course, I just deem this line of speculation more likely to be the ultimate truth than others..in the end though, we "won't know until we know"


hEh. I could go on about "knowing".
There is no way of truly "knowing" anything when you get right down to it. All the past beliefs that you scoff at now? Someone once "knew" them to be true. Why are you any different?



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I do not want the UN controlling my life or any ambassador of another country. Let the people vote on who they want to meet with aliens in each country. Lack of understanding I do not think so and to have the UN represent humanity to an alien force is insane it is all about power and control of our lives. I want to control my own life and if you want the UN to control your life so be it. ^Y^



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Speaking of religion...

Druidry recognised as religion in Britain
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I winder if Aliens helped those Druids move those big rocks?



posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


its religion of course and i dont have any doubt about it. but why not land? they've been here since our present human generation is in existence...and why did they chose to make moon their staging base or concealing their presence there? whats stalling them and keep lurking on us? obviously they are far superior and advanced than us,evolutionary and technically . if they had made their presence among us instead of giving the impression that they had left, leaving us with mouths open staring at the skies then we could have been saved from a lot of troubles,genocides,mass murders, wars and our minds should have been cleared up.
Instead, they messed us up and a lot of things or maybe it was the intention after all.who knows..."Gods" way are not our ways.
its religion of course...


edit on 2-10-2010 by enkira because: linked to video



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join