Ancient Astronaut Theory: The New, Oldest, and Only TRUE Religion

page: 5
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 

You're telling us that just because some people think aliens are visiting Earth today, that means they must definitely have visited Earth in the past?


Yes, this is a theory... based on.... logic and reason.

You call this logical? Reasonable?

Oh dearie dearie me.




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by PriamsPride
 


Generally I tend to agree with your post up until this point.



Scientists have adopted a vision of the world in which only material and material events count as evidence.


Of course science is limited to the "material", this isn't a weakness its merely the purview science works within. Science studies the Universe, in the broadest sense, it studies reality. Rather than fall prey to superstition and irrationality science bases itself in reason and objectivity. If something cannot be quantified and objectively verified evidence of it cannot be found than it is indistinguishable from the imaginary. Science is meant to be skeptical and is indeed "biased" against accepting conclusions that don't offer good evidence.



Rigor can be found in levels of existence beyond the merely physical


Show that there is a level of existence beyond the physical. Everything, even our most creative thoughts, are based in material - our brains. Any attempt at spirituality or addressing the supernatural with a superstitious mind would make science into something it is not.



Again, this is a textbook response


Right. The scientific definition of theory is far different from the vernacular layman's term and I felt that should be pointed out.



Everything you experience is evidence


Everything I experience is evidence of something, the question is how to interpret that evidence. For instance I can choose to pick up a book of mythology and I can either read aliens every time I see the name of a god or I can actually read it as what it is, a book of myths.

There is a lack of physical or objective evidence for the intervention of alien races in our history. Does that mean aliens didn't visit us? No. But it does mean it would be foolhardy to accept that aliens DID visit us, there isn't sufficient evidence. And yes I mean actual material evidence, alien technology, alien remains, alien DNA, anything to distinguish these aliens from being entirely figments of the imagination.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing
 

What you google isn't evidence. It's just claims.

There is not one shred of evidence for alien visitations in ancient times. Or modern times. Or at any time.

If you disagree, post the evidence here and prepare to defend it.

This ought to keep you busy for a few weeks!

Beyond that, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Leslie Kean.


---------------


Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 

You're telling us that just because some people think aliens are visiting Earth today, that means they must definitely have visited Earth in the past?


Yes, this is a theory... based on.... logic and reason.

You call this logical? Reasonable?

Oh dearie dearie me.


Abso-mother-f*ckin-lutely. Without a doubt, these conclusions are a result of sound logic and reason, no matter your stance on the 'evidence'. (why do OU think I started this thread in the first place (?!))

edit on 12/4/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: Addendum to reply



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Doesn't Kean look at UFO sightings by military personnel? So far there is no evidence linking UFOs to ETs, only mere speculation. In my opinion the ET hypothesis is the worst thing that has ever happened to UFOlogy as now everyone presupposes they are ET in origin and instead of studying what little evidence we have they instead try to create hypotheses based around the belief that we are being visited by aliens.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 

You're telling us that just because some people think aliens are visiting Earth today, that means they must definitely have visited Earth in the past?


Yes, this is a theory... based on.... logic and reason.

You call this logical? Reasonable?

Oh dearie dearie me.



And, by the way... way to take those quotes WAY out of context - your question never appeared like that, and my reply was not TO that. You are blatantly twisting words to serve your argument. This is for the 2nd time in this thread, by guys like you - here is the other . This is inexcusable.


edit on 12/4/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: Time to alert the mods.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
I will concede this point, if you concede that as far as religions go (the krux of this thread
), this leads the pack. (?)


Leads what pack? You're one of the few that would even recognize AA hypothesis as a "religion", though it has none of the qualifiers of a religion such as centers or worship, doctrines or texts. At best it's a new twist on old creationist stories and requires a lot of faith to believe in it. I can't concede that it leads any pack, only that you seem to prefer it over conventional religion.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Man, you really are living up to your subtitle: "ATS Resident Skeptic"...

Assuming you are an atheist and therefor an evolutionist(?)
[I am and always have been, and was my whole life until recently... in that order]

I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the subject: Explain how isolated, ancient cultures across the planet, that would have never had contact with one another, share similar folklore in regards to 'gods' coming down from the sky and bestowing knowledge, technology, and laws upon them, while at the same time constructing monuments (and devices) that would've required an intricate understanding of mathematics and mechanics/tool usage, when it is known that said culture didn't even have a written language.

How do *you* reconcile these FACTS?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick here. I'm completely open to new ideas (if that hasn't been made abundantly clear, yet
).

But, don't be the guy in the office that poopoos the place everyone picked for lunch and then doesn't have a suggestion of his own. Tell me what your position is. In detail. Don't just say 'Evolution'. Point to a thread that you've authored or endorce as the best explanation for [human] life on this planet. And, please come stronger than Punctuated Equilibrium - that's as valid to Evolution as AAT is to Religion, if you wanna play that game.




edit on 12/4/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: spelling / grammar



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the subject: Explain how isolated, ancient cultures across the planet, that would have never had contact with one another, share similar folklore in regards to 'gods' coming down from the sky and bestowing knowledge, technology, and laws upon them, while at the same time constructing monuments (and devices) that would've required an intricate understanding of mathematics and mechanics/tool usage, when it is known that said culture didn't even have a written language.


People think alike, therefore similarities in explanations about the world (in the absence of scientific knowledge) should be expected. Ancient cultures and even our own modern cultures feature creation stories. Also, large scale, precision engineering can be accomplished with incredibly simple tools. And not unlike today, the smartest people in a given culture figure things out and make things happen.


But, don't be the guy in the office that poopoos the place everyone picked for lunch and then doesn't have a suggestion of his own. Tell me what your position is. In detail. Don't just say 'Evolution'. Point to a thread that you've authored or endorce as the best explanation for [human] life on this planet. And, please come stronger than Punctuated Equilibrium - that's as valid to Evolution as AAT is to Religion, if you wanna play that game.


What explanation is needed beyond evolution? It's a fact verified by the confluence of many branches of science. Some real problems come with asserting alien involvement in either human existence or human progress. Same goes with asserting some divine, godly source as being causal. There's simply no evidence there to support it.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the subject: Explain how isolated, ancient cultures across the planet, that would have never had contact with one another, share similar folklore in regards to 'gods' coming down from the sky and bestowing knowledge, technology, and laws upon them, while at the same time constructing monuments (and devices) that would've required an intricate understanding of mathematics and mechanics/tool usage, when it is known that said culture didn't even have a written language.


People think alike, therefore similarities in explanations about the world (in the absence of scientific knowledge) should be expected. Ancient cultures and even our own modern cultures feature creation stories. Also, large scale, precision engineering can be accomplished with incredibly simple tools. And not unlike today, the smartest people in a given culture figure things out and make things happen.


Whatever, dude. We'll just have to agree to (emphatically) disagree. Obviously, no way I'm bringing you around to even considering these ideas, and ain't no way I'm going back to where you are.




But, don't be the guy in the office that poopoos the place everyone picked for lunch and then doesn't have a suggestion of his own. Tell me what your position is. In detail. Don't just say 'Evolution'. Point to a thread that you've authored or endorce as the best explanation for [human] life on this planet. And, please come stronger than Punctuated Equilibrium - that's as valid to Evolution as AAT is to Religion, if you wanna play that game.


What explanation is needed beyond evolution? It's a fact verified by the confluence of many branches of science. Some real problems come with asserting alien involvement in either human existence or human progress. Same goes with asserting some divine, godly source as being causal. There's simply no evidence there to support it.

(emphasis mine)


Supporting evidence is all around. What's the mantra of this site? Oh, yeah... 'Deny Ignorance'.




edit on 12/4/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Thanks guys for this enjoyable debate.
I have liked the fast paced discussion this thread has provided. Reading this topic and the desire to put forth each conclusions. I've only just begun my research into the possibility of ancient aliens. And in 3 months of discovery on the net about all kinds of theories, my whole thinking about this world and the worlds beyond have changed greatly.

3 months ago I watched a flashing orb move amongst trees in a small wood by me. This then has led me to investigate using the internet as the media and discussion boards such as this. Reading through most of the topics on here I'm finding that most of us looking for answers, are reading or watching the same material. I was excited when I started reading about AA as it ticked all the boxes and I felt a light had come on. But, as with this thread, I want to keep an open mind for now. Again thanks guys



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


This ought to keep you busy for a few weeks!

An ATS index thread with links to all the other ATS UFO discussion threads. Not one of which contains the faintest shred of actual evidence, just unsubstantiated claims and speculative accounts. Few of them have anything to do with supposed ancient or prehistoric alien visitations anyway. I looked at those few and found the usual tosh. Sorry, there is nothing there in the way of credible evidence.


Beyond that, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Leslie Kean.

I looked at the link. As far as I can see there is no definite evidence of ET visitation, ancient or modern, in her work to date. According to her web site, she is calling for an investigation that she hopes will uncover the truth about UFOs. She wouldn't be doing that if she already had the truth, would she?


Kean offers a practical and achievable plan for US Government involvement in a step-by-step process to uncover what these unidentified objects are – and ultimately, what they may mean for all of us. Kean's own book promotion page

Apart from that, her book seems to be just another collection of unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts.

I'm not surprised this is the best you can do. If there were real evidence for ancient alien visitation, scientists and everybody else would accept it as fact, and this thread of yours would not exist.


Abso-mother-f*ckin-lutely. Without a doubt, these conclusions are a result of sound logic and reason, no matter your stance on the 'evidence'. (why do OU think I started this thread in the first place (?!))

Presumably because you can't tell the difference logic and reason on the one hand and magical thinking on the other. Because telling us that just because some people think aliens are visiting Earth today, it means aliens must definitely have visited Earth in the past is neither logical nor reasonable, it is harebrained and ridiculous.


edit on 5/12/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 





Without a doubt, these conclusions are a result of sound logic and reason


Actually no. I would say your conclusion is based on very poor reasoning.

You read some myths and stories that depict gods descending from the heavens and somehow get aliens from that. You are taking modern myth (modern UFO lore about flying saucers and modern ideas about aliens) and applying it to ancient myths and thereby robbing ancient myth of its context entirely.

By the way a scientific theory cannot be based on reason and logic alone, actual physical evidence must exist as well, data that supports the conclusion. Even if a solid logical proof is drawn up that doesn't mean you've passed scientific muster. Any logical argument for ancient astronaut "theory" would, at some point, invoke aliens. But there isn't enough physical evidence to support alien visitation so that is where the argument would fall apart IMO.

I'd like to see your logic drawn out because I suspect that we might see weak induction being used. For instance:

All gods come from the heavens

Therefore gods are aliens

I'm not a logical scholar or anything of the sort but this seems to be an example of weak inductive reasoning, because you see similarities in myths you think you can apply a blanket term to all myths, gods and religions by claiming they are all based on aliens. I'm not sure but this may be even worse than mere weak inductive reasoning because it also assumes that the myths are based on something real but NOT that the gods the myths speak of are real - instead some alien race is, for whatever reason, conjured out of pure fantasy and inserted as an explanation for similarities in myth where NONE IS NEEDED.

Between cultural interaction and similar threads already existing in ALL human fiction there is an explanation for why gods seem to come from the sky more often than not. Add to that the vast array of differing domains for gods, such as sea gods and underworld gods, and your argument for aliens is essentially in ruins.

1) Not all gods come from the sky

2) Many of those that do come from or live in the sky DO NOT fly in any kind of craft

3) Those that do fly in some sort of craft the craft ARE NOT always similar to modern UFO accounts (Biblical Flying Chariot for instance).

But I want to give you a chance to defend yourself, I don't want to just be on the attack against AAT in general, so if you could please explain the steps of your logic that have led you to the conclusion of alien intervention I think I would be in a better position to offer rebuttal.

edit on 5-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: fixed up some stuff



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Add to that the vast array of differing domains for gods, such as sea gods and underworld gods, and your argument for aliens is essentially in ruins.


How, in any way, does this not-so-new-piece-of-news crush my theory? Lol - quite a stretch. The reason to focus on the accounts of 'sky traveling' gods is because THOSE are the ones that provide the best evidence for Extra Terrestrial presence as 10s of 1000s of ancient accounts are when nothing of human origin was in the skies.

I fail to see what is so hard to grasp, here(!?)

Continuing...


1) Not all gods come from the sky


Omg, this is fantastic and groundbreaking news!!! No, wait... it's completely irrelevant. See above.



2) Many of those that do come from or live in the sky DO NOT fly in any kind of craft


Incredible. So, they're moving around freely in the air without ANY kind of mechanical aid?! Awesome news. Exactly who's argument are you trying to defend, here?



3) Those that do fly in some sort of craft the craft ARE NOT always similar to modern UFO accounts (Biblical Flying Chariot for instance).


100% in agreement, here. Again how does this assist your argument?

Nevermind the fact that 'flying chariots' and 'fire breathing dragons' are merely people describing things they saw in terms that made sense to them. Why do angels (and devils) have wings? Because the only known objects in the sky at the time most of this stuff was being initially recorded were birds!!

Not that hard to comprehend.



But I want to give you a chance to defend yourself, I don't want to just be on the attack against AAT in general, so if you could please explain the steps of your logic that have led you to the conclusion of alien intervention I think I would be in a better position to offer rebuttal.


'A chance to defend myself' - LMAO - go here - read from beginning to end, in its entirity.
Heh



edit on 12/5/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: fixed quote boxes and added awesome linkage



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Whatever, dude. We'll just have to agree to (emphatically) disagree. Obviously, no way I'm bringing you around to even considering these ideas, and ain't no way I'm going back to where you are.

Supporting evidence is all around. What's the mantra of this site? Oh, yeah... 'Deny Ignorance'.



I see.

So you employ ignorance of actual evidence, then repeat the site slogan: deny ignorance. Interesting tactic.

Though if you are interested in actual evidence, once you begin forming your beliefs on it (rather than trying to find evidence to support your belief), I have every reason to suspect that in time you'll see ancient cultures for what they really were, not what you want them to be.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Add to that the vast array of differing domains for gods, such as sea gods and underworld gods, and your argument for aliens is essentially in ruins.


How, in any way, does this not-so-new-piece-of-news crush my theory? Lol - quite a stretch. The reason to focus on the accounts of 'sky traveling' gods is because THOSE are the ones that provide the best evidence for Extra Terrestrial presence...

So some gods are "evidence" of ancient astronauts, but some aren't? Even though, in the mythologies you're using as evidence, those gods are related? Really?


as 10s of 1000s of ancient accounts are when nothing of human origin was in the skies.

Tens of thousands? Really? Hyperbole much?



1) Not all gods come from the sky


Omg, wait, this is fantastic and groundbreaking news!!! No, wait... it's completely irrelevant. See above.

I did... all I see is you completely ignoring data that doesn't fit your pre-supposed conclusion instead of letting the data take you to the conclusion.



2) Many of those that do come from or live in the sky DO NOT fly in any kind of craft


Incredible. So, they're moving around freely in the air without ANY kind of mechanical aid?! Awesome news. Exactly who's argument are you trying to defend, here?

So on one hand, you're saying that they were ancient astronauts, which implies some sort of craft. On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting here that gods flying through the sky unaided is also proof of ancient astronauts. Really?



3) Those that do fly in some sort of craft the craft ARE NOT always similar to modern UFO accounts (Biblical Flying Chariot for instance).


100% in agreement, here. Again how does this assist your argument?

Because if they're trying to describe something based on what they had previously experienced, why would they describe a craft that looked nothing like a chariot as a chariot, rather than as a flying bowl, or plate, or something round? Granted, Ezekiel described wheels within wheels, but that's one out of your "tens of thousands" of accounts.


Nevermind the fact that 'flying chariots' and 'fire breathing dragons' are merely people describing things they saw in terms that made sense to them. Why do angels (and devils) have wings? Because the only known objects in the sky at the time most of this stuff was being initially recorded were birds!!

Nevermind that angels are typically described as having more than two wings...

I think it's fascinating that you can look at "tens of thousands" of mythological accounts and force fit them into this belief of yours, but you can't possibly see how you're just discarding any facts that don't fit your preconceived notion that we must have been visited by ancient astronauts. Keep in mind, I'm not even saying that we weren't. Just that your "proof" via bashing every mythological square peg into the round hole of your hypothesis, not to mention you conveniently chucking the triangular pegs out the window and hoping that no one notices, is pretty poor. If you're claiming that they altered our DNA, prove it. If you're claiming they built megalithic structures, prove it. Otherwise, this is just another unprovable irrational religion based, oddly enough, on other unprovable irrational religions.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 




Why do angels (and devils) have wings? Because the only known objects in the sky at the time most of this stuff was being initially recorded were birds!!


Because of artistic license. It wasn't until the 4th century CE that angels began being depicted with wings. To quote Saint John Chrysostom in regards to wings, "They manifest a nature's sublimity. That is why Gabriel is represented with wings. Not that angels have wings, but that you may know that they leave the heights and the most elevated dwelling to approach human nature. Accordingly, the wings attributed to these powers have no other meaning than to indicate the sublimity of their nature."



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No, it's the same old religious creation stories modified with new characters. It has approximately the same amount of evidence as any other religion: zero.


The reason I pointed out the distinction between the narrow and broad views of science is that the narrow view precludes the possibility of AAT being a theory just as it precludes the possibility of the support for AAT being evidence.

Supposing that every experience is also evidence, then the collection of data used to support AAT is evidence -- inconclusive though it may be. You may think that it is evidence for the creativity of human minds in generating mythologies, but this is your own personal theory (to use the term broadly and not narrowly). AAT stands in opposition to this theory as an explanation for the evidence that you may think does not need any more explaining than your worldview provides: people make up weird ideas.

Frankly, if this is your theory, I find it less than compelling. In my experience, human beings always invent based on inspiration. They always create atop what already exists. This phenomenon can be witnessed throughout human history. In this context, the theory that the evidence used to support AAT is merely nonsensical stories is a very poor explanation for the true origin of this archeological and anthropological evidence. This theory makes little effort to consider what was happening in the minds of those who generated this evidence. It dehumanizes these people by simply assuming that we don't really understand their crude monkey minds. Think of ancient civilizations as if they were people living today, and you may come out of it with a different perspective.


Originally posted by iteration zero
I appreciate those points, but you’re moving this discussion out of science, which is where it started with the OP presenting their “proof” of their ancient astronaut hypothesis, into the realm of epistemology, which is a wholly philosophical argument.


My friend, this is incorrect. The first mention of the word "science" or "scientific" within this thread was actually made by Titen-Sxull toward the end of the first page. SquirrelNutz also didn't use the word "proof" in his OP. Therefore, I believe that this thread was moved OUT of its original context INTO the context of science. So I see myself as attempting to RE-rail the conversation because it has become severely DE-railed.



Also, don’t forget that assumptions are also impacted by their own consequences, to use your nomenclature. They will either stand or fall based on those consequences… which is how you can move the wholly philosophical argument back to a scientific one.


This is precisely why I make no firm distinction between science and philosophy. The borders are blurred, much to the chagrin of scientists.



Theories don’t have to be directly useful, they just have to be accurate. The useful applications of those theories will then follow.


There is no difference between the usefulness of a theory and the accuracy of a theory. If a theory ceases to be useful, then it is no longer accurate. Usefulness is far more than just engineering and technological applications, usefulness can also be found in our ability to use theories to build our own personal worldviews. I have ceased, for example, to find the Catholic Christian theory of the universe useful. I find that it does not appreciate the function that rules serve within my experience. Rules, in my experience, are rules of thumb. They all have exceptions and they are only invented in order to increase efficiency of action. However, the Catholic worldview takes rules as absolute. Therefore, I have found evidence that this theory is no longer useful, so I have discarded it. You may say that the theory is not accurate, but really accuracy is indistinguishable from usefulness.



Science only concerns itself with phenomena that are, in some way, observable....Instead of saying “physical interactions”, is it OK if we stick with “observable phenomena”? Not all observable phenomena are strictly physical in nature and I could see some confusion arising over the nomenclature we’re using here.


I'm glad you mentioned this. In the first place, all phenomena are observable -- otherwise they wouldn't be phenomena. But there are some phenomena for which science has no convincing answers. It is typically assumed that human beings have five senses. These are, of course, the physical senses. But what about those human beings who claim that they can detect the movement of prana (or chi) within and around their bodies? What about human beings who claim they can see auras? What about human beings who can sense the emotions of others?

These phenomena are distinctly observable, but they are also non-physical. The path that science has taken in the explanation of these phenomena has typically been thus: deviations in body chemistry caused an experience of realms of existence which are not "really there". Not only does this kind of physicalist reduction have no respect for the fact that these phenomena are both consistent and observable (among those who have developed the ability to observe them), but it has no respect for the possibility that the physical interactions which tag along with these phenomena during tests might be effects rather than causes. Furthermore, this perspective assumes that it has a firm grasp on what is or is not "really there".

So why is this important?


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Of course science is limited to the "material", this isn't a weakness its merely the purview science works within. Science studies the Universe, in the broadest sense, it studies reality. Rather than fall prey to superstition and irrationality science bases itself in reason and objectivity. If something cannot be quantified and objectively verified evidence of it cannot be found than it is indistinguishable from the imaginary. Science is meant to be skeptical and is indeed "biased" against accepting conclusions that don't offer good evidence.


Titen is completely unaware that he has already assumed that material phenomena lead to "reason and objectivity" and non-material phenomena (such as the ones I have already mentioned -- I can give even more examples if you like) lead to "superstition and irrationality". It is all phenomena! What difference does it make to the rational mind whether the phenomenon came from your eyes or came from some other method of perception?

Physical sense organs are only given priority (and significant priority at that) in our culture because they are the sensations which are most obvious. But emotions are sensations. Thoughts are sensations. Mystical experiences are sensations. Science probably prefers physical sensation because it is a realm of broad agreement between human beings. But at the same time, ignoring sensations leads to the inability to use them. Witness, for example, cave-dwelling crabs who have evolved without eyes. The body will eliminate those mechanisms which are simply not used.

Has our culture attempted to eliminate prana, aura, emotion, thought, mystical journey?

Science's explanation for all of these phenomena does not respect these phenomena as such. It respects them only as strange artifacts of our experience (just like dreams). It treats them as errors or glitches within the physical world, so science reduces these phenomena to physical interactions, rather than attempting to explore them in just the same way that it has explored physical phenomena.

For example, what are the properties of prana? Does it act as a particle (in some other realm of existence)? Are there multiple different kinds of prana with different charges? Does it collect as a charge or does it flow as a current?

Or: what are the properties of emotions? To what can they be reduced? Are there mathematical relationships between the emotions that we experience? Do some emotions cancel each other out, generating a polarity relationship?

This is what I mean by seeking scientific rigor within the non-material realms. These realms are undeniable, because they are part of the sum total of our experience; however, our treatment, our handling, our appreciation of these phenomena is what is at stake when we allow ourselves to attempt to reduce them to purely physical interactions.

It seems to me to be far more rational far more reasonable to take the explanatory tools that science has developed in generating a theory of the physical world and make use of these tools in explaining the non-physical world. I'm sorry to say that the "social sciences" have done a very poor job of this, because even they assume that the non-physical can reduce to the physical. This is why studies concerning human actions (motives, drives, desires, etc.) always produce such obvious results. The methods which we are currently using to understand these realms are extremely crude.


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Show that there is a level of existence beyond the physical. Everything, even our most creative thoughts, are based in material - our brains. Any attempt at spirituality or addressing the supernatural with a superstitious mind would make science into something it is not.


You see? I have pointed to phenomena that you are experience right now which are non-physical, yet you deny that they even exist. Would you rather assume that they are artifacts of physical reality than appreciate them as phenomena which have importance to you equal to your experience of physical sensory phenomena?


For instance I can choose to pick up a book of mythology and I can either read aliens every time I see the name of a god or I can actually read it as what it is, a book of myths.


Then you disregard the humanity of those who generated the myth. All human ingenuity has inspiration. The question that AAT seeks to answer is "Whence this inspiration?" You may think that this is a question not worth answering, but that is only because you are perfectly satisfied with your own answer.


Originally posted by iterationzero
It’s far from impossible for it to be a scientific theory, it just has to be verifiable. One of the ways it could do that would be the following: based on this enormous body of evidence which you suggest exists for the hypothesis, it should have some ability to predict features of new archaeological findings i.e. “if ancient astronauts came to Earth and did [thing A], [thing B], and [thing C], I should also find [thing D].


This is a reasonable way of approaching the problem, but it does not appreciate what I have already pointed out: the evidence is extremely complex.



You’re saying the archaeological or anthropological evidence for ancient astronauts is somehow more complex than the paleontological or anthropological or genetic evidence for evolution? Or more complex than the evidence involved in the theory of quantum mechanics? How so?


Oh yes! Much more complex! All that geneticists need to look at is DNA strands. DNA strands may have infinite variability but there are only a few variables which can vary infinitely. There are only four different nucleotides which constitute DNA, so there are really only two infinite variables: (1) length of DNA, (2) combination of nucleotides. Think of DNA as if it were a quaternary language (as opposed to the binary language that computers use). This is really a very simple system, even though it can produce enormously variable results.

Quantum mechanics is even MORE simple. It deals only with a few tiny particles whose features are very basic. You have spin, charge, velocity, location. As it has been famously said, "electrons have no hair". They have no features which distinguish them from each other except these few properties. This makes the data that you are dealing with extremely simple, even though the results are complex.

Now consider anthropological data. Any one piece of data has numerous different levels on which it can vary. Let's just consider an ancient pot with writing on it. Where was the pot found? What is it made of? Were the materials available in the area it was found? Maybe it was transported to get there. What was written on it? Has the writing been rubbed off? What does the writing say? Can we even understand the writing without understanding the cultural background in which the writing occurred? Perhaps calligraphy was meaningful to this civilization in a way that it is not today. Maybe it's not a pot. Maybe it's a helmet.

Any one piece of anthropological data has so many variables that DNA and subatomic particles simply cannot compete where complexity is concerned.

This is why AAT cannot be a scientific theory The data is too complex and too poorly understood for it to even stand a chance. This is why no predictions can be made.



The OP specifically refers to things that are observable, measurable, and testable e.g. megalithic structures and mankind being of the same lineage or a slave race of the ancient astronauts, which puts the discussion pretty squarely in the realm of science. Plus, he goes on to make the point that, in light of this hypothesis, we would have to reclassify mythology (i.e. religion) as historical record.


Well I don't fully agree with these more minute points within the OP. The major disparity between science and religion is not that they produce different types of theories. All theories are of the same type, regardless of their origin. Each seeks to explain the phenomena based on the evidence available. The disparity lies in the clarity with which the phenomena are perceived. Religions must often blur phenomena together, mixing them up so that the theory can be perceived as reasonable. (Witness the circumlocutions and rationalizations within "creation science".) Science, on the other hand makes it a point to distinguish the phenomena from each other, which is why its results are much easier to perceive as reasonable by those who did not invent the theory. Often, we cling to religions because they provide us a level of emotional comfort. The belief that we understand how the world works, why it works, and what we must do to succeed within it is comforting to those who find this world frightening. This is why people are often willing to blur the phenomena in order to support their own personal theories (i.e. religions). The religious want to deny that they are ignorant because they have so much invested in these theories.

Although these aspects of AAT are certainly testable, they are not critical to the theory itself. Again, this is due to the complexity of the evidence. There are an enormous number of possible theories, all of which would count as AATs. How do we isolate one theory as better than another? How do we determine whether the aliens came from Andromeda or from Sirius? How do we determine whether they want to change our DNA or preserve our DNA? How do we determine whether they built the Pyramids or gave us technology to build them? These questions and many like them are precisely the reason why AAT can't make predictions. There are simply too many possibilities out there to start making predictions. In a sense, the theory itself is simply too young for any scientific predictions to be made yet.

Before I close, I want to draw together the two threads that I have been discussing. I have said that AAT is not yet viable to be subject to scientific predictions because the evidence that we have is too complex and leads to too many different possibilities -- even if the theory is true. I have also said that science has made the important assumption that all phenomena can be reduced to physical interaction, an assumption which is has no evidence supporting it, an assumption which it may serve us well to release in the near future.

What I want to point out with these two threads is that if we look to develop a rigorous approach to levels of existence beyond the merely physical, we may have more success in assessing the viability of AAT. If we look to understand how human minds actually work -- the mathematical relationships and the basic structures which underlie such realms of experience as emotions and thought patterns -- then we may discover that we can reduce the complexity of the evidence for AAT very sharply.

Let me give you an example: suppose that I think you have stolen my laptop. I confront you about it in order to discover whether you really did steal from me.

One possible avenue of interrogation is the physical evidence on hand: your location during the possible window of the theft (the time between when I last saw the laptop and when I turned up missing), the physical locations to which you have access (where you may have hidden it), whether you have laptop residue on your fingers :-), whether your friends have seen you with the laptop, etc.

But there are other possible avenues. I can explore your motives for stealing my laptop. I can also determine whether you know things that only someone with my laptop would know (maybe you've found my collection of pictures or writings).

Yet there is an even quicker approach, much quicker than all of these. I can make my judgment about the theory that you stole my laptop based on emotional data. When I approach you about the laptop, you will be subject to some kind of emotional response, so I can rely on my skill at detecting emotions (not physically, but empathically -- yes, we can all do this) to determine whether you are being honest when you deny it or not. Anyone who is skilled at detecting lies is capable of operating on a non-physical level, even if that person does not realize it, otherwise the detection of a lie would not come so quickly and with so little thought involved.

The same may be possible with AAT. Whereas physical data is confusing and complex, emotional and thought data may be far less complex and may lead to a much quicker assessment of whether the theory is useful (and therefore accurate) or not.

Unfortunately, science still refuses to accept thought and emotion as data.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PriamsPride
The reason I pointed out the distinction between the narrow and broad views of science is that the narrow view precludes the possibility of AAT being a theory just as it precludes the possibility of the support for AAT being evidence.


Ancient alien hypothesis does not meet any of the qualifications for a scientific theory. This is not a "narrow view"; it is an adherence to standards. The support for ancient alien hypothesis is evidence of little more than some people's desire to believe in it.


Supposing that every experience is also evidence, then the collection of data used to support AAT is evidence -- inconclusive though it may be. You may think that it is evidence for the creativity of human minds in generating mythologies, but this is your own personal theory (to use the term broadly and not narrowly). AAT stands in opposition to this theory as an explanation for the evidence that you may think does not need any more explaining than your worldview provides: people make up weird ideas.


Since when is "every experience" a form of evidence? AAH rests largely on the layman's interpretation of various mythologies, the argument from ignorance (we don't know how they built this, therefore it must have been aliens) and dismissing or ignoring actual evidence from various branches of science that study ancient cultures. In short, this is searching for evidence to support a preconceived notion (confirmation bias) rather than developing a hypothesis or theory from actual evidence. [Additionally, you're a bit off base in your assumption of what my "worldview" is].


Frankly, if this is your theory, I find it less than compelling. In my experience, human beings always invent based on inspiration. They always create atop what already exists. This phenomenon can be witnessed throughout human history. In this context, the theory that the evidence used to support AAT is merely nonsensical stories is a very poor explanation for the true origin of this archeological and anthropological evidence. This theory makes little effort to consider what was happening in the minds of those who generated this evidence. It dehumanizes these people by simply assuming that we don't really understand their crude monkey minds. Think of ancient civilizations as if they were people living today, and you may come out of it with a different perspective.


Likewise, it's an insult to various ancient cultures to assume alien involvement in their mythologies and technological achievements. Regarding the stories/mythologies here is a list of about 35 origin myths. The only thing any of them have in common is the notion of creation and none of them discuss aliens. If you assert these all discuss aliens then you have a lot of squares to circle. Furthermore, I never claimed that we "don't really understand their crude monkey minds". In fact, I alluded that we can understand them quite well indeed.

Back to the evidence favoring AAH. For one thing, to date, we have no evidence of life existing anywhere else but on earth - let alone sentient ET life that can travel to earth. Secondly, we have no evidence of any artificial structures on earth that cannot be attributed to earth's inhabitants. Thirdly, there are no alien artifacts present anywhere. So I'm kind of curious as to what all of this so-called evidence is...



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PriamsPride
 



Frankly, if this is your theory, I find it less than compelling. In my experience, human beings always invent based on inspiration. They always create atop what already exists. This phenomenon can be witnessed throughout human history. In this context, the theory that the evidence used to support AAT is merely nonsensical stories is a very poor explanation for the true origin of this archeological and anthropological evidence. This theory makes little effort to consider what was happening in the minds of those who generated this evidence. It dehumanizes these people by simply assuming that we don't really understand their crude monkey minds. Think of ancient civilizations as if they were people living today, and you may come out of it with a different perspective.


While you may be right that these myths were inspired by actual events, you're forgetting one major thing: many of these early civilizations used psychedelic substances in their religious practices. We know that when having a psychedelic experience, many times the same archetypal images and themes occur, regardless of the person or culture. In fact, one of these archetypal images that has occurred during many psychedelic experiences bears a remarkable similarity to a Grey. So, isn't it more likely that these similar stories were inspired by the use of psychedelic substances, which we know early civilizations took in a religious context, as opposed to them being visited by aliens, whose existence is not supported by any empirical evidence?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 




The reason to focus on the accounts of 'sky traveling' gods is because THOSE are the ones that provide the best evidence for Extra Terrestrial presence as 10s of 1000s of ancient accounts are when nothing of human origin was in the skies.


Insert the word SEA into your sentence and you'll see the problem with assuming that sky traveling gods are evidence of aliens. Some gods lived in the Ocean are we going to assume they were real as well simply because the ancients didn't have massive fleets of oceanic vessels? How exactly does the fact that they didn't have man-made objects in the sky make them incapable of claiming the gods lived there? What, exactly, sets these gods apart from being imaginary?

I've already read the OP thank you very much, if that is truly all you have to offer than I'm afraid we're done here. Let me go over a few points one more time.



Our Megalithic (and many other) structures all over the world indicate it


Megalithic structures were built by human beings with HUMAN technology, to suggest anything else is nonsense. Why exactly would an alien race descend to help a few apes out with building a pyramid? Why would an advanced race of beings decide to build with massive stone blocks instead of a futuristic material? Why would these aliens leave no trace of themselves behind? Human beings are quite capable of some pretty awesome feats of engineering and building, we don't need aliens to explain Pyramids, Stone Henge, the Nazca lines or ANY ancient monument or megalith and to suggest that we DO need aliens as an explanation is an argument from incredulity/ignorance.



Our oldest and most sacred religions record and preach it


Show me the ancient text that says creatures from another world came down in a flying machine and taught man everything he knows and all you will have shown is that ancient man invented science fiction. Many ancient religions also teach that human or animal sacrifice is a good thing which the gods find pleasing or that you can telepathically summon these gods through prayer. Why do you not accept what they actually wrote and believed as just that? Why do you not take their word for it and instead insert aliens where there are none to be found?



Current observations and recent onslaught of high level ‘confessions’ all but prove it...


We've been over this one already. Modern UFO sightings don't prove anything about ancient gods, in fact they don't even prove anything about themselves. All a UFO can prove is that something that could not be readily identified was seen in the sky, that's it. By definition a UFO is unidentified so any speculation as to what it is is just that - speculation. Furthermore very few ancient accounts are even similar to modern UFO sightings. If an ancient claims to see Zeus in the sky I hardly think they mean they saw a UFO. Even if modern UFOs turn out to be alien visitation that does not prove they visited us in the past or inspired any ancient myths or tampered with our genetics in the slightest.

Last but not least you are missing one important question in the question list on your OP:

Where is the evidence?

You've provided a total of none so far which is unsurprising since the scientists who actually study this stuff have never found any either.

edit on 5-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: fixed some stuff





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join