Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+15 more 
posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
To begin, I whole-heartedly accept the Ancient Alien theory to be true.

Because there is no way to travel back in time (yet) and witness the events of human history, one must examine the physical as well as the theoretical evidence. Of course any ideas about our early beginnings will only be theories; the reasonable thing to do, however, is to decide which is more plausible, and to be willing to change positions on this issue as new evidence is discovered.

As I talk to peers regarding this topic, I seem to encounter two different groups of people. I decided to explain why I feel that each group has a difficult time accepting the AAT. As I see it, it takes an intelligent, but humble person to balance out the viewpoints of each theory: evolution without intervention or intelligent design without tangible science.

Here is what I concluded....

THE RELIGIOUS

The claim that gods and angles are tangible, extraterrestrials who are not 'watching them over them' and making things happen on their behalf is frightening. This poses insecurity, and it makes them realize that they have to be responsible, as there is no 'god' that loves them and will be them in the afterlife. They feel ashamed that religion has fooled them, and its scary to think that they're deceased loved ones are simply gone.

THE ATHEISTS

The claim that there are beings more advanced than humans is intimidating to them. Not only do they have to consider the bible as a true document, they have to acknowledge that humans are most intelligent or the most advanced. They cringe at the term 'god', because it shows humanity's inferiority. The Ancient Alien theory forces these atheists to accept their true perspective place in the universe.


What you are left with are people like me.

We broke away from the deep brainwashing of religion and felt that the bible was pure fantasy, then decided we would abandon the bible forever. We begin to trust in science and view the world with a more logical approach. The problem is that this caused us to only accept the science and technology known to mankind. This became supreme, and may have resulted in arrogance.

We later gained an interest about space; the vastness of it and the wonders it contains. Learning about stars and distant galaxies became a gateway to becoming interested in life existing outside our planet. While discovering this enormous vastness, we suddenly became aware that it is illogical to assume that mankind is the pinnacle of life...

Then we were confused.

If the biblical stories and characters seemed fantastical, why is it that several ancient civilizations, with oceans and mountains between them, wrote about extremely similar accounts of human history?

-Gods and angels arriving from the heavens in celestial chariots
-performances of miracles and blessings, in what today we'd deem as advanced technology

.......surely they were not ALL delusional about the same thing??

AHA!

We then made the connection between religion and science, perfectly understanding the Ancient Alien Theory. We recognize it to be the most plausible, and have no problem with accepting the fact that the truth lies in the middle of this religion/science spectrum.

What say you?
edit on 14-5-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I don't agree with your Atheist theory.

Atheists are usually logical people. The idea of a god completely goes against this logical nature, therefore proof is needed before they can believe it to be true. I think the exact same thing goes for aliens, except it is logical that they exist. There is just no proof and therefore it would be idiotic to accept it as being true. Atheists are not always the stuck up arrogant people that they are expected to be, am an not Atheist myself, but I can clearly see an Atheists point of view.

Of course this can be the case for any intelligent human being, not just Atheists.
edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
being condescending won't make for a great thread

it is a fascinating topic to be sure, but you are just here to draw in some bible thumpers and flame them

have fun



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


The religious idea of a 'god' would be illogical in nature...

an omnipotent being who punishes you for not worshipping him, but he himself committed more murders than anyone in our human history...yes, that is illogical.

The AAT is not talking about 'that kind of god'. According to it, 'god' is not a single being- it was a common term to describe an extraterrestrial visitor.

The same way we today say 'alien'.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by SpearMint
 


The religious idea of a 'god' would be illogical in nature...

an omnipotent being who punishes you for not worshipping him, but he himself committed more murders than anyone in our human history...yes, that is illogical.

The AAT is not talking about 'that kind of god'. According to it, 'god' is not a single being- it was a common term to describe an extraterrestrial visitor.

The same way we today say 'alien'.


No matter how you define god, what I said remains true.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
When a species is taught for thousands of years that it was created in a certain way, it's hard to accept the possibility that it may have in fact been in a completely different way, regardless of how logical it may sound. I find the ancient alien theory highly plausible. On the other hand, I also understand the reluctance some may have in accepting it. It's human nature, I suppose.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 



The claim that there are beings more advanced than humans is intimidating to them.

This makes no sense. There are AA believers and unbelievers alike among atheists. Right here on ATS.



Not only do they have to consider the bible as a true document

Why would I need to acknowledge such a thing just to be included among the AAT's.



they have to acknowledge that humans are most intelligent or the most advanced.





They cringe at the term 'god', because it shows humanity's inferiority.

No, I cringe at the idea of a god, because even if there were a being that far in advance of us, that doesn't make it a god, it makes it a being that is much farther advanced than us. Why ascribe divinity to an entity just because it knows more than we do?



The Ancient Alien theory forces these atheists to accept their true perspective place in the universe.

I don't have a problem being one of many species in the universe. Past or present. I don't see the problem for the atheist if AAT were true.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


While discovering this enormous vastness, we suddenly became aware that it is illogical to assume that mankind is the pinnacle of life...



I’m an atheist (never had religion in the first place) and I’ve never thought mankind is the pinnacle of life.
While I think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe I don’t think they have ever been here.

Which shows how intelligent they are.

As to

Gods and angels arriving from the heavens in celestial chariots

Comets and meteors would be strange things in the sky if you didn’t know what they were.


performances of miracles and blessings, in what today we'd deem as advanced technology

No proof, just stories.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by SpearMint
 


The religious idea of a 'god' would be illogical in nature...

an omnipotent being who punishes you for not worshipping him, but he himself committed more murders than anyone in our human history...yes, that is illogical.

The AAT is not talking about 'that kind of god'. According to it, 'god' is not a single being- it was a common term to describe an extraterrestrial visitor.

The same way we today say 'alien'.


No matter how you define god, what I said remains true.


So.....according to you, there can be no extraterrestrial visitors?

Are you saying that there are no extraterrestrials, or that they would not have the ability nor desire to visit Earth?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


While discovering this enormous vastness, we suddenly became aware that it is illogical to assume that mankind is the pinnacle of life...



I’m an atheist (never had religion in the first place) and I’ve never thought mankind is the pinnacle of life.
While I think there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe I don’t think they have ever been here.

Which shows how intelligent they are.

As to

Gods and angels arriving from the heavens in celestial chariots

Comets and meteors would be strange things in the sky if you didn’t know what they were.


performances of miracles and blessings, in what today we'd deem as advanced technology

No proof, just stories.


My point was that most people who were introduced to religion at some point, but then saw the irrationality of it and later understood out perspective place in the universe. I am in no way religious. However, I can't label myself as atheist because that means I don't believe in gods of any kind. God is the ancient term for alien, so it would be arrogant for me to say that there are no gods.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


You are right. Most atheists subscribe to the AAT ...that's not who I am talking about. I referred to the 'nothing is higher than me' atheists....



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   




Seriously though, I guess it's hard to accept for me because I just can't get past his hair.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
As much as some of us would like the ancient alien theory to be true, there really isn't any hard evidence that screams "ANCIENT ALIENS WERE HERE". So far, it seems to me to be all interpretive. Certain pieces of evidence may suggest that they existed, but nothing says or shows they actually did. (Please show me any links that show otherwise, as I am truly interested).

I like the ancient alien theory, it certainly makes more sense than religion, and would be pretty cool (in my opinion). As a college student studying biology, I also do believe in, and fully understand the current concept of evolution. With my current understanding of evolution, it is hard to imagine that our ancestral primates evolved into homo-sapiens so quickly (especially with the missing link). This does not mean it is impossible, but is EXTREMELY unlikely; unlike anything else seen in evolution before. Outside genetic manipulation does seem plausible, but many people refuse to even speculate that it could be plausible because by doing so would be accepting that intelligent alien life form could exist, and may have created the human species we know today.

As for me, I keep an open mind. Ill look at something and realize it could be a possibility. I prefer not to label myself. When it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter as long as you don't let your belief drive you to hurt or harass other people, or suppress knowledge.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthChrisious
When a species is taught for thousands of years that it was created in a certain way, it's hard to accept the possibility that it may have in fact been in a completely different way, regardless of how logical it may sound. I find the ancient alien theory highly plausible. On the other hand, I also understand the reluctance some may have in accepting it. It's human nature, I suppose.


Yes indeed


I agree with you 100%. No matter how logical a theory is presented, there will be reluctance to it if it contradicts the way you were brought up to believe.

A few years ago when I first learned of the AAT, it sat comfortable with me, with no resistance. I'm guessing that is because I had already become fascinated with the cosmos by that time and learned of the true vastness of space, and the uncountable number of stars and galaxies...

I tend to take this approach during discussion/debate when defending the AAT...people seem to become more warm to it as they understand more about space



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Thanks for this thread OP. My opinion is that many many civilizations have existed on our planet which have been lost without any proof or documentation left behind to prove their existence. It would make sense in a way given the fact that there have been 5 "known" extinction level events throughout human evolution. As you said, we "the common people who don't have access to government tech" will never know which great civilization was lost that could've shed a light on ancient aliens.

I have a theory that ancient civilizations were able to beam over to other planets in our solar system through the use of the, then, super powerful Earth's energy in places such as Giza and others. This use of natural energy was most probably a gift from a non-Earth society's visit to our planet. No proof here, just my personal opinion.

Also, ancient aliens have been documented for tens of thousands of years on ancient tablets through scripture or drawings. Unless it has been an indoctrination of our species at birth to fear a higher presence and 'imagine' flying metallic objects at the time, I do think Earth's people have been in contact for a LOOOOONG time.

We just lost track of the story along the way through oppression and ridicule from government and society.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by UFCG2012AFHS
 


I agree


We can't ignore the strong similarities between the vimanas of ancient Indian history and the celstial chariots of Asian and North American texts.....what were the Chinese trying to describe when they talked about 'flying fire-breathing dragons?

There is plenty of evidence in the texts of these civilizations that I feel people conveniently ignore. Religious people should understand it with no problem- after all, it correlates with the doctrine they believe in. However, knowing that the gods were simply aliens here on a mission means no one is looking out for them.

And the 'nothing is higher than humanity in the whole vast universe' atheists conveniently ignore these texts because it supports the bible, something they have buried deep in the sand and vowed never to regard.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CloonBerg
 


I agree.. and there is no physical evidence for evolution -with-no-intervention either.

But again, all theories are just that, only because there may not be any physical evidence and we can't travel back in time. But lack of physical evidence does not negate a theory. It just means examine the theoretical and circumstantial evidence more.

Yes, I always had a hard time believing that fish grew legs, crawled onto the land, grew fur, walked around and suddenly knew how to make fire and pyramids.....



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Well, for one thing, Ancient Alien theorists tend to completely get history/archeology/linguistics/anthropology/geology completely wrong. It's one of those "It's better to keep your mouth closed and let people suspect you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" situations. I would recommend folks check out those actual sciences/disciplines before automatically believing something some multidisciplinary dilettante has to say.

Ancient Aliens are plausible, mind you. Just not probable.

While Graham Hancock and a few others take it to a fantasy extreme for booksale purposes, I think it is very plausible that a more advanced human civilization existed and collapsed in our distant past. There are definitely some unexplainable objects and archeological artifacts, but to immediately make the leap of faith to ancient aliens is very unscientific. In fact, there is an air of religiosity to it.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


No, I cringe at the idea of a god, because even if there were a being that far in advance of us, that doesn't make it a god, it makes it a being that is much farther advanced than us. Why ascribe divinity to an entity just because it knows more than we do?


Well said Klassified!

Evolution, in my opinion, is all about knowledge. We evolve because we gain access to knowledge which in turn opens new doors for evolution and more knowledge. People who talk in terms of God or divinity superior to the human race, two things can be said about this phenomenon. Firstly, we already have a preconditioning within human society for superior access to information (top secret, classified, need to know basis). Secondly, look at the real life technology we have today. Yes, compared to the 60's we've made a huge leap forward however, if any unknown craft were to land and its passengers make contact with local people, they might fall to the floor in enchantment and make themselves inferior from the get go.
Now, alien visitors could be far superior to us technologically but that still doesn't make them God. Just because we have not acquired this knowledge yet, does not mean we are inferior to them.
edit on 14-5-2012 by UFCG2012AFHS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by CloonBerg
 


I agree.. and there is no physical evidence for evolution -with-no-intervention either.

But again, all theories are just that, only because there may not be any physical evidence and we can't travel back in time. But lack of physical evidence does not negate a theory. It just means examine the theoretical and circumstantial evidence more.

Yes, I always had a hard time believing that fish grew legs, crawled onto the land, grew fur, walked around and suddenly knew how to make fire and pyramids.....


I'm curious as to why you would think that there is no physical evidence for evolution? I can see how you may think that if you perceive evolution as you say it "fish suddenly growing legs etc etc." but that is not the case.
edit on 14-5-2012 by CloonBerg because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join