What makes an alien an alien or... how humanity is full of itself

If one wants to theoretically "interface with an alien consciousness" (alien = different) and thereby gaining insights in the exercise, then my suggestion is to not presume you will necessarily be facing a "logical" sentience. I would also suggest all the cultural influences one knows be put firmly aside.

Cultural influences meaning: everything. Science, philosophy, religion, the concepts of "good and evil", and especially psychology. Even the concept that the structure of the"alien" mind somehow resembles the human mind with the subconscious, conscious and super-conscious minds. These things are born of an organic brain.

The "alien" you face may not have any of these things we live within.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Nailing alive people to crosses was seen appropriate in some part's of the world just two thousand years ago. We polute our planet, kill ourselfes, kidnap offspring, do experiments on ourselves and animals, why, why should the concept of guilt or fairness apply to extraterestrials?

The corrupt state of human affairs bears testimony to the existence of a real Devil. The nations of this world let surplus food rot while their hungry populations starve. The nations store up weapons of mass destruction for mutual annihilation. They pollute earth’s environment. Yet, most people are blind to the source of such hateful, self-destructive behavior. Why?

The Bible reveals that Satan “has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.” (2 Corinthians 4:4) To manipulate humanity, Satan employs an invisible organization. He is “the ruler of the demons.” (Matthew 12:24) Just as a boss of an organized crime ring can run a large illegal empire without revealing himself to all those involved, so Satan uses his insidious organization of wicked angels to control masses of people who remain largely unaware of his role or influence.

The Bible teaches that Satan the Devil is, indeed, a real person. Critics of the Bible, however, scoff at such a portrayal of the Devil. Satan, they say, merely represents the principle of evil that resides in humans.

Should we be surprised by the confusion regarding Satan’s true identity? Not at all. To illustrate: A criminal might wipe his fingerprints from a crime scene so that he may conceal his identity and thus continue his illegal activity undetected. Similarly, Satan is a criminal mastermind who is content to operate behind the scenes, promoting moral corruption. Jesus clearly identified Satan as the one responsible for the evil state of human affairs. Jesus called Satan “the ruler of this world.”​—John 12:31.

Coming back to something you said just before what I quoted at the start of this comment:

As a super advanced offspring of a space faring civilization, I would be aware that good and bad depend on perspective and the time frame during the event happens matters how it's judged or if it's appropriate.

This philosophy/view (the bolded part) is called relativism, and in the way you phrased it concerning "good and bad", it's called moral relativism. When phrased concerning "true and false" it's called just relativism.

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations.

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.

Where can such truth be found? On one occasion, Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The Bible, written under divine inspiration, reveals truth that provides both reliable guidance and a sure hope for the future​—everlasting life.​—2 Timothy 3:15-17.

Pilate indifferently rejected the opportunity to learn such truth. What about you? ...

Relativism is a human philosophy inspired by Satan to promote falsehoods and obscure the truths that matter most to assist with his deception and blinding the minds of those unaware of his role or influence (especially on human philosophy and thinking). And its philosophical outgrowth, moral relativism, is to promote moral corruption. See also my commentary in this thread about relativism.

a reply to: whereislogic

Relativism is a human philosophy inspired by Satan to promote falsehoods and obscure the truths that matter most to assist with his deception and blinding the minds of those unaware of his role or influence (especially on human philosophy and thinking). And its philosophical outgrowth, moral relativism, is to promote moral corruption.

That's extreme short sighted. Good and bad depends on perspective.

There's a wildfire, you can intervene. But it would mean cutting down and setting a strip of forest on fire (counter fire) killing additional animals that you can't rescue because some will be trapped between the fires.

If you don't do it, changes are high the complete forest burns down and everything is dead.

- Are you a good or bad person for taking action and setting the counter fire? You just killed a bunch of animals but allowed the rest of them to live, allowed further generations to be.

- Would your god condemn that you intervened?
- Would your god condemn that you did not intervene?
- Would your god condemn you since the fire was his plan and you interfered?

See, all this is relative to perspective I respect your faith in Christianity, though. Coupled with your strong faith, of course you believe everything you say so I am curious how you would perceive the upper paradox.

It's either you acknowledge that god has a plan that we interfere with or not. Because sometimes god has a plan to do bad things to help us, I was told that a few times. Then, when the situation fit's, it's spun around and suddenly god is not intervening but judging. What is it for you?

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: whereislogic
...
- Would your god condemn that you intervened?
- Would your god condemn that you did not intervene?

I see no reason why he would (to both questions). See also the answer to the question below:

- Would your god condemn you since the fire was his plan and you interfered?

The Bible doesn’t teach that God is behind the natural disasters we see today. God’s judgments as described in the Bible are quite different from natural disasters. So the situation would not be accurately described by the phrase "the fire was his plan".

It's either you acknowledge that god has a plan that we interfere with or not. Because sometimes god has a plan to do bad things to help us, I was told that a few times.

Then those telling you that are not sticking to the teachings of the Bible, but mixing those with human philosophy (they do that a lot in Christendom, the religions that claim to represent Christianity*). Note the bolded paragraph in the article below:

Are Natural Disasters Punishment From God?

God does not use natural disasters to punish innocent people. He never has, and he never will. Why? Because “God is love,” says the Bible at 1 John 4:8.

Love is the wellspring of God’s actions. Love does not call down hurt on the innocent, for the Bible states that “love does not work evil to one’s neighbor.” (Romans 13:10) At Job 34:12, the Bible states: “For a fact, God himself does not act wickedly.”

True, the Bible foretold disasters for our day, such as “great earthquakes.” (Luke 21:11) But Jehovah is no more responsible for the destruction caused by them than a weatherman is responsible for the damage done by a typhoon that he forecasts. Well, if God is not behind the human suffering wrought by natural disasters, what is the cause?

“The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one,” Satan the Devil, reveals the Bible. (1 John 5:19) He has been a manslayer from his rebellion at mankind’s beginning down to our day. (John 8:44) Satan sees human life as cheap and disposable. He is governed by self-serving ambition, so it is no wonder that he has created a global system that thrives on selfishness. Today’s world system condones human exploitation even to the point that many defenseless people live in harm’s way, in places where natural or man-made disasters are very likely to strike. (Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 2:16) Thus, greedy humans must bear the blame for some of the calamity that victims experience. (Ecclesiastes 8:9) How so?

A surprising number of disasters are at least partially man-made. Consider, for example, the woes that afflicted residents of the hurricane-flooded city of New Orleans, U.S.A., or the houses flattened by mud slides off the coastal mountains of Venezuela. In those instances and others, natural phenomena, such as wind and rain, turned catastrophic largely because of human environmental ignorance, shoddy engineering, flawed planning, unheeded warnings, and bureaucratic bungling.

Consider a disaster in Bible times. In Jesus’ day, the sudden collapse of a tower claimed 18 lives. (Luke 13:4) This disaster may have been the result of human error, “time and unforeseen occurrence,” or both​—but assuredly not a result of God’s judgment.​—Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Have any disasters ever been caused by the hand of God? Yes, but unlike natural or man-made disasters, they were selective, they had a purpose, and they were extremely rare. The global Flood in the days of the patriarch Noah and the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah during the days of Lot are two examples. (Genesis 6:7-9, 13; 18:20-32; 19:24) Those divine judgments swept away incorrigibly wicked populations but preserved alive people who were righteous in the eyes of God.

As a matter of fact, Jehovah God has the means, the desire, and the power to end all suffering and to bring relief from the effects of natural disasters. Regarding God’s appointed King, Jesus Christ, Psalm 72:12 foretold: “He will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper.”

Similar Material

*: One of the articles listed above is:

The Hardest Question (Awake!—2006)

...

These people are not alone in thinking that God is somehow behind their troubles. Regarding natural disasters, for example, nearly half the respondents in a recent Internet poll felt that disasters such as hurricanes come from God. Why do so many feel that way?

Religious Confusion

Instead of offering satisfying answers, religious leaders often contribute to the confusion. Let us focus on just three of their common responses.

First, many religious leaders preach that God sends disasters in order to punish wayward humans. For instance, in the United States, after New Orleans, Louisiana, was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, some ministers claimed that God had punished the city. They pointed to the prevalence of corruption, gambling, and immorality. Some even cited the Bible as evidence, noting occasions when God destroyed the wicked by flood or by fire. Such claims, however, misrepresent the Bible.​—See the box “Acts of God?”

Second, some clergymen assert that God has his reasons for bringing about the calamities that befall mankind but that these reasons are beyond our comprehension. Many people find such a notion unsatisfying. They wonder, ‘Could a loving God really carry out such evil and then refuse to enlighten those who hunger for comfort and who pleadingly ask, “Why?”’ Indeed, the Bible says: “God is love.”​—1 John 4:8.

Third, other religious leaders feel that perhaps God is not all powerful and is not loving. Once again, such an explanation raises serious questions. Is the One who “created all things”​—including the unfathomably vast universe—​incapable of preventing suffering on this one planet? (Revelation 4:11) How could the One who gave us the capacity to love, whose Word describes him as the very embodiment of love, be unmoved by human suffering?​—Genesis 1:27; 1 John 4:8.

Of course, the three points just mentioned are only some of the ways in which humans try to explain why God allows suffering​—a question that has puzzled thinking people for centuries. In the next article, we will consider what the Bible teaches on this important and timely subject. As you will see, the Bible’s sound, logical explanation clears away the confusion. Moreover, the Bible offers much comfort to all who have suffered tragedies in life.

...

a reply to: whereislogic

The Bible doesn’t teach that God is behind the natural disasters we see today. God’s judgments as described in the Bible are quite different from natural disasters. So the situation would not be accurately described by the phrase "the fire was his plan".

I respect your faith and I don't want to put words in your mouth. So your faith, that I very much respect but I have to ask, tells you that the bible is Gods word? Just do understand your reasoning better, not to challenge your believe.

With what version of if to you identify the most?

Then those telling you that are not sticking to the teachings of the Bible, but mixing those with human philosophy (they do that a lot in Christendom, the religions that claim to represent Christianity*). Note the bolded paragraph in the article below:

Would you say that if you were born into any other religious believe system, that you would adhere to that one? How much of what you are do you attribute to the influence of your surrounding?

Please remind yourself, that the comment you quoted was in context of good and bad, moral within the situations I described. I want to emphasize this.

Thank you for sharing your opinion

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

If one wants to theoretically "interface with an alien consciousness" (alien = different) and thereby gaining insights in the exercise, then my suggestion is to not presume you will necessarily be facing a "logical" sentience. I would also suggest all the cultural influences one knows be put firmly aside.

I wasn't only specifying logic but also thought patterns. Both have slightly different meanings. There always has to be some kind of basic understanding, in one form or another for intelligent, space faring beings that visit earth.

Yes the cultural influences should all be put aside. I look at it from the viewpoint of life. When you were born, the basic things, the most basic things to function in life, without society. Reduced to the natural progression, like growing up and repeating the cycle or self reproducing. Concept of time and lifespan. Everything in between will be influenced by the surrounding though.

If not for some underlying basic "thought" or behavior patters, we just have a random living creature. Like plants, the do have genetic strategies for different situation, communicate their needs and share nutrients with a fungus network that benefits from it and allows other trees to benefit?

Whatever the expression of all that may look like, there has to be some logic to a space faring species.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

"Space faring" suggests they designed and built their ship. They would have had to work out maths perhaps to compute gravity and so on. Like sailors of old from two different countries crossing paths at sea. The common ground is the knowledge of sailing. They could be friends even if they did not speak the same language. They would know the language of the sea.

Another difference is perhaps values. What is thought right, wrong and indifferent. A lion and a human for instance. If the lion does not eat the human the lion dies and the human lives. To the lion eating a human is desirable, yet not being eaten is desirable to the human.

Then there are the greys of UFO lore. It is sometimes said that greys are avatars. The question is then what is inside the avatar? Why do they need avatars to be here?

How on earth did they grow the avatars?

Then it is perhaps a question of consciousness. One would ignore the grey body/avatar and have to deal with the consciousness that inhabits the avatar.

If that consciousness is originally non-corporeal then we may have problems in communicating. "Interfacing" may be a better word.

What does one do when facing something like that?

One would have to start to wonder "why" we were in the position we are in.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: whereislogic

I respect your faith and I don't want to put words in your mouth. So your faith, that I very much respect but I have to ask, tells you that the bible is Gods word?

The Bible makes the claim that it is the word of God in the sense that God inspired the Bible writers (not always word for word, individual writing styles do affect the process and some Bible writers, when writing about the same events, such as in the 4 Gospels about Jesus, chose to mention different details or leave out different details). I have evaluated this claim based on the evidence from fields such as physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, human psychology and behaviour and probably most of all, (human) history, and from this evaluation my belief/faith that this claim is indeed true, that the Bible really is God's word of truth, God's message and instruction manual to mankind as to how best to live and interact with other humans or nature, has grown.

A sample of the type of evidence I'm talking about can be found in this playlist:

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

Some of the best examples from the field of history (in comparison with the relevant prophecies in the Bible that have already come true) can be found in this documentary (which is included in the playlist above, which first focuses on the fields of biology, chemistry, physics and at some point also astronomy, as in the video called "Purposeful Design or Mindless Process?" which speaks about the topic that has become known in these sort of discussions as 'the fine-tuning of the natural laws and forces that govern the universe for intelligent life', more specifically, human life):

With what version of if to you identify the most?

I wouldn't say 'identify with' but I do have my preferences concerning different translations in terms of accuracy and clarity in modern English. When quoting something from the Bible, especially a text that contains God's name, I prefer to use the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. I also sometimes quote from Bible translations that have restored God's name to its rightful locations, at least in the Hebrew Scriptures, to show that other translators have also recognized that God's name belongs in these specific texts rather than the generic noun "LORD" which has often been used to replace it with (sometimes they replace it with "God").

Would you say that if you were born into any other religious believe system, that you would adhere to that one? How much of what you are do you attribute to the influence of your surrounding?

That point is often discussed in the articles I grew up with as they often point out that: "Many people are born into their religion." It is difficult to answer the first question definitevely cause I would be a completely different person with different ideas and ways of thinking, seeing that the influence of my alternative surroundings would be great (which is incidentally also my answer to the 2nd question), but if I had to guess, I'd say it's quite likely (a high probability chance) as my answer to the first question. Also note the following:

...

Many Theories

The study of the origin and development of religion is a comparatively new field. For centuries, people more or less accepted the religious tradition into which they were born and in which they were brought up. Most of them were satisfied with the explanations handed down to them by their forefathers, feeling that their religion was the truth. There was seldom any reason to question anything, nor the need to investigate how, when, or why things got started. In fact, for centuries, with limited means of travel and communication, few people were even aware of other religious systems.

During the 19th century, however, the picture began to change. The theory of evolution was sweeping through intellectual circles. That, along with the advent of scientific inquiry, caused many to question established systems, including religion. Recognizing the limitations of looking for clues within existing religion, some scholars turned to the remains of early civilizations or to the remote corners of the world where people still lived in primitive societies. They tried to apply to these the methods of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and so forth, hoping to discover a clue as to how religion began and why.

What was the outcome? Suddenly, there burst upon the scene many theories​—as many as there were investigators, it seemed—​with each investigator contradicting the other, and each endeavoring to outdo the other in daring and originality. Some of these researchers arrived at important conclusions; the work of others has simply been forgotten. It is both educational and enlightening for us to get a glimpse of the results of this research. It will help us to gain a better understanding of the religious attitudes among people we meet.

A theory, commonly called animism, was proposed by the English anthropologist Edward Tylor (1832-1917). He suggested that experiences such as dreams, visions, hallucinations, and the lifelessness of corpses caused primitive people to conclude that the body is inhabited by a soul (Latin, anima). According to this theory, since they frequently dreamed about their deceased loved ones, they assumed that a soul continued living after death, that it left the body and dwelt in trees, rocks, rivers, and so on. Eventually, the dead and the objects the souls were said to inhabit came to be worshiped as gods. And thus, said Tylor, religion was born.

Another English anthropologist, R. R. Marett (1866-1943), proposed a refinement of animism, which he called animatism. After studying the beliefs of the Melanesians of the Pacific islands and the natives of Africa and America, Marett concluded that instead of having the notion of a personal soul, primitive people believed there was an impersonal force or supernatural power that animated everything; that belief evoked emotions of awe and fear in man, which became the basis for his primitive religion. To Marett, religion was mainly man’s emotional response to the unknown. His favorite statement was that religion was “not so much thought out as danced out.”

...

Numerous other theories that are attempts to explain the origin of religion could be cited. Most of them, however, have been forgotten, and none of them have really stood out as more credible or acceptable than the others. Why? Simply because there was never any historical evidence or proof that these theories were true. They were purely products of some investigator’s imagination or conjecture, soon to be replaced by the next one that came along.

A Faulty Foundation

After years of struggling with the issue, many have now come to the conclusion that it is most unlikely that there will be any breakthrough in finding the answer to the question of how religion began. First of all, this is because bones and remains of ancient peoples do not tell us how those people thought, what they feared, or why they worshiped. Any conclusions drawn from these artifacts are educated guesses at best. Second, the religious practices of today’s so-called primitive people, such as the Australian Aborigines, are not necessarily a reliable gauge for measuring what people of ancient times did or thought. No one knows for sure if or how their culture changed over the centuries.

Because of all the uncertainties, the book World Religions​—From Ancient History to the Present concludes that “the modern historian of religions knows that it is impossible to reach the origins of religion.” Regarding the historians’ efforts, however, the book makes this observation: “In the past too many theorists were concerned not simply to describe or explain religion but to explain it away, feeling that if the early forms were shown to be based upon illusions then the later and higher religions might be undermined.”

In that last comment lies the clue as to why various “scientific” investigators of the origin of religion have not come up with any tenable explanations. Logic tells us that a correct conclusion can be deduced only from a correct premise. If one starts off with a faulty premise, it is unlikely that one will reach a sound conclusion. The repeated failure of the “scientific” investigators to come up with a reasonable explanation casts serious doubts on the premise upon which they based their views. By following their preconceived notion, in their efforts to ‘explain religion away’ they have attempted to explain God away.

The situation can be compared to the many ways astronomers prior to the 16th century tried to explain the movement of the planets. There were many theories, but none of them were really satisfactory. Why? Because they were based upon the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe around which the stars and planets revolved. Real progress was not made until scientists​—and the Catholic Church—​were willing to accept the fact that the earth was not the center of the universe but revolved around the sun, the center of the solar system. The failure of the many theories to explain the facts led open-minded individuals, not to try to come up with new theories, but to reexamine the premise of their investigations. And that led to success.

The same principle can be applied to the investigation of the origin of religion. Because of the rise of atheism and the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution, many people have taken for granted that God does not exist. Based on this assumption, they feel that the explanation for the existence of religion is to be found in man himself​—in his thought processes, his needs, his fears, his “neuroses.” Voltaire stated, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”; so they argue that man has invented God.​—See box, page 28.

Since the many theories have failed to provide a truly satisfying answer, is it not time now to reexamine the premise upon which these investigations were based? Instead of laboring fruitlessly in the same rut, would it not be logical to look elsewhere for the answer? If we are willing to be open-minded, we will agree that to do so is both reasonable and scientific. And we have just such an example to help us see the logic behind this course.

An Ancient Inquiry

...

Source: Chapter 2: Religion—How Did It Begin? (from the book Mankind’s Search for God)

I’ve experimented on an Earth species, millions upon millions of them.
It’s a cute little swimming Clam found worldwide.
Vast numbers, VAST NUMBERS have recently been discovered under the sea ice around Antarctica.

Sea Scallops, yes those scrumptious nuggets of white gold millions of humans can’t get enough of.

I wonder, will a vast fleet of Scallop Boats soon descend upon the summertime sea’s of the unimaginably huge and what is, the WILD Southern Ocean, to harvest this new found bounty?





a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

a reply to: PiratesCut

Octopus. They are up to no good, I tell you.



(annoying music but good info)


One example of why the mimic octopus is so remarkable.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

'Alien' is a hostile, alienating term (no pun intended), and should never be used, unless referring to those old monster movies. The monsters in that movie could just as well be called 'monsters' instead of aliens, and nothing would change.

However, 'space monsters' wasn't good enough, someone wanted them to sound more 'alienated' from humanity, so 'Alien(s)' was the perfect name.

If you want to use the word 'alien' to refer to 'space monsters' like that - and that HAS become the connotation ever since the first movie was released - I don't really mind, I guess.

Using that word to refer to, and especially DEFINE innocent, well-meaning, much-better-than-you human beings just because one of their living places in the physical plane has been some other (or many other) planet(s), is just mean. It's just ignorant, rude, and WORSE than racist.

Could we at least leave people with their human dignity intact, and call other-planetarians something better? How about Extra-Terrestrial people? Our brothers on other planets and spaceships? Human beings? Angelic Guides from Better Worlds? (Sorry for the weird capitalization, I just use capitalization to show respect)

We could call people that have ONLY tried to help us and tell us the truth something better and more inclusive than ALIENS, couldn't we? What if someone that has lived in better worlds, comes to this planet by the method of incarnation? You won't call them an alien, right? If that same, exact soul comes to this planet by the method of spaceship, suddenly you call them aliens?

Tell me, in your heart-of-hearts, DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE?!

Stop using the word 'alien', start coming up with better terminology, please. Maybe THEN there's at least some hope that people of this planet could join the Cosmic Communities, even if not quite Galactic Councils just yet.

I won't hold my breath, though, carry on, and use the word 'alien' to spite me, just like I know you will.