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

Originally posted by PriamsPride
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.

Go back and re-read the OP:

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
"Only" - Now, AS the basis for all other religions AND as the only theory that continually produces new evidence to support its claims while at the same time providing scientific explanations for many of the fantastical claims of events and entities of religious txts, it can be the only belief system (with any backing).

If the ancient astronaut hypothesis yields “scientific explanations” for events described in theological sources, then a scientific discussion of the hypothesis is wholly on-topic. I stand by my statement that this is, ultimately, a scientific discussion and not a philosophical one.

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

Then I’d ask for you to define those terms as you’re using them. Personally, I like how Wiktionary defines them:

science: A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability.

philosophy: An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism.

And yes, there are absolutely areas of overlap. But hypotheses that arrived at by pure reason must ultimately be tested empirically if they're ever going to become theories.

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.

In your earlier post, you placed the discussion of the usefulness of a scientific theory in the context of being useful to the average person. A theory must be accurate to be useful, but not all accurate theories are useful to the average person. If you now want to remove the discussion from that context, then I’d probably agree with you.

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.

To the average person, cell theory isn’t directly useful. However, call theory as applied through immunology is incredibly useful to average person on a regular basis. The same argument could be made regarding most scientific theories, if not all of them.

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.

Again, we’re talking about scientific theories, not theological ones. We’re back to philosophy and it’s not relevant to the discussion of the ancient astronaut hypothesis.

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?

I agree that all phenomena are, by definition, observable. I simply suggested using the expression in place of the one you were using, “physical interactions”, for reasons that the above quote makes clear. There’s no physical interaction involved in a person who claims to 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 they are observable but not verifiable, which makes the observations inherently unscientific. Again, this is a very interesting digression and I’d encourage you to start a new thread on the subject, but it’s off topic and ultimately belongs in another thread based on the OP.

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.

I can reduce the “evidence” for the ancient astronaut hypothesis to the same level of absurd oversimplicity. The complexity of a theoretical framework may not lie in the evidence itself, but in the interpretation of that evidence.

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.

Using your model for the above theories, the only piece of evidence is that there is a pot with writing on it. Everything that follows…

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.

…are similar to all of the questions you can ask about the structure of DNA or RNA beyond which nucleotides are present. Sorry, but if you want to be an apologist for the ancient astronaut hypothesis and talk about how it’s too complex to be testable, you have to play fair and admit that other scientific theories have the same level of complexity of their supporting evidence. Yet, somehow we manage to test all of those theories. Saying that the ancient astronaut hypothesis is a special case and therefore should be exempt from scientific rigor as it has been presented in this thread is pure bunk. As described in the OP, it’s a wholly observable, measurable, and testable hypothesis and should be treated as such.

Well I don't fully agree with these more minute points within the OP.

Then you need to take that up with the author of the OP. He’s making wholly physical claims regarding the ancient astronaut and you seem bent on shifting it away from a scientific discussion to a philosophical one. What you’re referring to as “emotional data” and “thought data” are, at least at this point, unverifiable and, therefore, not scientific. Using “data” that’s inherently unable to be observed and validated in a scientific fashion to try and prove or refute a scientific hypothesis is meaningless. Again, start a new thread on that topic, I’d be happy to read and participate in it, but it doesn’t belong in this particular one.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Ancient alien hypothesis does not meet any of the qualifications for a scientific theory.

I understand that. This is precisely why I have distinguished between two notions of science: One of them is the notion that science has heretofore carried with it as it works. This is the notion with which you are working. The other is the "broad view" which I had described. I have offered this notion as an alternative to the working scientific notion for a very specific reason, which you can find within my previous post.

Science is long overdue for a re-thinking of its assumptions, and this re-thinking is precisely what I am attempting to propagate here in my own way. There is no need to fear this re-thinking. It is beneficial. Consider my points, consider whether science really has rejected certain kinds of empirical data as evidence for no other reason than mere physicalist bias. Does it sound plausible? Does it not sound plausible?

Since when is "every experience" a form of evidence?

Any phenomenon witness is evidence. The question is only what it is evidence for and how it functions as evidence. My girl's caress is evidence of her love for me. We can even use your question as an example. Your asking me "since when is 'every experience' a form of evidence?" can be evidence of many things, among them: (1) a failure on my part to communicate my thoughts effectively (this is almost certainly the reality), (2) a misunderstanding on your part of the meaning of the word "evidence" as I use it, (3) a misplaced categorization on your part of the qualification "every experience", (4) a disconnect in our act of communication which prevents you from perceiving my worldview just as it may prevent me from interacting with yours. The list goes on. These are all theories (or hypotheses, if you prefer) which can explain the specific piece of evidence (your question to me). The best one will explain the evidence in the most coherent, simplest, and most useful way. These standards, of course, are only my standards for what makes a theory "good", but you will find that these standards have applied across the board in the history of theorizing (the history of science included).

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.

This is only because the theory is still crude and embryonic. I have already conceded that the narrow view of science would refer to it only as a hypothesis (if even that).

In short, this is searching for evidence to support a preconceived notion (confirmation bias) rather than developing a hypothesis or theory from actual evidence.

Evidence does not occur in a vacuum. Every piece of evidence that is collected is collected with a bias already figured into it. This bias is what categorizes that piece of evidence as evidence in the first place. All experimental scientists are guilty of collecting evidence with the intention that it will be relevant to a preconceived notion (a hypothesis). There are an infinite number of hypotheses which can fit any set of evidence you care to imagine. This is because no set of evidence is complete, so the hypotheses can be allowed to vary along the dimensions of the incompleteness of the evidence available. This entails that no one piece of evidence supports a single hypothesis, any given piece of evidence can support myriad hypotheses. The reason that we take evidence to support one hypothesis or another is twofold: (1) we speak of many different hypotheses as if they were but a single hypothesis, (2) we have used our own standards (remember my standards? simplicity, coherence, usefulness) to whittle down the number of possible hypotheses to a single hypothesis or at least a small set of similar hypotheses.

Additionally, you're a bit off base in your assumption of what my "worldview" is

I meant to make no assumption, which is why I used the word "may". I am aware that I am not very familiar with your worldview, so I suggested a worldview that you may (or may not) accept. It was only an example and it was not important to my point what your worldview really is.

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.

They don't mention aliens, but most of them mention gods. The point of the OP is that aliens may have been regarded either as gods or misinterpreted as gods. It seems highly suspect that we have a mention of gods within so many different traditions, as if all of these cultures had the same concept of a god. Besides, strictly speaking, mythical gods often are aliens by the very admission of the myths themselves.

Furthermore, creation stories are only one possible area in which AAT can be explored. It may be that aliens were not involved in our creating but were involved in our evolution and cultural growth. Again, hypotheses proliferate especially since this hypothesis is still embryonic.

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...

In the first place, I'm not in the business of providing physical evidence. I am in the business of reformulating thought patterns and disseminating these reformulations.

In the second place, I have seen enough physical evidence that I am satisfied that certain forms of AAT (which I find very coherent, useful and simple) are acceptable. However, the majority of the evidence that I have used in this personal judgment is not physical. I have gone over all this in depth in my last post if you would like to know more.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
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?

This depends on what you perceive the action of a drug to be. All evidence which comes in through the senses is considered empirical evidence. As I have mentioned in my previous post, I have reason to think that it is high time that we accept that there are other forms of empirical evidence besides the five senses (such as emotions, thoughts, and pranic flow), however you may not accept this notion. Nevertheless, even in the case of someone who has taken a psychedelic, much of what is perceived is perceived through the sense organs, which means that the experience is very much empirical, regardless of whether anyone else saw it.

While there are those who believe that psychedelics and other similar drugs generate experiences, this is only an assumption which lacks any basis in the evidence on hand. The evidence only suggests that experience changes when psychedelics are consumed. This may mean that the psychedelics generated the experience, but it may also mean that the psychedelics merely changed the function of the sense organs. It may be that you see different things on psychedelics because your eyes are adjusted to picking up different aspects of the world in which you live than they did before you ingested the drug.

In short, I have no problem with this even if it is true, because no phenomenon trumps any other phenomenon, they must all be explained within the context of a theory that describes how the phenomena function together in order that the phenomena may be put to use.

You may have no respect for psychedelics, but I know people whose lives have been changed by them (for the better). And many of these people have long since stopped using psychedelics.

reply to post by PriamsPride

This is precisely why I have distinguished between two notions of science: One of them is the notion that science has heretofore carried with it as it works. This is the notion with which you are working. The other is the "broad view" which I had described.

Gosh, that's what we really needed in this thread, a redefinition of the meaning of the word 'science'.

If you want to rewrite the philosophy of science, please do it in a book. You're derailing this thread with your off-topic ramblings and...

I am in the business of reformulating thought patterns and disseminating these reformulations.

...hollow chest-beating.

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm doing my best to beat my chest as little as possible. The line you quote was not meant to be pompous; rather, it was meant to highlight where my strengths and weaknesses lie. I simply don't have a mind suited for keeping track of all of the physical data that I come across, nor do I find it necessary in my work to do so.

My posts may ramble (forgive me), but they are not off-topic, even though they may seem so to you. I have already described why these ramblings are on-topic, and why I think this thread has been de-railed from the get-go.

If we want the world to change, then our definitions must change also: language subtly locks us into patterns of thought and releasing those patterns of thought often necessitates a change in definitions. I am aware that this is a subject appropriate for a book -- a book I am working on; however, I require interlocutors in order to refine my own thoughts. You all have the capacity to point out what I have failed to see. To you this may seem trivial, but to me it is a very important practice that is necessary before graduating to larger and more comprehensive writings.

reply to post by PriamsPride

Good luck with your researches, syntheses, et cetera. They have no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not aliens visited Earth in ancient times. No matter what intellectual gymnastics you perform, the question remains a simple one, to be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Contorting logic so that 'yes' and 'no' take on some bizarre new meaning is not helpful to the discussion on this thread.

Is it your opinion that aliens visited Earth in ancient times, and that the evidence of these visits is preserved, in distorted form, in the doctrines and legends of various human religions? Yes or no?

If yes, what arguments or evidence can you present to substantiate this opinion?

If no, what arguments or evidence can you present to substantiate this opinion?

That is the matter of this thread. Any attempt to alter or deviate from it is off topic.

All your posts, including the last one, are off topic.

Is it clear now?

reply to post by Astyanax


Friend, you are very much welcome to your view of the world.

If this were a conversation between you and me, I would politely bow out now. However, this is a webforum where the discussion includes many people, most of which do not even participate. Therefore, I will explain myself.

In my view of the world all things are connected, which makes virtually everything relevant to virtually everything else. I do not take this as an excuse to deviate off-topic; rather, I see topics differently: they do not have clear borders as your worldview ascribes to them. They bleed through each other in all directions. Any given question is as much about finding the relevant topics orbiting that question as it is about the topic that the question directly explores.

You ask me about evidence ignoring the fact that I am attempting to explain how we have been looking at the wrong evidence. If I were merely to tell you that AAT "feels right", you would find this laughable. It would be an extreme oversimplification of a set of evidence that is both sophisticated and subtle. I have begun the discussion by explaining how and why emotions, thought patterns, thoughts themselves and other phenomena have as much claim to being evidence as any piece of physical matter. What has not yet been said is what specific emotions, thought patterns, thoughts and other phenomena stand as evidence for AAT. This has not been said because it is very difficult to say. It involves a great deal of work to guide another's mind down your own emotions, thoughts and thought patterns. (This is probably why physical evidence is so much more popular.)

This is why I do not answer your question. It is not yet time within the context of the discussion, though I am quite certain that the discussion will never get to that point within this thread. But it is enough that I have begun it.

If there is at least one reader who sees the connection between AAT and my posts, who sees it and understands why I think these topics are so important to AAT, then I count my efforts a success. And I do not require that you be that person

May light be with you, friend.

Friend, you are very much welcome to your view of the world.

Thank you. Even on Facebook, though, I reserve the appellation 'friend' for those whom I actually know. But then again...

In my view of the world all things are connected, which makes virtually everything relevant to virtually everything else.

Sadly, this particular internet forum is arranged by subject. There is a Philosophy & Metaphysics department where you can discuss the kind of thing you are interested in.

What has not yet been said is what specific emotions, thought patterns, thoughts and other phenomena stand as evidence for AAT. This has not been said because it is very difficult to say. It involves a great deal of work to guide another's mind down your own emotions, thoughts and thought patterns.

I will humour you so far as to address this. It is, in fact, impossible. In the absence of material, falsifiable evidence for any prehistoric alien visitation, we cannot know what actual, real-world events would have resulted from one. Since any emotions, thoughts, etc., fixed in the human psyche by aliens--assuming, that is, that both the psyche and the aliens actually exist--can only have been the consequence of such real-world events, we can never identify such emotions and thoughts, because they arise from them. Certainly, no aspect of human behaviour appears to be in any way anomalous--all that we do is mirrored in the behaviour of other animals, particularly those closely related to us.

This is why I do not answer your question. It is not yet time within the context of the discussion, though I am quite certain that the discussion will never get to that point within this thread.

What? If I have asked the question, it means the discussion has reached that point. If you aren't prepared to discuss it, what, may I ask and not for the first time, are you doing in the thread?

May light be with you, friend.

Yes, you have a nice day, too.

While I personally believe that ET's did have a hand in our development, and that our religion(s) is the result of their intereference, I do have to say that I would be hesitant to welcome "them" with open arms. Frankly, I am rather pissed......who knows what we would have become if they hadn't come around and messed with us? And how dare they # us up like that in the first place? Then you have to wonder if the original alien civilization is even still around...they could have just as easily died off for one reason or another. Even though I believe aliens are in contact with our governments, I don't believe they are of the same race.

As an aside; ever read a book called "Lord of Light" by Zelanzy? Sci-fi book about humans crash landing on another planet. Very good book.

reply to post by Astyanax


"Since any emotions, thoughts, etc., fixed in the human psyche by aliens--assuming, that is, that both the psyche and the aliens actually exist--can only have been the consequence of such real-world events, we can never identify such emotions and thoughts, because they arise from them. Certainly, no aspect of human behaviour appears to be in any way anomalous--all that we do is mirrored in the behaviour of other animals, particularly those closely related to us."


Yes, my dog, for instance. He's a rather poor typist but is quite a blogger in his own right. His interests are quite different than mine, he can go on at length about the virtues of driving with his head out the window and finds windshields quite a nuisance. I, however , disagree with that. To each his own, I figure.

I understand the insistence of empirical evidence when discussing creationism and origins of life. Where would the Roman Catholic Church be without that? However, I find some areas of their beliefs contrary to my own "gut feelings." Further, I find some of their symbology to possibly be frightening for little children who are not brought up in their belief system and agree the persistent depictions of a crucified man to be distasteful to me even as an adult. Again, to each his own.

Though at this point the AAT is not developed well enough to stand hard scrutiny, I find many theories contained within its scope to begin to provide some plausible connections that could bridge science and religion. It does need more work though. I am not entirely ready to accept "astronaut" assumptions though it does appear they likely were "fliers."

I have worked with these theories for a number of years and find areas of "comfort" in that much of it fits together nicely and has plausibility even if it is not yet provable. I believe there is a track here that can lead us toward some actual understanding of the quite ïffy" subject of our origins.

I take more a "technician's" view of these matters than a scientist's and when I find some plausible hypothesis will postulate that assumption while adding or subtracting all that is necessary to make it workable hoping it will lead to a usable product. I understand the scientific method is to immediately discard anything that cannot be backed up by empirical data and facts, but I don't work in that environment. I take any two puzzle pieces that seem to fit, try to find others, and begin to make something usable of them. I do this much in the same manner as when in my working days an engineer would bring me a prototype, or at least an idea of something he dreamed up, then begin to test and modify it until it begins to function somewhat as he had in mind. We were quite productive working in that manner.

Pardon if my first paragraph seemed facetious. I may have completely missed the point in what you were saying, but at first glance your statement seemed ludicrous and I was merely jumping in to the spirit of what I perceived was going on.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

I may have completely missed the point in what you were saying

Yes, I believe you have. At any rate, none of what you posted in reply has any bearing on my words.

at first glance your statement seemed ludicrous

Perhaps a second glance would be in order.

So the answer is????
This thread has spent many words debating science, theory, theory of science, beliefs, theory of beliefs, religions, theory of religions, ancient humanity, modern man etc etc. I got lost on this thread when it got complicated.
In my lovely, safe, bubble I call my life, It's either 50% AA or 50% evolution.
Evolution I know about (species evolve in the survival of the fit-ist game).
AA I,ve read about. And it sort of made sense. Now does it make sense because I don't believe the religions after sumeria? Due to historical findings and pictural evidence.
Does my mind favour AA's because i.ve made it fit with the ideoligy I have on my world?
Is the seeking of aliens and planetary existance a new age religion?
For millennia humans have been seeking the existance of God. Are we now transferring that belief system to a modern thought concept?
I really dont want to end my life not knowing the answers.
Surely in the 21st century someone out there will smack me in the face with the truth.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254


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?

ever read Graham Hancock's book called "Supernatural". It takes on this exact subject matter.


www.youtube.com...


"it may be he writes, that '___' alters... so that we are able to perceieve what the physicist call 'dark matter" - the 95 percent of the universe's mass that is know to exist but that at present remains invisible to all our senses and instruments."

It is my personal belief that all ancient cultures have this rocket god theory because it happened. Note, I did not say alien. Could aliens have helped at some point, sure I guess so.
Ancient peoples have known that cycles have wiped out civilization since the beginning. They also noticed how to time these events and how to scheduled them. The great astrological changes of ages, like I think we now are going from Pisces to Aquarius, and hence a wipe out is supposed to happen, then a rebirth, then another fall...etc. There is a whole video series about this on youtube (course I can't find it now) that catalogs it. Apparently the guy who wrote a book about it died and a few people who made videos about it disappeared??? I am only going off of what the guy in the video said. I also ran across a video of a retired air force officer (youtube again, again can't find it now...) that claims there are 56 or so aliens the Gov has been working with. The retired Air Force person claims how some of these aliens look like humans, and some just a little different.
I have also wondered why the ancient rocket gods could come down and breed with the earth women (even in book of enoch) and what I pieced together in my mind was this: they could breed with earth women because they were humans from before the world was destroyed/recreated, when that all happened they went into a space station to wait it out and then come down to seed earth again with knowledge and breed with them. This would also put them in control as far as what to tell the new people of the world, what to believe in, etc.
It also takes, although somewhat loosely, how some "aliens" look human. In whatever cycle they were evolved from gave them a certain look, but the genetic material was still close enough to breed. So that would give us 56 or so different incarnations of the species human, aliens are just us humans from a different earth cycle, and of course they would want to examine us to see what makes us different or better, what have you. This incarnation is the latest and greatest of 400 million years or so of cycles, so yeah, they are all interested in us.
So, that is my two cents on the rocket gods, yeah, they happened, but they are/were earthlings from the previous earth cycle and survived and then helped the people/survivors and new breeds, and also themselves to a big serving of ruling class power (Zeus, Ra, all these "gods" that came from space (rockets) were just humans with technology, but man did those guys have power. Heck, we still talk about them).
Wheels within wheels.

Watching the first 6 episodes of this History Channel Ancient Aliens series killed me a little. Blatant lies all over the thing. Very entertaining, but nothing to do with reality. According to this series, hollow moon.. for example. Is a fact. The moon is apparently an alien outpost

P.S. It's not Ancient Astronaut Theory, but Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis (if even that).

Originally posted by bloodgame
Why does there have to be a religion at all?

Does anybody actually get anything except false belief from religion?

I wonder about ths myself, I guess the humans need something to believe in....


I know most religious people will be happy to inform you that all and any alien is a demon, one of Satan's army, come to get your soul is you don't give all of your heart, soul and will to their fake Godman Jesus. Thankfully, most are seeing through the lies and cover-ups perpetrated by the Church to keep us slaves and under control. To me, Freedom mean Freedom of the Spirit. My human body may be in chains, but my Spirit is always Free.

Theres a reason Native Americans called god Wakan Tanka ( Great Mystery) there are 3 things and more of course we dont know for sure
1. Where we come from.
2.Why were here.
3. Where we go when we leave .
A catholic Preist will try and tell you he knows for sure
but we realize that unless hes had a OBE or NDE and that is still debatable within the fabric of a mind
then hes lying also.

So in other words No one Knows thus great Mystery
NA'a also look at life differently they dont say another day older they say a day closer to understanding the Great Mystery for ones self because we all have a different Path Home . Peace enjoy Your walk in the Kingdom.

I'm awakening this thread to add a few things:

1) It would seem AAT and Hinduism - now, that I've been looking into it - are very similar in many regards, no?
(and, isn't Hinduism the world's oldest religion?!)

2) And, shouldn't/couldn't Christianity be an offshoot of Hinduism, anyway? "Many Hindus acknowledge Christ as a God-man, while believing that there have been others, such as Rama, Krishna, and the Buddha. [from oldest visitor to most recent, Jesus being the *most* recent]" (Huston Smith)

3) Besides that (regarding Christians), I think, perhaps I figured out a way, once and for all, to end the battle between Christians and non (well, science, anyway). A way that unifies our theories while at the same time not changing or thrashing one word of the bible...

Add an 's'!!!

Every time the word "God" appears in the bible, make it "Gods" - likewise "he/his" to "they/their", etc, accordingly.

Then, instead of a single all-seeing, all-knowing benevolent entity (which is preposterous if you *really* think about it), becomes an advanced civilization that put us here - and bestowed life, knowledge, and laws to live by...

Their mastery of science can explain away most 'miracles' and 'events' performed by 'gods' (ETs) - science that we certainly couldn't comprehend back then, and are on the cusp of barely discovering it now! (genetic engineering/manipulation, as but one example )

4) Beyond that, it is nice to see the attention (and acceptance) the subject is getting, these days. It is the most Googled "Ancient..." - go ahead, see for yourself.
Go to Google.com, in the search bar type 'a' - 'n' - 'c' - 'i' - 'e' - 'n' - 't' [space] and wait...

I'll save you the suspense - in order: 1) Aliens 2) Greece 3) Egypt 4) Rome



All for now. I'm sure some more thoughts will find their way here, soon.

I don't believe in 'aliens' - I believe our 'ancestors' were far more advanced than we've 'evolved' to (or have ultimately developed) today!

And, we're just now coming to that realization as a civilization - with the information age accelerating the process to an exponential curve whose asymptote is right about now(!) - I've talked about this before - The acceleration of knowledge, about ourselves and our place in the universe.

There's a term for it: It's called 'singularity' (knew to me)



Btw, those 2 guys are fricking kooks, but their explanation of where the human race is, in terms of knowledge and self-awareness, is spot on!

reply to post by KingArthur


I'm quite sure that I came from the reproductive organs of my parents. I've seen no indication why the question "Why are we here?" has any meaningful purpose. I've also seen no indication that there is anything left after we die to go anywhere. The thing that causes consciousness dies with the body, so why would consciousness continue?

Another intersting thought [in conjunction with the 'acceleration of knowledge' video above] - and, this will resonate with those 'we are all one' energy/being/etc folks as well as some 2012 folks...

As, I'm rinsing my dishes in the sink to prepare them for their much more thorough wash in the 'DishWasher', I can't help but think how, now seemingly simple appliances, have influenced the development of our civilization. It seems like there is a neverending quest to make tasks that we've previously invented easier and less time-consuming so that we can focus on other endeavors involved in 'moving forward'. (seems natural)

With all of our new 'free time' we seem compelled to either 1) spread that information out to others (and, perhaps gain something in return for it (barter/payment)), and 2) move on to something else, bigger and better.

Think about all jobs that exist, either producing, managing or servicing [something]. And, the evolution of jobs overall - they are invented, created, and obsoleted as technology & innovation improve at faster and faster rates. This is a result of new/better information being shared amongst the masses.

Now, what you're really talking about is the dissemination of that information. And, now, technology has allowed us to set up the infrastructure that can spread that information in greater and greater amounts and at faster and faster rates.

We all knew about the tsunami in Japan, BEFORE IT EVEN HIT, because we all knew about the earthquake.
How long did it take message to get back to England that the colonies were revolting and for an attack to be planned, less than a mere 250 years ago?!

And while improvements are always made to bandwidth, they are also always looking for ways to speed up the rate at which the info is delivered: written word / scribing - movable type - horse & carrier - telegraph - telephone - radio - television - intranet - internet - wifi/3G - and, on and on...

Eventually, we WILL get to the point that as something new happens [in our civilization, around the world, etc] it will be collectively known, by the entire population, simultaneaously and instantly!!

We will be, effectively, operating as one entity. And, I believe we are almost there.

Interesting to think about, anyway.