Who likes talking about UFO stuff?
-
@Hando-Jin Hi,
It can be entertaining to watch stuff about ufos,
Yet some aspects of the way the idea of ufo existence is partly promoted seem questionable, such as:the characterization of ufos travelers as beings of high consciousness of which we must be worthy, attaining a high degree of consciousness (such as "christ consciouness", "oneness consciouness", "raising kundalini") high enough ourselves to be able to communicate with them and/or receive their potential benefits
The fact that some of the people who advocate this don't seem to me to have the physiognomy, words and intonations that correspond to an energetic state of "onesness consciouness"
The fact that these two themes seem to have become more popular in recent years
And the fact that a lot of the arguments are claims, or claims about other people's claims, with a tendency to seem to think that since some of these people are "high status" then their claims are more credible and/or reality
Thrive for the highest degree of energy
-
@Hando-Jin UFOs and Aliens (different topics) are entertaining. I've enjoyed all the documentaries I've seen produced but only when looking at it as entertainment and not from an academic perspective. The UFO phenomena is a curiosity whereas the Alien phenomena when tied to it is what usually leads people down, what I think are, psychologically damaging rabbit holes.
For example, there is a proper way to contemplate and discuss metaphysics and philosophy without needing to introduce Aliens. Yet, for many on the internet their first introduction to any non-mainstream academic field is through UFOs, Aliens, hallucinogens or some adjacent introduction. And it becomes difficult for them to conceive of things with the kind of intellectual purity that's required to approach or engage a topic appropriately.
And that's similar, if I digress a bit, to what's happening on RPF now with its religious dogmatism wherein religious conceptions (i.e. "Satan") are divested of their etymological, philological variation, metaphysical and so forth content and erroneously stapled to a dietary fad or theory about nutrition. This makes thinking as something constructive, dialectical and unwaveringly hesitant and experimental (insofar as we are contingent, imperfect, non-omniscient beings) impossible.
Join an intellectual community of artists, thinkers, writers and students of philosophy
https://ascetus.com/join -
@zawisza said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
no obvious pathologies were present
Means nothing.
lol, ok. We'll just ignore the judgement of somebody trained to detect mental illnesses.
a, b, c I have no problem with, and neither with "reports" or "sightings". That someone saw something and then says its UFO is not a scientific evidence. d can be true because at times these are demonic as can be seen by purely negative fruits or UFOs or one's "fascination" with it.
They're real but you can only interpret them through your religious derangement.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Incorrect assumptions about astronomy from the 19th century don't answer the question about whether or not there is evidence of ufos. It's a strange argument.
It's not strange. It shows that this idea lived long and it's for long (always) been devoid of evidence since it's an ideology and not scientific theory or even hypothesis.
How would you know it's devoid of evidence? You've never read a single book, read a single report, listened to a single lecture about the topic.
Anything scientific involves discussion of evidence. You've done everything but discuss the evidence, opting to instead engage in ridicule and speculation about probabilities.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
binary star systems which are far more common are more likely to have life on them?
"this planet is more likely to have life than that" is unscientific nonsense guided by ideological blind faith in aliens.
You like talking about 'science' but strangely never post any
Extraterrestrial Life May be Common around Binary Stars
Low-mass binary stars could make the best hosts for alien life because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single starLow-mass twins could make the best hosts, because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extraterrestrial-life-may/Moreover, even if it wasn't complete nonsense;
- probabilities one generally speaks of are extremely small and since universe is not infinite they still often do not suffice for reasonable postulate.
- where is the closest binary star system or any planet that has "high likelyhood of having life"? What's the probability that they would harbour life, and more, life more technologically advanced than us? And how can it be possible to travel these distances? There's a reason why ET promoters have to escape to scientifically sounding gobbledygook like "intradimensions", worm holes, etc.
It's easy to travel long distance if you can produce gravity. This is been known for a long time.
-
@Truth said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin Hi,
Yet some aspects of the way the idea of ufo existence is partly promoted seem questionable,That's true of just about anything in life.
-
@Hando-Jin in my experience, it is not.
What do you think it changes that this is true for everything in life for you?
Thrive for the highest degree of energy
-
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
For example, there is a proper way to contemplate and discuss metaphysics and philosophy without needing to introduce Aliens.
The UFO/alien topic is neither metaphysics or philosophy.
-
@Truth said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin So?
Exactly. What's your point? That some of it is not credible? That's not that much of a big deal.
-
@Hando-Jin some aspects of the ufos stuff I've been exposed to that is on popular channels or platforms such as Netflix, such as Steven Greer's claims, don't necessary have a high degree of coherence, credibility, are partly based on claims or claims of others, and may also make us wonder why it's promoted in this way, and what net negative effect it can have on the majority of people to be exposed to these ideas in this way
Thrive for the highest degree of energy
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Extraterrestrial Life May be Common around Binary Stars
"may"
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Low-mass binary stars could make the best hosts for alien life because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star
"could"
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Low-mass twins could make the best hosts, because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star.
"could"
I.e., they don't and won't. This is not science. This is speculation.
You don't want me to talk about probabilities but you brought them up with "binary stars are more likely to have life". And these articles do the same.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
It's easy to travel long distance if you can produce gravity. This is been known for a long time.
It is been known for a long time that gravity can not be "produced". What does it even mean? Do you want to create matter? What's next anti-gravity and using dark matter for fuel? ET-believer can not but claim such ridiculous things because the worldview is incoherent and based on sci-fi novels. How am I suppose to then "post science" if you come out with things like that? It's pure speculation, fantasy world. No reputable journal would ever talk about this nonsense.
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
For example, there is a proper way to contemplate and discuss metaphysics and philosophy without needing to introduce Aliens.
The UFO/alien topic is neither metaphysics or philosophy.
Of course not. Yet many are compelled to "research" the former before the latter. Thus the inquiry (and the field) gets distorted almost from the beginning. This isn't by necessity but exaggerated when the UFO/Alien topic tries to assimilate itself to history, religion or something else. And this is what makes it very difficult to breach in a serious way, at least in my experience.
-
@Truth said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Steven Greer's claims, don't necessary have a high degree of coherence
Yeah, he's a twit and a grifter. He has a brand, which is why he is everywhere. I think he's made a lot of money of the topic and likes to big note himself about having supposed government contacts etc. He's helped poison the topic.
I would recommend a Stan Friedman lecture and/or any of James Fox's movies.
https://youtu.be/4JBx01h4GpA
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2276454/ -
@zawisza said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Extraterrestrial Life May be Common around Binary Stars
"may"
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Low-mass binary stars could make the best hosts for alien life because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star
"could"
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Low-mass twins could make the best hosts, because their combined energy extends the habitable region farther away than would exist around a single star.
"could"
I.e., they don't and won't. This is not science. This is speculation.
If you think could is the same word as don't and won't and then you should repeat primary school.
If you want to talk about actual evidence in the form of photographs, videos, studies or abduction cases then I'll respond but not to silly games.
It is been known for a long time that gravity can not be "produced".
Can't be produced by humans in this period of time does not mean it cannot be produced at all, either by us or someone else. There's evidence showing the latter has occurred.
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
The UFO/alien topic is neither metaphysics or philosophy.
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Of course not.
While it may technically not fall under the umbrella of either it has significant connotations that influence both. If aliens do not exist then it follows that most buddhist/hindu and islamic sects, for example, are false; while, if the contrary is true, Christianity must be false. Of course it follows from theological arguments that Christianity is True and aliens are not and any non-explainable events are most likely demonic (i.e., aliens is a metaphysical question).
It is unsurprising then that ET-believers often come from reddit and occult, and treat aliens as almost supernatural beings that will bring peace to Earth with superadvanced technology. From their writings it is clear that they seek metaphysical meaning and consolation in their existence. That's why spur out when someone points out ridiculousness of their ideology.
-
The claims that many people make about this being a government psy-op, an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the military in order to convince the public this was absolutely real for the purpose of distracting their attention etc must be extremely amusing to the people in the government who are involved in this issue.
The real psy-op has always been a campaign of ridicule, documented harassment of UFO groups and in some cases direct cash payments to people claiming abduction in order to discredit the entire issue and make the people feel it wasn't real. Governments have never wanted the public to feel they had things flying around in their airspace that they couldn't control and were many time more powerful than anything in their arsenals.
Either way, as long as people believe it to be a fraud I suppose that's all they care about.
-
@zawisza said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
It is unsurprising then that ET-believers often come from reddit and occult, and treat aliens
You have to reduce it to an ideology (and of course it's a 'demonic' one) because your own beliefs are threatened by reality. Obviously nothing new for religious people.
-
@zawisza I agree entirely with your second paragraph.
As for the impact that evidence of extraterrestrial 'aliens' (for ease of argument, let's say the 'Greys') would have on religion, I think it would stray too far from the main thread to discuss it theologically.
However I think we disagree in that I would say it has no bearing on metaphysics and thus insofar as the religion in question (which is another matter as most today are in a state of intellectual decay) is, hypothetically, an 'authentic' or 'pure' expression of metaphysics merely adapted to historical-geographical circumstances in its 'exoterism' then the confirmation of 'aliens exist' also has no bearing on religion. Of course, that's only true in my theoretical example where religion sticks strictly to metaphysical principles. And I'm aware that even saying this much is inviting a wide argument. But in any case that's my position.
And I would say further, as soon as religion begins to extend itself into what is properly 'scientific' territory (i.e. the existence of UFOs/Aliens), and by that I mean in its historical role of censorship or conflation, then it is at the same time displaying a degeneration. Just like any other field would clearly be in error by staking claim somewhere that it has no authority to do so.
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
If you think could is the same word as don't and won't and then you should repeat primary school.
could and may indicates speculation and is not a scientific evidence of ETs and means that there are no evidence of life anywhere else outside of Earth. That a planet may be habitable by some form of life does not mean that it is or will be in the future. Again, this is no evidence for ETs and it is pure speculation.
Photos and videos are not evidence either as all of them have been shot with a microwave in 120p and can not prove that UFO was an alien and not a natural or supernatural event (i.e., meteor, plane or demon). In before, "you are religious fanatic so everything is a demon", you are clearly not objective either. You presuppose possibility of life outside of Earth (and more, that it's intelligent and super-advanced) which there's no evidence for: just coulds and mays and sci-fi novels; and treat anything positive for your case as truth and only truth. You don't care that there are never any remnants of UFO though many have crashed; or that their manoeuvres "break the laws of physics as we know it" and then claim that science can prove ETs. Or that gov. releases out of their own will documents supposedly proving aliens but then say "they don't want you to know about this". Literally, every scientist in high places believes in aliens (and most politicians as well, where do you think SETI gets its founding?) but somehow it is still contrarian to say that they exist.
You pretend that this is not ideology but every occult sect believes in aliens and rituals to contact them are identical to demon rituals. And every time aliens talk about religion it's freemason like trash "everyone is equal", "all religions are truly the same". It is ideology for you.
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Can't be produced by humans in this period of time does not mean it cannot be produced at all, either by us or someone else. There's evidence showing the latter has occurred.
This is complete anti-scientific nonsense that deserves nothing but ridicule. You can not "produce" gravity. It is meaningless combination of words. Gravity is attraction between masses that can not be "produced". And there is no "negative" gravity by the way, so please no anti-gravity nonsense.
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
You have to reduce it to an ideology (and of course it's a 'demonic' one) because your own beliefs are threatened by reality. Obviously nothing new for religious people.
We should keep in mind that the same phenomenon (or reality) indicated in religious terms by 'demon' will have a corresponding scientific description, or else the religious term doesn't indicate any phenomenon at all but is rather a symbol for a metaphysical reality. If we think that each outward face of reality (or object) can be described in multiple ways depending on what sense (or faculties) we want to evoke or emphasize then the bridge between science and religion can be traversed.
It's not that exorcism, for instance, is only able to be described in religious terms but, if its sensible, then it also must have some scientific explanation, as well (and we would think of it in a bioenergetic context). If anyone wants to exclude either the religious sense or the scientific sense it merely reflects an inability to look at a thing holistically, or rather, an inability to appreciate the multiple meanings that every observable thing 'possesses' (at least as latent possibility).
The 'religious sense' is not cross-cultural as science is except in its metaphysical symbolism, so this draws confusion as well.
-
@jwayne I disagree in that existence of aliens influences perception on life itself -- scientifically and metaphysically. Peaters often talk about looking at things holistically and so too here I say that one can not separate metaphysics from physics. Religion "defines" where life comes from and what is its meaning, thus, it restricts physical/"scientific" knowledge that is compatible with it. Existence of aliens implies non-uniqueness of humans which is anti-Christian and so changes how we view origin of life and its meaning -- there are physical and metaphysical consequences.
That we are in state of intellectual, moral decay or that religion is "expression of metaphysics merely adapted to historical-geographical circumstances" whatever you mean by it, seems completely irrelevant to me, as even if one reject religion he has to consider its doctrine and principles irrespectively of human aberrations or cultural differences and judge its veracity based on those objective standards.
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
as soon as religion begins to extend itself into what is properly 'scientific' territory (i.e. the existence of UFOs/Aliens), and by that I mean in its historical role of censorship or conflation, then it is at the same time displaying a degeneration
To reiterate, religion extends itself to science and all else that exists. In fact, any worldview does so, and does it authoritatively. It is foolish, in my opinion, to try and pretend that science is objective and free from cultural or religious influences. Religion precedes science as it is a superset of it in a way, thus, censorship of the True Religion is not degenerative but healing and guiding future process.
-
@zawisza In brief, "aliens" - in spite of whatever faculties and technology they possess - still belong to the phenomenal world. Hence they have no bearing on, to give a salient example, angels or demons which are not defined by corporeality. The rest of religious doctrine is similarly unaffected when we begin strictly from metaphysics.
You mentioned the 'uniqueness' of humans as if its invalidated by 'greys'. There is a misconception here resulting from an exclusive emphasis on man's corporeality. The key theological question that you are unawaredly introducing would be "Are aliens (spiritually) man?" Not 'literal man', as in time travellers or something, but, if they possess all of the qualities 'man' possesses then the fact that they come from different cities, continents or planets makes no difference.
Theologians had to consider whether different races were 'equally' human already. To consider if "aliens" are 'man' or in some infra- or supra- relation to him has only a moral significance and hence will vary theologically. Perhaps Buddhism will say they are 'man' and Judaism will call them aberrated man-like demons or something. This part has no relevance on metaphysics or religion proper, and will be merely a curiosity for the theologians to debate, just like "How many angels could dance on the head of a pin?"
