Who likes talking about UFO stuff?
-
@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?"
-
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
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.
Demons and angels, though pure spirits, in Christian doctrine, have ability to take on physical forms, thus UFO phenomenons can be explained, from Christian point of view, as demonic.
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
if they possess all of the qualities 'man' possesses
Not exactly. The only relevant quality is intelligence. And since no one would care about aliens if they were bacteria, I take it as presupposition that aliens in question are intelligent. This point is further validated by their supposed presence on Earth and super-advanced technology needed to comes here like "production of gravity".
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
Perhaps Buddhism will say they are 'man' and Judaism will call them aberrated man-like demons or something.
I'm not well versed in buddhism or islam, but from what I've read so far both speak of ETs in their (at least in case of islam, divinely revealed) texts. If the truth were to the contrary, it would contradict the infallibility of the texts and put into question entire religion -- similarly, for Christianity, presence of intelligent ET is contradictory. Thus, question of ETs is of fundamental consequences for many religions and is not merely a topic for future theological debates.
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
The rest of religious doctrine is similarly unaffected when we begin strictly from metaphysics.
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
To consider if "aliens" are 'man' or in some infra- or supra- relation to him has only a moral significance
Again, I disagree. While it is not directly dogmatically established, it is not complicated to see that from Christian point of view intelligent ETs are contradictory and such belief heretical. Lack of ETs, on the other hand, would show uniqueness of Earth and Man and point towards Christian faith, which, for many "scientists", is unbearable as is indicate by their fervour when searching for life and poetry when speaking of vastness of universe and all possible life in it.
-
@zawisza. The discovery of any other beings, howsoever marvellous, only shows that 'man' lives also on other continents (where we 'accomodate' our terms to the new knowledge that what we previously considered our 'planet' is metaphorically but a 'continent').
-
@jwayne Man though live on many continents has come from the same place and same parents: Adam and Eve.
If "aliens" would be sons of Adam who long in the past have traversed the heavens to other planets, then such position would not be heretical (for a Christian) but "only" historically and scientifically wrong.
-
@zawisza Rather than going down a rabbit hole of everything that is "scientifically wrong" with religious 'narratives', Christian or otherwise, I'd like to propose a thought experiment.
Suppose the 'Greys', because they're intelligent, also have religion on their world. Suppose they worship in buildings that have a cross on the front and tell stories remarkably similar to Christianity, even down to linguistic similarity of the syllables (keeping in mind difference of tongue). Or suppose they even know about Jesus and worship him. This would seem a remarkable proof of Christianity, right?
Or some theologians would say this proves Christianity is alien-derived and false. Or some would make innumerable other arguments from all sides.
Or perhaps the Greys even have historical proof to offer us from surveillance footage they took of our planet thousands of years ago. Then theologians can debate these new facts.
But equally the Greys could have a religion corresponding to Hinduism or Islam. Again, the same questions.
Next consider that the Greys may be the Christian Aliens but suppose we find later there are also Hindu Aliens. Or suppose they don't have religion yet we need to further study their notions of worship, their philosophy and their civilization in more detail to be absolutely sure.
Just that Aliens have a civilization somewhere is no more relevant to metaphysics than discovering the historical location of Atlantis is. Historians will accomodate themselves to it; likewise theologians will accomodate to the idea of an alien civilization, whether by calling them man or demon, etc.
There are an indefinitely large number of phenomenal observations for science to discover without ever coming to the end. Religion, insofar as its strictly adherent to metaphysical principles, concerns that which is absolutely true and unchanging. By definition, religion qua metaphysics is that which concerns the immutable. That does not mean that what religion says is absolutely true but rather that the domain of the absolutely true is the inquiry of religion (at least religion qua metaphysics and not religion as secondarily concerned with social questions).
-
@jwayne You seem to care more about theologians than that of which they speak. Religion ought not be judged only on humans following it but more importantly on its principles as its more objective standard. I do not doubt that if one were to prove anything, theologians and "thinkers" would skilfully show that it proves their worldview and once again claim superiority over the others, but it bears little weight on veracity of fundamental tenants of a religion.
Below, I will refer to the Catholic dogma but Bible alone should suffice to prove all of the following arguments.
It is Catholic dogma that (1) the only intelligent creatures are angles and Man and that (2) all Man come from Adam and Eve. From this alone it is obvious that existence of intelligent aliens would be detrimental to Christianity and by consequence, since the West has taken its conclusions for granted for the last two thousand years, to science and philosophy. Only exceptions would be if these "aliens" were in fact humans who in the past travelled to starts with forgotten technology but that is clearly not scientific or historically accurate.
For a Christian, by definition, any UFO phenomenon that can not be explained by human or natural event must be of demonic nature.
Moreover, in Christian worldview, the world is fallen - imperfect. Thus, came the Saviour to save the Man from his sins. Note, God became Man; not alien or intelligent being, but the Man, i.e., the son of Adam. Any intelligent creature, through natural reason has ability to discern that God exists and has moral imperative to follow his will (i.e., not sin). If intelligent ETs exist one of the following must be true:
- ETs had their fall like Man: and had their own Saviour - God-made-ET (can not be since Jesus was "the only begotten Son" of God); or Jesus's sacrifice saved them too (illogical and doesn't follow from the Bible); or they never been saved and are condemned forever (denies God's good and loving nature and at whole is not compatible with Genesis).
- ETs are not fallen but live in the fallen world (unjust).
- ETs are not fallen and only part of the universe is actually fallen (ridiculous as this would imply that one can travel between fallen and unfallen parts or communicate between them).
All of these are denied by Dogma and are not compatible with Bible as can be reasoned by anyone with mediocre knowledge of it. In no place does the Bible speak of many worlds or kinds of Man or gives any possibility of life outside of Earth in general. No Christian in good faith can believe in intelligent ETs.
Hopefully, it is clear now why ET existence can be denied "without scientific" evidence from philosophical arguments alone and that it is a question with potentially huge metaphysical consequences.
(If ETs were proven to not exist, then buddhism and islam (AFAIK) would be in trouble, but since they are already greatly inconsistent it probably would not be of a great importance.)
@jwayne said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
That does not mean that what religion says is absolutely true but rather that the domain of the absolutely true is the inquiry of religion
And so, the True Religion must have the key to the the immutable, absolute Truth. You can deny, as you seem you do, existence of the True Religion, but then it seems difficult to defend the point of religion as study of the immutable as there can be no immutable things since there is nothing that is absolutely True and if there is then it can not be known.
-
Some are military drones based on recovered tesla docs. Non-terrestrial type are way above our level and if seen wanted to be seen. There are rules though and we are essentially an un-contacted island tribe for now.
They do intervene whenever we try to send nukes into space though, they just snipe them every time. -
@zawisza We agree that any Christian Dogma which can be invalidated by scientific observation is truly and utterly worthless. And the same goes for any other religious form that overextends itself beyond being an adaptation of metaphysical principles- as I've already stated multiple times.
Whether a certain degenerated form of religion survives or not is not interesting to me at all. What I would prefer is a rejuvenation of intellectuality across the spectrum, including into religious spaces.
-
@zawisza said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
there can be no immutable things since there is nothing that is absolutely True and if there is then it can not be known.
If you want to discuss the immutable then perhaps we should open a separate thread for it because it obviously will have nothing to do with UFO/Aliens.
I would never use the term 'the True Religion' which is as absurd as 'the True Culture' or 'the True Language'. These are all adaptations resultant of different facets of 'truth' at-work upon human life, so to speak.
-
@zawisza said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
@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
That's a strawman. You said it was 'scientifically impossible' for life to exist elsewhere and I provided evidence to the contrary. Actual existence of aliens on other planets was not what was being discussed in that paragraph.
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).
Incorrect. Many images have been scrutinized by experts in optics. Natural events, planes etc have been ruled out.
You presuppose possibility of life outside of Earth (and more, that it's intelligent and super-advanced) which there's no evidence for
I presuppose nothing. We're being visited, they aren't from here ergo they must be from elsewhere.
You keep claiming there is no evidence for any of this. What is your proof for this claim? I've already posted several large government reports and I can post a lot more.
You don't care that there are never any remnants of UFO though many have crashed;
I think that's incorrect to say. Crash retrievals appear to have occurred and credible people have claimed governments are indeed in possession of 'exotic' materials.
or that their manoeuvres "break the laws of physics as we know it" and then claim that science can prove ETs.
those things aren't mutually exclusive
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".
The few very good government documents people have got their hands on were leaked, not released.
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.
An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies. UFO research involves hard physical evidence in the form of witness account, photographic, video, geological and medical evidence. It's the study of a physical phenomenon.
@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's more correct to say humans cannot produce it, yet. As I said, evidence indicates another civilization has already.
-
@Hando-Jin said in Who likes talking about UFO stuff?:
I don't see it discussed much in bioenergetic circles.
The reason is because its nearly irrelevant to bioenergetic theory. If we have an extraterrestrial specimen to study then it would be highly informative. If some deep state agencies do possess such data, as the UFO community attests, then they have a treasure trove of incredible information. For the rest of us it is a kind of entertainment and speculative curiosity.
Even for religion, apart from literalized (i.e. degenerated) exoteric narratives (i.e. fairy tales), the philosophical and scientific questions become "How did alien life begin?"
It is analogous to Simulation or Matrix Theory (which the same audience is enamoured with), which attests that our universe is 'digital'. The scientific and philosophical question becomes, "In what reality does the computer that created our universe exist?"
Neither answer fundamental questions but regress or delay the issue, and amounts to an obfuscation.
