I started looking into this after reading one of the comments in the "Is Atheism a Religion?" thread. The paranormal is what is not yet explained or considered normal, which leaves room for it to become normal or gain an explanation, so I figure it wouldn't be hypocritical for an atheist to believe in. I play with the idea of the paranormal sometimes, but I wouldn't say that I believe in anything like that other than UFOs and ghosts/spirits.
What about any other people out there? You don't have to be an atheist to answer, though this is aimed more towards them than others. I'm sure religion would cause conflicts with the paranormal as well.
I am saying that there are ancient drawings about aliens that occur all over the world, in different times.
No, there are drawings and sculptures from around the world that we choose to interpret as indicative of what our modern society visualizes extra-terrestrial life looking like.
None of these are 'aliens' and can be explained in many other ways which much more closely link the information we know about these civilizations.
Just because something resembles what you want it to resemble does not mean that is what was implied. Look at all the 'sightings' of the virgin mary. They have them in toast, in plants, on walls, etc. ad infinitum. These are not indicative of the virgin mary, however they are objects which are close enough to be interpreted as such.
So I take it that neither of you feel that it is important to study the reasons behind ancient drawings and sculptures?
I never said that it wasn't. I just don't think we should jump to unfounded conclusion.
I am saying that there are ancient drawings about aliens that occur all over the world, in different times. Artwork
Are you not presuming these are aliens? Could these being regarded as aliens just us projecting our modern perception onto these drawings? As I said earlier this is likely just a form of pareidolia.
How does this NOT merit further research? It's important for understanding and illuminating their culture, psychology, and modes of artistic expression, regardless of whether or not the artifacts were inspired by actual alien visitations.
I didn't say it doesn't merit further research. I said the possibility doesn't have merit. Also on understanding the culture I doubt they were drawing these things thinking they were beings from another planet as some do today.
It seems unlikely that you will be willing to open your mind to a possibility if you have already made a judgment about it.
Not at all. I regard aliens being the cause an incredible claim compared to lost methods developed by humans. As Carl Sagan said "Incredible claims require incredible evidence".
As Bertrand Russell said: "Either something is true or it isn't, if it is true, you should believe it. If it isn't you shouldn't. And if you can't find out whether it's true or whether it isn't you should suspend judgment."
We can only prove something to be true.
You should not make a decision and then wait for something to come along and change your mind, you should not have any preconceptions because they will shape how you interpret new information.
I'm not sure who get's credit for this one but I think the quote "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" is a fitting response. We should keep an open mind, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't form our own thoughts.
I'm not sure who get's credit for this one but I think the quote "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" is a fitting response. We should keep an open mind, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't form our own thoughts.
I think that was Dawkins.
And I agree generally with the others, you think of images then you will see said image. Like Santa clause on a piece of toast or a face in a puff of smoke, this is similar.
to doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection
-Henri Poincare
I said the possibility doesn't have merit.
Why doesn't it have merit? I'd like to know why. Up until now, you have only been saying it doesn't have merit, but have not said why.
I realize that this is a product of what we perceive it to be, but by saying that we shouldn't look into the exact meaning since it's just what we believe to be aliens, then we are throwing one possibly out based on our opinion of what we think is possible. Please don't compare the virgin Mary in a piece of toast to a recurring image in ancient art that was created by a person, for what we might assume was a purpose(who knows what that purpose is) it's insulting to all of our intelligences.
Please don't compare the virgin Mary in a piece of toast to a recurring image in ancient art that was created by a person, for what we might assume was a purpose(who knows what that purpose is) it's insulting to all of our intelligences.
Actually what I find insulting to intelligence is when we, a modern civilization, choose to impose our modern myths upon long dead civilizations instead of keeping an open mind as to what those civilizations were truly trying to say as opposed to what we want them to be saying.
Bear in mind that the myth of extra-terrestrial life is actually quite new, most likely having it's beginnings in the 17th or 18th centuries, as we were first being able to see the surfaces of celestial bodies with telescopes. Prior to that time all known myths of the supernatural centered around deities, spirits, et cetera.
Why doesn't it have a merit? Lets compare there technology with ours. Books, scrolls, and other forms of righting would be able to preserve knowledge. Especially if it was equivalent to today or greater, it is nearly impossible to eliminate the knowledge of one thing, let alone an entire knowledge base. You would have to genocide most of the race and destroy the infrastructure at the same time. How would that happen? A nuclear war would have left a huge trace. Even musket genocide would be easy to see. How would we lose that much knowledge, without even a trace except a few pictures that could easily be wrong?
If it is aliens you mean, they would have left some kind of steel artifact that you could be seen. Simple as that.
Why doesn't it have merit? I'd like to know why. Up until now, you have only been saying it doesn't have merit, but have not said why.
With some things we have evidence that it could have been done certain ways. The evidence of alien visitation is sketchy at best, and is an incredible claim. So unless we first prove aliens have visited us and did so, so far in our past, then I don't see how suggesting aliens did it has any more merit then claiming it was done by magic or any other unfounded claim.
I realize that this is a product of what we perceive it to be, but by saying that we shouldn't look into the exact meaning since it's just what we believe to be aliens, then we are throwing one possibly out based on our opinion of what we think is possible.
I don't think he said we shouldn't look into the exact meaning, however there are far more likely possibilities then aliens.
Please don't compare the virgin Mary in a piece of toast to a recurring image in ancient art that was created by a person, for what we might assume was a purpose(who knows what that purpose is) it's insulting to all of our intelligences.
But they are comparable. This artwork has a vague resemblance to our modern perception of aliens. People see a vague resplendence of what they perceive to be the Virgin Mary.
I agree with what you are saying, the fact is that I've been saying you need to have an open mind this whole time. As I continue to tell you, I do not necessarily think that real aliens induced these works, but I do believe that it should be looked into. You continue to ignore my questions and points and go on with your point as though you have already thought them out prior to reading what I have said.
My original hypothesis, and it still stands, had to do with DMT and psychoactive plants being ingested, as well as being produced endogenously in our bodies, which has been known to induce visions of beings and voices of some sort. I really feel like my entire post was dismissed because you don't believe that the alien hypothesis has merit. If you don't believe that, fine, but remember that's your belief, and how can we rationally argue belief? Everyone thinks theirs is true.
If you won't answer my question about what makes something have merit or not have merit, how can I possibly defend myself?
But they are comparable. This artwork has a vague resemblance to our modern perception of aliens. People see a vague resplendence of what they perceive to be the Virgin Mary.
The key words were recurring and human created for a purpose
How is the evidence sketchy at best? I need you to tell me what you're thinking. As I keep saying, I don't really think it had to do with aliens actually visiting, I just thought it was important to consider. My argument was for DMT, which you have not mentioned once. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that too
I really feel like my entire post was dismissed because you don't believe that the alien hypothesis has merit.
Not at all. I actually agree that we should investigate and study these and attempt to garner a greater understanding. I fully support all fields of scientific study and firmly believe that it is study, education, and investigation which we should all strive toward and value. I simply disagree with your proposition that because we have drawings and sculptures that these are indicative of extra-terrestrial life, or that these drawings are what gives merit to these fields of study.
If you won't answer my question about what makes something have merit or not have merit, how can I possibly defend myself?
I've already answered you.
How is the evidence sketchy at best?
Nearly everything we have attributed to as being aliens we have found other likely possibilities for. The things that we haven't remain untestable.
I need you to tell me what you're thinking. As I keep saying, I don't really think it had to do with aliens actually visiting, I just thought it was important to consider.
I find it as important to consider, as considering that they did it through magic.
My argument was for DMT, which you have not mentioned once. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that too
I haven't made any comment on this because I have no quarrels with it.
not saying that aliens aren't real, or havent been here, because im a strong believer in that, but stonehenge has accurately been described as a sort of lunar calendar, to tell where the moon will be at certain points in a month, along with many other similar structures previously thought to be "extra terrestrial landing sites".
Aliens, as creatures from outer space aren't obligatory paranormal, their existence is plausible and interpretable using scientific explanations. Believing in their existence, doesn't compulsory lead us to the conclusion that they believe in anything paranormal.
Bottom line, you believe in the paranormal when you think that aliens are green little telepathic creatures who kidnap people. Whereas you don't believe in the paranormal if you think that somewhere there is some sort of extraterrestrial being with no "aranormal" powers.
It seems I missed a heavy debate last night. I won't rehash it.
But, goumas, that's an interesting point to bring up. Let's keep in mind two definitions from M-W Dictionary:
Paranormal - not scientifically explainable: supernatural
Supernatural - : 1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature 2. b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
Walker and Wolf. It seems as though we have similar ideas an are only arguing over a few details that will likely not get resolved in this forum. I've appreciated your criticisms and although I think there was a misunderstanding (I still don't necessarily believe there are aliens, just that they could be used as an explanation for these works since that's one of the few things we have to go on. We are limited by our understanding as a people) Anyway, I guess let's just agree to disagree, it's difficult to convince a person who already knows, even if you have evidence(I am including EVERYONE in this)
Thanks again! and hopefully I'll get the chance to discuss things with you soon
