Be Afraid

[Randall]

Yes, I would agree. This turns out to be a trickier topic than it seemed during my 'aha' moment. The point I was attempting to make is that most humans, for whatever reason, have a natural and deep seated need to escape this reality. And wherever there is great need there is also opportunity for great profit and power. I would also turn the argument around and say that the history of such great profit and power is evidence of this need.

The need to escape reality does seem to be a recurring theme. Some suggest that it is even a natural tendency. Perhaps it's linked to primitive instincts like territoriality, where we all have some place we can call our own, even if it is only a purely mental construct. In situations when we feel oppressed and cannot escape the unpleasantness of our material environment, introspective meditative religion provides a beautiful inner world where devotees can retreat. But returning to the point of the discussion, does ufology provide that same type of environment? I don't think so. Perhaps Star Trek fan clubs do, but the core of ufology is composed of a genuine objective mystery, not a fictional canon or mythology. That doesn't mean that ufology fiction isn't part of ufology culture, but that doesn't mean ufology itself is based on fiction any more than the existence of science fiction means actual science is also based on fiction. Nevertheless it's a common tactic for skeptics to blur these lines in order to justify whitewashing the entire field with some undesirable brush or another. Calling it an escape or a religion or a pseudoscience are all just attempts to demean it's value.

 

[exo_doc]

The need to escape reality does seem to be a recurring theme. Some suggest that it is even a natural tendency. Perhaps it's linked to primitive instincts like territoriality, where we all have some place we can call our own, even if it is only a purely mental construct. In situations when we feel oppressed and cannot escape the unpleasantness of our material environment, introspective meditative religion provides a beautiful inner world where devotees can retreat. But returning to the point of the discussion, does ufology provide that same type of environment? I don't think so. Perhaps Star Trek fan clubs do, but the core of ufology is composed of a genuine objective mystery, not a fictional canon or mythology. That doesn't mean that ufology fiction isn't part of ufology culture, but that doesn't mean ufology itself is based on fiction any more than the existence of science fiction means actual science is also based on fiction. Nevertheless it's a common tactic for skeptics to blur these lines in order to justify whitewashing the entire field with some undesirable brush or another. Calling it an escape or a religion or a pseudoscience are all just attempts to demean it's value.

Sure it does. I'm sure you're familiar with these freakazoids..... Raëlism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Raelians have followers everywhere.
And don't forget the infamous Heavens Gate. They did the ultimate escapism.
.
.

 

[starise]

Muadib I am sorry If I had you figured wrong. I can only see what you type here and it would appear that you hold to at least as strict a line of thought as what you claim the creationists hold.

You seem to be so assured and I was simply trying to prove that the answers change when it comes to science. It is already a given that you filter anything with "creationist" attached to it as something bogus. I can't personally go that far because I filter all of my information through what I believe at the time to be my best factual evidence.

We are all products of our environments to some extent. In this we can be certain. Remember the old country song, " Rose Colored Glasses"? All of the explanations so far omit one important thing as far as so called "indoctrination" is concerned. They all make the assumption that everything happens apart from any God or any kind of a real supernatural occurance.


We have been round and round about the theories behind the age of the earth. I'll admit that the longer ages seem to be the more logical explanation. I just finished a book written by Francis Collins. I'm not sure if you know who he is. He was the head of the human genome project. I know Mike also has a real problem with a younger earth based on what he knows. It was an interesting read from a guy who tries to convincingly fit evolution into Christian beliefs. The term for it is Theistic evolution and has been coined "crevolution" Many have been convinced of this line of thinking. According to him the Big Bang is further proof of God.

His is just another take on the whole thing. I have put forth alternate views and opinions on just about everything you have posted so far. You have been keen to shoot all of it down as full of holes while ssemingly maintaining that all of your evidence is beyond reproach.. I am of the opinion that we still don't really know enough yet, even though we think we know a lot.

I don't know know if you are a stock boy at K mart or if you hold some kind of a scientific degree. It really doesn't matter. Neither of us has accumulated any of this knowledge as far as I know. I have said that I am not a scientist but I can mine the web just as well as anyone. I work in a technical field and I am not given to take everything at face value as I have been accused of doing.This is EXACTLY why I am keeping an open mind on things like time frames for creation. Each side of the debate has their own version of the evidence as found.

The difference between me and Francis Collins is that he has found a way to make his beliefs comfortably exist alongside what he firmly believes to see in science. I have to respect him for that. I am still not firmly convinced the earth isn't younger but if I find out either way it won't affect my faith either. I have reasons for why I am not persuaded toward Francis.If we get to heaven and God says to me, " you were wrong on the age of the earth" I'll still be in heaven. I don't think it's a sin not to know something that isn't always clear in the first place,at least to the average Joe.

I think we should continue to do good science and let the chips fall where they will. If God is real as I believe He is , then science can only further confirm Him.

We can go on and on with arguments and counter arguments ad nauseum. There are some really convincing views either way. I never came here to argue I got caught up in it and I refuse to continue it.. I am a creationist but not firm in the ages and times of things yet. You are not. No amount of bickering over it will change that.

 

[Muadib]

I applaud you for checking out the other side and I think as you continue to do so you will be further convinced of the ancient age of the Earth. You're correct when you say that science changes but that's part of the process, as new data comes in old ideas are revised or discarded. Am I 100% right all of the time? Of course not, I'm only human. Am I 100% convinced based on the multiple lines of evidence that we have that the Earth is billions of years old and evolution is a fact? Absolutely.

I'd also like to restate that I don't expect your views to change based on what some guy on the internet tells you. I have an open mind as well but I remain unconvinced when it comes to creationism, like you said no amount of bickering is going to change that. I think the more you learn about things like the age of the earth and evolution the more convinced you will be and I also think that you'll be able to reconcile that with your belief in a god. Neither of them are proof that there isn't some higher being or beings who set these processes in motion, I may not believe it, but I also do not claim that my way is the only way on that particular topic. I'm an agnostic which means, I don't know. I don't personally think it's likely, but of course I could be wrong. Anyone who claims infallibility, scientist or religious person, is lying to themselves and everyone else.

 

[Randall]

Sure it does. I'm sure you're familiar with these freakazoids..... Raëlism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Raelians have followers everywhere.
And don't forget the infamous Heavens Gate. They did the ultimate escapism.

Exo ... you've missed something back there ... we've already dealt with the issue of Raëlism and Heaven's Gate. But to reiterate. Raëlism and Heaven's Gate aren't ufology. In ufology those examples are contained as subtopics within ufology studies ... objective studies that focus on the social phenomenon of cults and religions. They are also closely related to the topic of contactees and abductions. Noted ufologist, Jacques Vallee did some work in this area, but simply studying these topics in no way makes him a member of any of the cults he looked at. But even if some ufologist or another is also a Raëlian, that doesn't make Raëlism ufology any more than a Catholic scientist makes science a religion. See the logic?

 

[mike]

If we get to heaven and God says to me, " you were wrong on the age of the earth" I'll still be in heaven.

While i dont think god or heaven exists, i often entertain myself with this little fantasy

Guy gets to heaven and is greeted by god holding the bible

"What did you think of this ?" says the big G holding up the book

"I thought it wonderful lord" says our late lamented soul

"So despite the prevailing god is love meme, you had no problem with all the killing, stoning, baby killing and mass drowning ?"

"No lord" says our hero

"despite the clue in Isa 5:20 ?"
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil..." (Isa 5:20).

"No lord"

"So much for free will, and an ability to reason and choose" mutters the G meister

"Take the stairs on the left there, the ones leading down............"

 

[Burnt State]

...but the core of ufology is composed of a genuine objective mystery, not a fictional canon or mythology. That doesn't mean that ufology fiction isn't part of ufology culture, but that doesn't mean ufology itself is based on fiction any more than the existence of science fiction means actual science is also based on fiction. Nevertheless it's a common tactic for skeptics to blur these lines in order to justify whitewashing the entire field with some undesirable brush or another. Calling it an escape or a religion or a pseudoscience are all just attempts to demean it's value.

Ok I get what you are saying about UFO culture and hope you didn't think I was trying to damn all of Ufology as mythology or religion in previous posts. However, these cultural aspects have in fact blured whatever could be called demarcation lines between UFO fiction vs. UFO fact (the really juicy cases that appear to have something unique taking place). Consequently, I have great difficulty in seeing the value at work when its history is obscured with fakery, quacks and hoaxers. It's hard to see the forest with so many excellent synthetic tree reproductions in the way. That makes this field rife with irrationality and escapism. Wish it wasn't that way, and that there was an objective set of mysteries we could point to, clearly separated from the nonsense and just talk about that.

 

[Randall]

Ok I get what you are saying about UFO culture and hope you didn't think I was trying to damn all of Ufology as mythology or religion in previous posts. However, these cultural aspects have in fact blured whatever could be called demarcation lines between UFO fiction vs. UFO fact (the really juicy cases that appear to have something unique taking place). Consequently, I have great difficulty in seeing the value at work when its history is obscured with fakery, quacks and hoaxers. It's hard to see the forest with so many excellent synthetic tree reproductions in the way. That makes this field rife with irrationality and escapism. Wish it wasn't that way, and that there was an objective set of mysteries we could point to, clearly separated from the nonsense and just talk about that.

I like how you acknowledge the points that are made and use them to further the discussion in a positive way. Continuing in that spirit, you make an excellent point about the demarcation lines. I also see your point about how it could lead to escapism and irrationality. But then again, nothing is immune from that potential, and I would plead with you to consider the flip side. There is a healthy aspect to ufology that is of value and is worth preserving and furthering. From an objective ufologist's point of view, separating the fact from the fiction ( the signal from the noise ) is not only part of the work, but also part of the fun. A good example was the original X-Files series. Seeing how various facets of ufology were blended with the plot to create a work of entertainment made the show even more entertaining.

Similarly, elements of ufology are deeply interwoven within society, and the exercise of connecting all those threads inevitably leads those who study it through serious science, art, culture, fiction, history, mythology and more ... a lot of really interesting stuff. And contrary to popular skeptical opinion, it also fosters healthy skepticism and critical inquiry. For example if you follow most of the posts here you will find that myself and most others are very rational people. I've posted more than one serious science video, the Debunking Ancient Aliens video and many more. No serious ufologist automatically jumps up and goes "OMG aliens!" whenever they see some vague light in the distance, nor do they encourage anyone else to. When examined objectively, ufology can be fascinating, educational, and inspiring. In my view these positives outweigh the negatives by a substantial margin. Last but not least, compared to the average person, serious ufologists tend to have a much better idea where the the actual demarcation lines are, and I personally enjoy helping people learn to see them for themselves.

 

[Burnt State]

When examined objectively, ufology can be fascinating, educational, and inspiring. In my view these positives outweigh the negatives by a substantial margin. Last but not least, compared to the average person, serious ufologists tend to have a much better idea where the the actual demarcation lines are, and I personally enjoy helping people learn to see them for themselves.

What I would like to hear you talk about on the show this weekend is to identify those historical and contemporary figures that have gotten us closer to understanding facets of the mechanism, and to point the audience in some creative directions around the ETH theory and perhaps where Vallee left off as a researcher focusing on cases not disturbed by the media, or other sociological interference with witness reports. I know when I hear intelligent, creative, skeptical and scientific discussion in this area I am the most appreciative of the field in general.

 

[exo_doc]

Ufology, you said....." In situations when we feel oppressed and cannot escape the unpleasantness of our material environment, introspective meditative religion provides a beautiful inner world where devotees can retreat. But returning to the point of the discussion, does ufology provide that same type of environment? "

I was just making the point that for some people it apparently does provide an escape or retreat. Did I misunderstand the meaning of what you were saying?

 

[Randall]

What I would like to hear you talk about on the show this weekend is to identify those historical and contemporary figures that have gotten us closer to understanding facets of the mechanism, and to point the audience in some creative directions around the ETH theory and perhaps where Vallee left off as a researcher focusing on cases not disturbed by the media, or other sociological interference with witness reports. I know when I hear intelligent, creative, skeptical and scientific discussion in this area I am the most appreciative of the field in general.

Excellent request! I'm not so good at recalling facts and figures and dates and places on queue, but I'll definitely address the issue and hopefully others would be able to provide some input too.

Not sure if you'll get this response in time, but can you clarify a bit about what "mechanism" you are referring to?

 

[Randall]

Ufology, you said....." In situations when we feel oppressed and cannot escape the unpleasantness of our material environment, introspective meditative religion provides a beautiful inner world where devotees can retreat. But returning to the point of the discussion, does ufology provide that same type of environment? " I was just making the point that for some people it apparently does provide an escape or retreat. Did I misunderstand the meaning of what you were saying?

Apparently for who? As explained already, the Raëlians and Heaven's Gate aren't examples of ufology. Perhaps if you knew someone who has barricaded themselves inside their room until they'd completed their MUFON field investigator course, that might qualify. Personally, I don't know of any case where an interest in ufology alone has been the root cause of any recognized psychological illness. However if you do, by all means let's discuss the case. Otherwise it's just another one of those myths about ufology that are typically circulated by those who want to demonize the topic. That's not to suggest that such was your intention, but once these ideas get started it's easy for people to pick them up, accept them on the most superficial of evidence and repeat them to others.

 

[exo_doc]

Apparently for who? As explained already, the Raëlians and Heaven's Gate aren't examples of ufology. Perhaps if you knew someone who has barricaded themselves inside their room until they'd completed their MUFON field investigator course, that might qualify. Personally, I don't know of any case where an interest in ufology alone has been the root cause of any recognized psychological illness. However if you do, by all means let's discuss the case. Otherwise it's just another one of those myths about ufology that are typically circulated by those who want to demonize the topic. That's not to suggest that such was your intention, but once these ideas get started it's easy for people to pick them up, accept them on the most superficial of evidence and repeat them to others.

So if I'm understanding you, Heavens Gate or the Raelians didn't spring from a study of UFO's? That sounds like the Chicken or the Egg argument kind of. Sort of.
Wait a sec. Are you saying that Ufology as a scientific discipline hasn't spawned religious followings?
Or just an interest and general study of UFO's didn't lead to the Church of the Divine Space Brother?

 

[starise]

Muadib- I certainly am willing to change my mind if it becomes necessary.

There are two undercurrents moving when it comes to evolutionary thought and teaching as I see it. The first one is a dedicated group of scientists who make discoveries and report them as found no matter what. The second group of scientists are afraid for their jobs or have deeply entrenched preconcieved notions regarding certain outcomes. These people will fudge something if it means a promotion in the scientific community. If they find something contradictory to to their theory they will sweep it under the carpet. This is the kind of thing that makes the guys doing the real honest work look anti -establishment if they happen to find something that doesn't fit with the plan.

To be a professor and earn tenure at a good university you have to play the game and this is what makes me very suspect about certain studies when there seems to be evidence to support a contrary view. Neither of these two groups need hold to any certain views on creation,one of them is honest and the other is go with the quo.

On the other side of the isle there are scientists who are stretching an idea to make a point so far supporting a creation theory that the point isn't really made with any definitive result. Certain creationist websites though totally well meaning have put out some dumb material. Then we have some serious minds at work in the fields of archeology,astronomy and biology who support a creationist view based on what they have found. Some of these guys believe we have a much younger earth that origionally thought.

Neither side trusts the other side as far as you can throw them.

Certain Christians/creationists believe that a lot of this is nothing more than an assault on logic and good science in the name of a theory put out by Darwin,and see this as a trend to continue an agenda that might not necessarily include real science. I think they would be partially true in that assumption and I think there is in fact an element of this happening.

Certain humanists/athiests/agnostics see the attempts by the other side as a way to force feed people a diet of religion based on their own version of science. Both sides have some validation in their opinions,however most of it is over the top worry one way or the other when all we should be interested in are the facts. If science points to creation as a possibility then making that point is no big sin IMO.

Agnosticism is probably where I would be if I were not personally convinced otherwise. It seems like a good middle ground to be on from a purely logical reasoning standpoint. If nothing persuasive has happened then it either hasn't happened yet or doesn't exist in that way. Saying it doesn't exist is premature until the facts are in.

I pre judged you Muadib , sorry. I know you can take it and we can both dish it out but reading between the lines is way more important than confrontation over big issues and is something I tend to overlook.

Mike- I hear ya loud and clear on the whole God is bad thing...if you believed in Him that is. My comments on that would make another 300 post thread I'm sure. I think God is good. The whole bad God idea is very early Luciferian indoctrination

 

[Muadib]

Muadib- I certainly am willing to change my mind if it becomes necessary.

There are two undercurrents moving when it comes to evolutionary thought and teaching as I see it. The first one is a dedicated group of scientists who make discoveries and report them as found no matter what. The second group of scientists are afraid for their jobs or have deeply entrenched preconcieved notions regarding certain outcomes. These people will fudge something if it means a promotion in the scientific community. If they find something contradictory to to their theory they will sweep it under the carpet. This is the kind of thing that makes the guys doing the real honest work look anti -establishment if they happen to find something that doesn't fit with the plan.

To be a professor and earn tenure at a good university you have to play the game and this is what makes me very suspect about certain studies when there seems to be evidence to support a contrary view. Neither of these two groups need hold to any certain views on creation,one of them is honest and the other is go with the quo.

On the other side of the isle there are scientists who are stretching an idea to make a point so far supporting a creation theory that the point isn't really made with any definitive result. Certain creationist websites though totally well meaning have put out some dumb material. Then we have some serious minds at work in the fields of archeology,astronomy and biology who support a creationist view based on what they have found. Some of these guys believe we have a much younger earth that origionally thought.

You and I are going to just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of science above because I don't think that it holds up. I just don't see any evidence of this widespread fudging of facts and holding up the status quo by any means possible. Peer review exists to catch things like that and one surefire way to become a star in the field of science is to disprove a long held famous but incorrect notion, we've seen Nobel Prizes awarded to people who have done this. I'm sure it does happen to a small degree from time to time but nowhere near the level you're suggesting, if that was how science worked then we would still hold to the antiquated views that we had back in the 1800's and we don't. The field of science is constantly evolving and changing, as it should be. Anyway, all we're going to do is end up having the same argument we just had, you think there may be evidence to support a young earth interpretation and I think it's nonsensical and ridiculous and so does the vast majority of the scientific community, so let's just let it go if you really don't want continue arguing about it. Is science perfect? Of course not, but I think it deserves a lot more credit than you're giving it.

As for this:


"Certain Christians/creationists believe that a lot of this is nothing more than an assault on logic and good science in the name of a theory put out by Darwin,and see this as a trend to continue an agenda that might not necessarily include real science. I think they would be partially true in that assumption and I think there is in fact an element of this happening."

I couldn't disagree with anyone who would believe this more, if anything the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old and was created by sheer magic is a complete and utter attack on logic, not to mention science, which doesn't allow for supernatural explanations. How do they even arrive at this backwards notion? The fact is, the theory of evolution has stood up to every scientific challenge ever directed at it for over 200 years, it's as rock solid as it gets. You talk about real science but real science does not allow you to go into something with a pre conceived notion like "Clearly, god created the earth" and then pick your facts to support that conclusion while ignoring or attacking everything that doesn't. Not to mention that the entire hypothesis of creation is unfalsifiable in the minds of the faithful and that's not science either. You could falsify the theory of evolution if you had enough evidence and were able to demonstrate, clearly, that your theory better explains the available data, but that isn't the approach that so called "creation scientists" take, instead they attack time tested scientific practices and data in an attempt to create doubt and confusion, into which they insert the notion that since we can't explain it, only a supernatural creator can, but that doesn't hold water. Even if some day, by some miracle, evolution were to be proven wrong, that doesn't make creation the only other possible answer, do you see the problem inherent in that way of thinking? That is "creation science" in a nutshell and that's why it's not science and never will be.

Anyway, like I said, we're just gong to end up arguing for another 18 pages, so if you don't want to do that, I suggest we just leave it be. My only point in that last post was if you continue educating yourself on how evolution works and why we know that the earth is billions of years old, you'll one day be able to reconcile that knowledge with your belief in a god. The two are not mutually exclusive, there are plenty of people out there who believe in evolution, the ancient earth and a god.

 

[stonehart]

While i dont think god or heaven exists, i often entertain myself with this little fantasy

Guy gets to heaven and is greeted by god holding the bible

"What did you think of this ?" says the big G holding up the book

"I thought it wonderful lord" says our late lamented soul

"So despite the prevailing god is love meme, you had no problem with all the killing, stoning, baby killing and mass drowning ?"

"No lord" says our hero

"despite the clue in Isa 5:20 ?"
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil..." (Isa 5:20).

"No lord"

"So much for free will, and an ability to reason and choose" mutters the G meister

"Take the stairs on the left there, the ones leading down............"

hahahaha that was very cool!!!

 

[mike]

Anyway, like I said, we're just gong to end up arguing for another 18 pages, so if you don't want to do that, I suggest we just leave it be. My only point in that last post was if you continue educating yourself on how evolution works and why we know that the earth is billions of years old, you'll one day be able to reconcile that knowledge with your belief in a god. The two are not mutually exclusive, there are plenty of people out there who believe in evolution, the ancient earth and a god.

The thing is , for some the notion the bible is the "perfect" word of god, and without error is an unassailable reality

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength

Its like a house of cards, remove just one, and the whole thing the whole premise its perfect and without error, and the whole thing comes crashing down.

The bible says the erath is 6000 years old, the bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
Ergo the earth is 6000 years old, Prove otherwise and you prove the bible is in error.

If the bible is in error (and it is) then the implications re it being the word of god have to be addressed.

Whats more likely, that an all knowing all seeing god who created the universe gave us a dodgy user manual ?, or that the book is just a reflection of the ignorance of its writers, That the source of this book is man, not god.

Fundies will debate this with you, and pretend they have an open mind, but only as a mechanism to present their views, they cannot ever change their pov, because if they do, the whole house of cards comes down

 

[exo_doc]

Wow. Just......wow. The absolute depravity of the fundy mind cooks my neurons.That would look right at home on most of the church marquis' around here.

 

[mike]

LOL have another

 

[mike]

Whats disturbing is this

If

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.​

-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength​

Is true, then they must also subscribe to this

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

And while some try and wriggle out using the Oh thats just OT law

OT law is still in effect according to JC

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.