Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
mike the wiz

UFOs and Aliens

Recommended Posts

In terms of UFO and aliens, I notice especially on TV, not that I watch it all that much, but on many channels there is almost an obsession with UFOs and the belief they are extraterrestrial intelligence. Has anyone else noticed how many ways they plug this?

You'd be surprised. One of the most popular arguments is that the ancient people seemed to possess tools to cut stone and haul it, which cannot be matched today. This part of the claim seems to be genuinely puzzling, has anyone any thoughts on that? There do seem to be very large pieces of stone cleanly cut even with smooth curves at the bottom with no cutting marks. 

I myself don't believe it's aliens but I acknowledge there seems to be a mystery to how people achieved what they achieved back then. My own theory for want of a better word, is simply the dedication involved back then for religious or pride-monuments in the likes of Egypt and what not. Because nowadays even though builders have made things certain ways over many generations, back then they would dedicate generations to one project it would seem. It could simply be that for many hundreds of years they perfected their trade simply because it was their only purpose in life. 

As for pyramids and similar structures all over the world, the explanation seems to be that the ufologists believe that aliens gave similar technology to different people, as how can you explain people on different continents making very similar things? We have one location IIRC in South America, with pyramids lined up with orion, but also in Egypt's famous pyramids which also seemed to be lined up with orion. They both contain excellent mathematical precision. 

My own theory is that if both lines of people descended from the same initial group they would have passed down the knowledge. The dispersion at babel is a good rational explanation. Aliens from out of space seems more akin to a GOTG fallacy. (God of the gaps).

Finally I looked up UFOs in google because I predicted to myself that old fashioned ufo photos taken by eye witnesses, would look more old fashion than todays, and fit with the style of the 1940/50/60s typical "flying saucer" theme. I believe a reasonable explanation is that the fashion has changed but if the UFOs they took pictures of were real we might expect them to all look futuristic, no matter when they were photographed.

For example we get modern pictures of futuristic craft in V-shapes, a bit like the stealth bomber but isn't it interesting you would never find a photograph of anything like that from the 1960s? In other words if people were faking the UFOs, they would naturally copy the ones they saw on tv at that time of history, in the 1940/50s sci-fi shows.

DISCLAIMER: I still think something strange is going on. I do think a small percentage of unidentified objects are happening. We know many trustworthy people have reported these incidents even catching and recording events on radar. But has the "it's aliens from outer space"argument become a type of god-of-the-gaps argument, where aliens are assumed rather than inferred, in place of a proper explanation of the mystery? The truth of the matter is we don't know what is happening with UFOs, but that doesn't mean it's aliens because aliens can serve as a non-explanation in a sense because you can just invoke them without having to evidence them properly. 

It also doesn't make sense some of the things the craft can achieve that would seem even from reliable witnesses to be more akin to demonstrations of magic or even supernatural abilities. Can technology really progress to the point of breaking laws of physics? It seems to have become another assumption that future technology can create magical feats. See how we overestimate it's capabilities in movies in the past? In 2001 a space odyssey the movie, they put the year as 2001 for when men would be doing things near Jupiter and flying to the moon like it's a quick flight on easy jet and you just buy a ticket. In the movies "Back to the Future" everyone is flying cars in 2015. There are many more examples where people simply shoot for the moon with technology but it's never even close in real life.

Do people tend to overestimate what technology can achieve? Do they assume it can one day create things that are basically magic, where laws no longer are obeyed, or is this simply all part of the alien myth?

(Disclaimer: Please note I use the GOTG fallacy in the proper way it is used according to a correct understanding of it. Many atheists use it not understanding it properly, the fallacy does not say that all theistic arguments are arguing a gap and filling it with God. That is not a correct understanding of the fallacy. The fallacy is performed where there is a genuine gap in knowledge. For example with the ID argument, the argument is based on our knowledge of design, not any gaps. Using this fallacy as a blanket to cover all arguments in favour of God's existence with, is pseudo-intellectual.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

In terms of UFO and aliens, I notice especially on TV, not that I watch it all that much, but on many channels there is almost an obsession with UFOs and the belief they are extraterrestrial intelligence. Has anyone else noticed how many ways they plug this?

You'd be surprised. One of the most popular arguments is that the ancient people seemed to possess tools to cut stone and haul it, which cannot be matched today. This part of the claim seems to be genuinely puzzling, has anyone any thoughts on that? There do seem to be very large pieces of stone cleanly cut even with smooth curves at the bottom with no cutting marks. 

I myself don't believe it's aliens but I acknowledge there seems to be a mystery to how people achieved what they achieved back then. My own theory for want of a better word, is simply the dedication involved back then for religious or pride-monuments in the likes of Egypt and what not. Because nowadays even though builders have made things certain ways over many generations, back then they would dedicate generations to one project it would seem. It could simply be that for many hundreds of years they perfected their trade simply because it was their only purpose in life. 

As for pyramids and similar structures all over the world, the explanation seems to be that the ufologists believe that aliens gave similar technology to different people, as how can you explain people on different continents making very similar things? We have one location IIRC in South America, with pyramids lined up with orion, but also in Egypt's famous pyramids which also seemed to be lined up with orion. They both contain excellent mathematical precision. 

My own theory is that if both lines of people descended from the same initial group they would have passed down the knowledge. The dispersion at babel is a good rational explanation. Aliens from out of space seems more akin to a GOTG fallacy. (God of the gaps).

Finally I looked up UFOs in google because I predicted to myself that old fashioned ufo photos taken by eye witnesses, would look more old fashion than todays, and fit with the style of the 1940/50/60s typical "flying saucer" theme. I believe a reasonable explanation is that the fashion has changed but if the UFOs they took pictures of were real we might expect them to all look futuristic, no matter when they were photographed.

For example we get modern pictures of futuristic craft in V-shapes, a bit like the stealth bomber but isn't it interesting you would never find a photograph of anything like that from the 1960s? In other words if people were faking the UFOs, they would naturally copy the ones they saw on tv at that time of history, in the 1940/50s sci-fi shows.

DISCLAIMER: I still think something strange is going on. I do think a small percentage of unidentified objects are happening. We know many trustworthy people have reported these incidents even catching and recording events on radar. But has the "it's aliens from outer space"argument become a type of god-of-the-gaps argument, where aliens are assumed rather than inferred, in place of a proper explanation of the mystery? The truth of the matter is we don't know what is happening with UFOs, but that doesn't mean it's aliens because aliens can serve as a non-explanation in a sense because you can just invoke them without having to evidence them properly. 

It also doesn't make sense some of the things the craft can achieve that would seem even from reliable witnesses to be more akin to demonstrations of magic or even supernatural abilities. Can technology really progress to the point of breaking laws of physics? It seems to have become another assumption that future technology can create magical feats. See how we overestimate it's capabilities in movies in the past? In 2001 a space odyssey the movie, they put the year as 2001 for when men would be doing things near Jupiter and flying to the moon like it's a quick flight on easy jet and you just buy a ticket. In the movies "Back to the Future" everyone is flying cars in 2015. There are many more examples where people simply shoot for the moon with technology but it's never even close in real life.

Do people tend to overestimate what technology can achieve? Do they assume it can one day create things that are basically magic, where laws no longer are obeyed, or is this simply all part of the alien myth?

(Disclaimer: Please note I use the GOTG fallacy in the proper way it is used according to a correct understanding of it. Many atheists use it not understanding it properly, the fallacy does not say that all theistic arguments are arguing a gap and filling it with God. That is not a correct understanding of the fallacy. The fallacy is performed where there is a genuine gap in knowledge. For example with the ID argument, the argument is based on our knowledge of design, not any gaps. Using this fallacy as a blanket to cover all arguments in favour of God's existence with, is pseudo-intellectual.)

I figured 'This' was not merely a U.S.A. television programming recent addition for only our viewing pleasure lol.

As 'These Types' of programs over the past decade have become ever prevalent.

We not only see a staggering amount of 'U.F.O.' shows but likewise a sharp steady rise of 'Ghost/Paranormal' shows.

 Yes Mike, there are many 'Historical' accounting's for things we commonly call 'U.F.O.s'..

I always remind everyone that 'This' is NO NEW reality..

As there are indeed a massive amount of 'U.F.O.s/Ghost/Paranormal' being recalled throughout Earths Inhabitants Historicity, and from likewise most EVERY Group/Civilization that has every existed..

Even without modern pictures etc there surely enough material/Historical Documentation as to the validity of 'U.F.O.s Etc'.

Then the real question becomes What/Who/Why are they.. 

As we all know (Or Should By Now) even the Biblical Narrative tells us all that there's an Unseen reality here and now, privy for viewing to only a select few...

I would wish to believe as i do, that its not necessarily something 'Impossible' to physics but perhaps an ability of 'Manipulation' of 'Frequencies' that allows for such..

And our human ignorance of those 'Manipulations/Understandings' that leave us mystified...

Being a Christian i MUST assume such things as 'Spirits/Ghost/Angels/Demons' having the ability to 'Manipulate' said Frequencies..

Thus giving US an appearance of 'Magic'.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I guess none of us can avoid GOTG in a way, in that I would believe (though not argue, as it's too speculative) that there is activity beyond our realm of understanding going on. But as I say, as with the alien explanation, a supernatural one commits the same mistake of arguing the gap.

It could simply be that a small percentage of UFOs, though genuine, are such a small percentage, and that percentage actually represents differing natural explanations, some of which as possibilities might be, ball lightning, meteorites, or unknown electrical activities, man-made advanced aircraft.

Note that I am not saying any of these are good answers, my argument is actually this; people are insisting it's extraterrestrial activity on ALL of these TV shows. They have CHOSEN that conclusion already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Yeah I guess none of us can avoid GOTG in a way, in that I would believe (though not argue, as it's too speculative) that there is activity beyond our realm of understanding going on. But as I say, as with the alien explanation, a supernatural one commits the same mistake of arguing the gap.

It could simply be that a small percentage of UFOs, though genuine, are such a small percentage, and that percentage actually represents differing natural explanations, some of which as possibilities might be, ball lightning, meteorites, or unknown electrical activities, man-made advanced aircraft.

Note that I am not saying any of these are good answers, my argument is actually this; people are insisting it's extraterrestrial activity on ALL of these TV shows. They have CHOSEN that conclusion already.

Note that I am not saying any of these are good answers, my argument is actually this; people are insisting it's extraterrestrial activity on ALL of these TV shows. They have CHOSEN that conclusion already.

Totally agree, there is  (To My Mind) simply no reason to assume any such extraterrestrial activity, as we know we have found or seen no 'Life' even remotely representing anything as advanced as ours here on Earth out in the cold nether lands of deep space (outside our planets)...

But we DO know of many a 'Strange' set of activities here on Earth by which we do not understand them..

I would contend that there is no such a thing as whats commonly referred to as 'Extra Terrestrials' anywhere..

But that we should perhaps ONLY consider  'Spirits/Ghost/Angels/Demons' etc. as the culprit's to any of these 'Activities'..

As we all know when the Biblical Narrative has given us all Ezekiel and his renderings (And Others In Other Associated Books) of the multiple flashing lights around a circular craft of some kind (A Wheel Within A Wheel) flashing and flying about and the creatures associated, then it matters to me NOT what he was thinking but rather why..

Whether or not he seen these 'Things' in the spirit or not matters NOT..

But it's the renderings of his (And Others) that matter..

As 'They (The Renderings)' have been attested to by NOT merely him in our Biblical account but likewise by a multitude of personages throughout our (Earths) historicity whom knew NOTHING of our Biblical Narrative in regards..

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 8:35 AM, mike the wiz said:

In terms of UFO and aliens, I notice especially on TV, not that I watch it all that much, but on many channels there is almost an obsession with UFOs and the belief they are extraterrestrial intelligence. Has anyone else noticed how many ways they plug this?

You'd be surprised. One of the most popular arguments is that the ancient people seemed to possess tools to cut stone and haul it, which cannot be matched today. This part of the claim seems to be genuinely puzzling, has anyone any thoughts on that? There do seem to be very large pieces of stone cleanly cut even with smooth curves at the bottom with no cutting marks. 

I myself don't believe it's aliens but I acknowledge there seems to be a mystery to how people achieved what they achieved back then. My own theory for want of a better word, is simply the dedication involved back then for religious or pride-monuments in the likes of Egypt and what not. Because nowadays even though builders have made things certain ways over many generations, back then they would dedicate generations to one project it would seem. It could simply be that for many hundreds of years they perfected their trade simply because it was their only purpose in life. 

As for pyramids and similar structures all over the world, the explanation seems to be that the ufologists believe that aliens gave similar technology to different people, as how can you explain people on different continents making very similar things? We have one location IIRC in South America, with pyramids lined up with orion, but also in Egypt's famous pyramids which also seemed to be lined up with orion. They both contain excellent mathematical precision. 

My own theory is that if both lines of people descended from the same initial group they would have passed down the knowledge. The dispersion at babel is a good rational explanation. Aliens from out of space seems more akin to a GOTG fallacy. (God of the gaps).

Finally I looked up UFOs in google because I predicted to myself that old fashioned ufo photos taken by eye witnesses, would look more old fashion than todays, and fit with the style of the 1940/50/60s typical "flying saucer" theme. I believe a reasonable explanation is that the fashion has changed but if the UFOs they took pictures of were real we might expect them to all look futuristic, no matter when they were photographed.

For example we get modern pictures of futuristic craft in V-shapes, a bit like the stealth bomber but isn't it interesting you would never find a photograph of anything like that from the 1960s? In other words if people were faking the UFOs, they would naturally copy the ones they saw on tv at that time of history, in the 1940/50s sci-fi shows.

DISCLAIMER: I still think something strange is going on. I do think a small percentage of unidentified objects are happening. We know many trustworthy people have reported these incidents even catching and recording events on radar. But has the "it's aliens from outer space"argument become a type of god-of-the-gaps argument, where aliens are assumed rather than inferred, in place of a proper explanation of the mystery? The truth of the matter is we don't know what is happening with UFOs, but that doesn't mean it's aliens because aliens can serve as a non-explanation in a sense because you can just invoke them without having to evidence them properly. 

It also doesn't make sense some of the things the craft can achieve that would seem even from reliable witnesses to be more akin to demonstrations of magic or even supernatural abilities. Can technology really progress to the point of breaking laws of physics? It seems to have become another assumption that future technology can create magical feats. See how we overestimate it's capabilities in movies in the past? In 2001 a space odyssey the movie, they put the year as 2001 for when men would be doing things near Jupiter and flying to the moon like it's a quick flight on easy jet and you just buy a ticket. In the movies "Back to the Future" everyone is flying cars in 2015. There are many more examples where people simply shoot for the moon with technology but it's never even close in real life.

Do people tend to overestimate what technology can achieve? Do they assume it can one day create things that are basically magic, where laws no longer are obeyed, or is this simply all part of the alien myth?

(Disclaimer: Please note I use the GOTG fallacy in the proper way it is used according to a correct understanding of it. Many atheists use it not understanding it properly, the fallacy does not say that all theistic arguments are arguing a gap and filling it with God. That is not a correct understanding of the fallacy. The fallacy is performed where there is a genuine gap in knowledge. For example with the ID argument, the argument is based on our knowledge of design, not any gaps. Using this fallacy as a blanket to cover all arguments in favour of God's existence with, is pseudo-intellectual.)

It's odd that many that would post about this topic will not...

Perhaps out of fear that they may 'Look' silly and or labeled as a 'Off Your Rocker' type...

I have absolutely NO FEAR LOL:orjnfq::laugh_point:

Seems that these types of 'Topics' never get many replys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KB, it might be that most people just aren't that interested in the whole UFO thing. I must confess, I myself like to watch programs from time to time, or videos, where there are mysteries, for mild amusement and as an exercise in critical thinking, to see if I can find answers to mysteries.

But there is as ever, a portion of people being allowed to push an agenda. The UFOlogists are allowed to push their agenda just like the leftists are encouraged to push theirs, and what you seem to get is a minority-inflation, as I call it, where a minority are so vociferously loud or uncontested by passive, more stoic types, that they appear to be a majority. They're not the majority but the majority mostly don't care or aren't as self-righteously loud.

A recent example is brexit, despite the talk of a second referendum, basically this general election where most voted for the conservatives, basically was proof the majority are FOR brexit, despite all of the loud hype that if there was a second referendum, it would be different.

The PC crowd are small but their mouths are big, and uncontested in their pseudo-moralities. People basically FALL FOR the PCists outrage, and are afraid of them. (argument from outrage fallacy)

That's how these agendas sneak through the cracks. There is a silent agreement that aliens are popping up everywhere, it very much fits with the evolutionary philosophy and the failure of those who know better to get across to the public that there is simply no credibility to abiogenesis claims. But because it's a popular philosophlegm that fits with the whole notion of us not being alone in the universe because we are mundande, it is, as I say, something largely uncontested. However as with my Babel example, there are explanations which even favour a biblical history. It makes tremendous sense to say that if two diversified groups were initially stemming from the same group that both groups may inherit the same knowledge pertaining to building pyramids. That may be why you get pyramids on different continents, which is good evidence of a recent Babel dispersion since both groups retain the knowledge from an original group.

But the philosophlegm of ufology would tell us aliens taught two separate groups.

That's one example where true reason is basically left out of the issue, and they just invoke likely non-existent aliens. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

KB, it might be that most people just aren't that interested in the whole UFO thing. I must confess, I myself like to watch programs from time to time, or videos, where there are mysteries, for mild amusement and as an exercise in critical thinking, to see if I can find answers to mysteries.

But there is as ever, a portion of people being allowed to push an agenda. The UFOlogists are allowed to push their agenda just like the leftists are encouraged to push theirs, and what you seem to get is a minority-inflation, as I call it, where a minority are so vociferously loud or uncontested by passive, more stoic types, that they appear to be a majority. They're not the majority but the majority mostly don't care or aren't as self-righteously loud.

A recent example is brexit, despite the talk of a second referendum, basically this general election where most voted for the conservatives, basically was proof the majority are FOR brexit, despite all of the loud hype that if there was a second referendum, it would be different.

The PC crowd are small but their mouths are big, and uncontested in their pseudo-moralities. People basically FALL FOR the PCists outrage, and are afraid of them. (argument from outrage fallacy)

That's how these agendas sneak through the cracks. There is a silent agreement that aliens are popping up everywhere, it very much fits with the evolutionary philosophy and the failure of those who know better to get across to the public that there is simply no credibility to abiogenesis claims. But because it's a popular philosophlegm that fits with the whole notion of us not being alone in the universe because we are mundande, it is, as I say, something largely uncontested. However as with my Babel example, there are explanations which even favour a biblical history. It makes tremendous sense to say that if two diversified groups were initially stemming from the same group that both groups may inherit the same knowledge pertaining to building pyramids. That may be why you get pyramids on different continents, which is good evidence of a recent Babel dispersion since both groups retain the knowledge from an original group.

But the philosophlegm of ufology would tell us aliens taught two separate groups.

That's one example where true reason is basically left out of the issue, and they just invoke likely non-existent aliens. 

Yes, i must believe that here in the U.S. that all the likes of these show types have a huge following as they would not continually take the time and $$$$$$$$$ into something that people are not watching nor interested in..

The fact that so many shows etc. are produced lends a lil credence to that line of thinking IMO..

Babel is a perfect point for the distribution of so much commonality of Nations and peoples the world over, with all things..

Including a universal flood narrative, the same type of building structures, stories handed down throughout time of beings coming from somewhere and teaching humanity things etc..

I think 'They' the producers of said type shows try and stir the narrative into what they wish..

Just as evolution is slammed into the minds of the masses so to is this narrative that perhaps some distant long ago life form developed into a supra intelligent space traveling, wormhole using, group of beings that seeded our planet etc. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

A recent example is brexit, despite the talk of a second referendum, basically this general election where most voted for the conservatives, basically was proof the majority are FOR brexit, despite all of the loud hype that if there was a second referendum, it would be different. 

The Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote and under 48% of the total vote went to pro-Brexit parties. There were a number of other issues in play, not least being Jeremy Corbyn (for those that don’t know, he’s the leader of the main opposition party). It was the nature of the UK ‘first past the post’ electoral system that makes it appear, on the face of it, that most people voted pro-Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

The Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote and under 48% of the total vote went to pro-Brexit parties. There were a number of other issues in play, not least being Jeremy Corbyn (for those that don’t know, he’s the leader of the main opposition party). It was the nature of the UK ‘first past the post’ electoral system that makes it appear, on the face of it, that most people voted pro-Brexit.

Matters NOT Jambobskiwobski , Jeremy Corbyn AND his party were SMASHED, point BLANK..

A British/U.S. trade deal will soon follow with a benefit for the Brits and the U.S as soon as your country has severed it's ties with the E.U....

Trying to STAY on point, have you any thoughts of U.F.O.s/Ghost/Spirits etc. and the recent onset of many shows dealing with the likes on T.V. programs etc???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

The Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote and under 48% of the total vote went to pro-Brexit parties. There were a number of other issues in play, not least being Jeremy Corbyn (for those that don’t know, he’s the leader of the main opposition party). It was the nature of the UK ‘first past the post’ electoral system that makes it appear, on the face of it, that most people voted pro-Brexit.

Sorry I deleted my first response to this as it was messy. Here it is again.

The problem with your argument is that if you take all of the "non-brexit" parties, and see that as a vote for, "no brexit", by comparing parties for brexit and against, then effectively you're ignoring the likely possibility that people voted for different parties for non-brexit reasons.

For example if a green party voter desperately wanted no brexit and was voting for the chance at a second referendum, they would have voted for labour, because realistically pretty much 99.7% of people realise that in a general election there are only two realistic options, and those options are that either labour will win, or conservative.

Statistically speaking, if we look at the probability of either conservative or labour winning the election, then when is the last time you can remember someone getting into government that WASN'T either of those two parties?

CONCLUSION: It's easy to choose all of the non-brexit parties, stick them together and give a percentage but let's face it REALISTICALLY a lot of people vote with the knowledge that it's only going to be either labour or conservative that will win because for very many decades, it has only been one of those two parties.

So if that percentage is divided, that indicates people did not vote for those variety of non-brexit parties, for the reason of brexit, because if they did, they would have all voted for labour if that was the most important thing to them. But when you vote for the green party as an example, brexit isn't going to be the most important thing. 

I admit I hadn't looked at the percentages but to be honest all of the people that did not vote on the referendum for brexit would have seen this as a golden opportunity to vote again on it by backing labour. It has become such an important reason for people to vote.

The moral of the story is always the same; if you don't apply logical reasoning to statistics, you can get them to mean whatever you want, but if the non-brexiters were the supreme majority, conservative simply wouldn't have won because most people are aware of the highly obvious statistic that for decades it has only either been labour or conservative that have won the general election. You might as well piss your vote down the toilet if you voted for the green party in order to stop brexit.

SUMMATION: Your response is the only real response available to die hard non-brexiteers but to be honest the white flag should have went up when the results came in. it looks a bit desperate to now argue that both the referendum AND general election were both wrong and really most people don't want brexit by majority. The most you can argue is that it's close between the two groups, but there is no clear "no brexit" majority, and that was my claim, it's just that some groups, especially in recent decades, are more bullying. The PC crowd are basically bullies and other people are afraid of their outrage. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jambob, before 1945 was the last time it was NOT labour or conservative. You can mention the Con/Lib coalition but let's face it that was a highly unusual one off which was basically conservative rule.

Then there's the issue of people who vote for non-conservative parties that could possibly want brexit. Even if a party is against brexit that doesn't mean all the individuals are, (fallacy of composition)

Example of fallacy; "as a whole this plane flies, it is something that counts as a flying thing, and we see it can fly, therefore all of it's individual parts can also fly on their own."

CONCLUSION: The only real point we can see from all of this is that it should have been a landslide victory for labour if there really was a huge brexit majority. All those young people and other people they say didn't vote on the referendum, would have voted labour to escape brexit. There were huge queues for voting this time and clearly there isn't this huge majority that don't want brexit or it would have shown itself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

Matters NOT Jambobskiwobski , Jeremy Corbyn AND his party were SMASHED, point BLANK..

They were

18 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

A British/U.S. trade deal will soon follow with a benefit for the Brits and the U.S as soon as your country has severed it's ties with the E.U....

Hopefully!

18 hours ago, KillurBluff said:

Trying to STAY on point, have you any thoughts of U.F.O.s/Ghost/Spirits etc. and the recent onset of many shows dealing with the likes on T.V. programs etc???

I think people have been interested in this sort of thing for years and where there is interest there is a market. Reduced production costs and the expansion of the number of TV channels and transmission formats means that there are more programs being made. Why not make programs about UFOs, ghosts or spirits?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, the point of my post was to show your argument that the recent election “basically was proof the majority are FOR Brexit” isn’t shown by the stats. I wasn’t arguing that it was evidence people were against Brexit and I even stated that a number of other issues were at play

 

16 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

CONCLUSION: The only real point we can see from all of this is that it should have been a landslide victory for labour if there really was a huge brexit majority. All those young people and other people they say didn't vote on the referendum, would have voted labour to escape brexit. There were huge queues for voting this time and clearly there isn't this huge majority that don't want brexit or it would have shown itself. 

That conclusion could only be true if you exclude all other factors people take into account when voting. I know of people that:

·         Have voted Conservative all their life and voted Leave but didn’t vote in this election because they dislike the current Conservative leadership and the other parties

·         Voted Remain and dislike the current Conservative leadership but still voted Conservative because they couldn’t bear seeing Corbyn become PM

·         Voted Leave but dislike all the parties so much they spoiled their ballot

·         Voted Remain and are usually Labour but voted LibDem because they dislike Corbyn

While much of this is anecdotal, it suggests that your conclusion is way too simplistic.

And this is all without taking into account parties like the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, DUP etc who have their own, regional agendas.

 

Also, despite the huge queues to vote, the turnout was slightly down on the 2017 election.

 

I would say that, without a lot of further analysis, you can’t draw any conclusions about a Leave/Remain majority from these election results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

That conclusion could only be true if you exclude all other factors people take into account when voting. I know of people that:

·         Have voted Conservative all their life and voted Leave but didn’t vote in this election because they dislike the current Conservative leadership and the other parties

·         Voted Remain and dislike the current Conservative leadership but still voted Conservative because they couldn’t bear seeing Corbyn become PM

·         Voted Leave but dislike all the parties so much they spoiled their ballot

·         Voted Remain and are usually Labour but voted LibDem because they dislike Corbyn

While much of this is anecdotal, it suggests that your conclusion is way too simplistic.

And this is all without taking into account parties like the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, DUP etc who have their own, regional agendas.

 

Also, despite the huge queues to vote, the turnout was slightly down on the 2017 election.

 

I would say that, without a lot of further analysis, you can’t draw any conclusions about a Leave/Remain majority from these election results.

That's right there are a lot of factors but that's what I'm also saying Jambob, because you're heavily implying there is a majority that are non-brexit because of non-brexit parties so you're kind of repeating the point I made; even if they are non-brexit parties, that wouldn't give you the percentage of people that are against brexit.

It was your comment remember, you defined it as, "brexit parties", and you then shown under 48% would be "pro brexit" which means 52% or more would then obviously be "no brexit", so you are implying this shows there is a majority. After all why object to my statement about a majority INITIALLY to begin with?

Look what you said; "48% of the total vote went to pro-Brexit parties". BY IMPLICATION you are saying that more of a percentage went to "no brexit" parties, but that wouldn't give you a percentage for "no brexit" votes anyway because of the aforementioned compositional fallacy. Like saying, "non atheist groups" would give you a percentage of votes for creationism, but the error would be to ignore that many non-atheists might not strictly speaking, be creationist but be unsure, or IDist.

So your argument IMPLIES that the "no brexit" parties have a bigger percentage of the vote meaning more people voted for "no brexit". You can back track if you want but that is what you are implying. 

I think a more realistic way of seeing it, and I think the word, "realistic" is an accurate descriptor rather than your question begging epithet, "simplistic", is that mostly people saw this as labour versus conservative because that's always the two and only real players. That's not simplistic, that's absolutely realistic and a lot of people would agree with me that basically this is a confirmation that more voted for brexit because it was an opportunity for a second referendum through labour. A golden opportunity for the anti-brexit voters.

That's a realistic way to see it, that in a general sort of way this result heavily implies there isn't some majority fro no brexit and by implication the tory majority may indicate the other way. Perhaps I used the wrong word, "basically proof" there is a majority for brexit but the gist of what I was arguing is that the hype from the anti-brexit minority would make people think there would be a landslide victory for labour if there were that many. There is no way you can argue for a moment that brexit wouldn't be the key issue. At the very least the result implies there aren't as many in favour of "no brexit" as the HYPE suggests. 

I certainly expected because of all of the fussing and confusion and mess over brexit, labour might take a mighty win. I was surprised when that didn't happen. I was genuinely surprised, many people would feel the same. 

Quote

Jambob avatar: Atheism: believing in one less god than you do.

I also note your avatar says you believe "in one less god than you do" but that in itself carries a premise that all gods are of the same logical value which is an error in logic. 

Don't you know that there is another assumption we can go with rather than the atheist one that is surreptitiously hidden within your statement?

There is another way to see it, which highlights the issue of what God in the bible calls the natural man's IGNORANCE of spiritual truth. It says, "being ignorant of the life of God". As an atheist you don't know what that is, because all atheists are under the, "natural man". So we believe simply in one more group that are called the "natural man" than you do. So then "atheists" are no different to agnosts or pagans or satanists, they all count as the "natural man", because they have not experienced the knowledge of God, which only comes through the gospel of Christ. 

So what you think is a smart little saying for atheism, comes across to us like this; "hey mike, you are claiming to be an innocent man in prison, but I just believe in one more guilty person that is in prison than you do." (but it would be absurd to believe our beliefs were equal because I would know the truth and you wouldn't know.)

So even though only I can know I am innocent, YOU TELL me based on your ignorance of the knowledge your require that because I believe all the other prisoners are guilty despite their claims of innocence, that I am basically in the same boat as you?

That's STUPID because only I can know my innocence is true, but that doesn't give me knowledge that others are innocent. So of course your statement carries the assumption that because most claims are untenable therefore you choose to treat all equally.

If a Muslim claims his god is real, and Buddhism makes a claim of truth and so does Christianity, we are aware that from your perspective you cannot know which one is true based only on those claims. In the same way if prisoners claim to be innocent, you may have to treat all claims equally AT FIRST. But this argument unravels once a proper investigation begins do you know why? Because all of the people making claims but without very good evidence, very quickly start to look dissimilar to the claimant who makes a true claim. 

Think about it this way, many can claim to own gold and I agree, at first we may have to treat all claims equally, but if we then TEST those claims we actually see that even if 99 out of 100 claims of gold are false, this does not mean the last one is not genuine. So then disbelieving in 99.99% of religions is understandable at all times given only one can be true realistically, or none. So then either none or one are the realistic options. 

If you assume none are true WITHOUT testing them, that is like not testing claims for gold, but instead saying, "no the claims are all the same." Or like saying, "no mike everyone claims innocence in prison so you are also guilty based on probability".

But probability does not guarantee anything in this matter in the same way you could say, "no mike your lottery ticket won't be the winning one, everyone says the same therefore nobody will win the lottery this weekend."

But that's wrong because this probability figure does not mean or even support the notion that there will not be a winner. 

So I don't think you have thought that through Jambob. Perhaps you have simply never read the bible, but it says spiritual things and the spiritual life of God are, "foolishness" to the natural man. An atheist is just a natural man that also has not been born again of the spirit the same as a Muslim, pagan or agnostic or even many professing Christians that don't really know God and haven't had a genuine conversion. Even the pope from the things he says contradicting the gospel, is highly like the "natural man" the scriptures speak of.

So if you investigate, "other" religions, logically something will HIT YOU HARD as soon as you do. You will notice that a lot of them are good evidence of being invented by people because they don't address any real key features of humanity or humanity's issues. For example is there really any meaning is worshipping a holy cow or a lump of wood with a face on it? Or believing Thor exists because you heard thunder?

So if atheists were actually intellectually honest instead of smart asses a lot of the time, they would acknowledge that 99.9% of religion MUST be logically false and a lot of the "religion" traditionally put forward, is easy to identify as created nonsense.

But for the true God, who really did make humans and gave us a sense of justice, morality and meaning, what would you actually expect from that God? You would expect something unequivocal to other religions. A message that stands out in it's meaning. We know how life-changing true Christian conversions are Jambob but are you going to be so patronising as to say that if a criminal gets off drugs and never does crime again because of a transformation because of the gospel, that this is of equal value to worshipping a holy cow or lump of wood or Thor, and that believers in Thor can also be delivered from addiction by Thor?

It's easy to make up Thor, it's not easy to get someone addicted to drugs who shot their face off, to change their lives, but keep equating the two if you think it means something. :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih8EMqALUvk

Could you also see this blog entry I wrote and read it please;

https://creationworldviews.blogspot.com/2018/10/comparing-god-with-santa-or-pink-unicorn.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2019 at 2:50 PM, KillurBluff said:

Being a Christian i MUST assume such things as 'Spirits/Ghost/Angels/Demons' having the ability to 'Manipulate' said Frequencies..

Thus giving US an appearance of 'Magic'.....

Zech.13:1-6 tells us that about the time when Jesus came God would remove the prophets and the unclean spirits from the land. That means they could have been active in the past, perhaps even to the point of building some of these idolatrous temples, but as of the time shortly after Christ ascended, they are no longer active. In 1st Corinthians 13 Paul tells us that there would come a time when prophecy and tongues-speaking and miracles would cease. That time would be when that which was perfect has come. And the context tells us it is about imperfect revelation during the time Paul lived, but then shortly after he passed the revelation was completed and perfect. So although God does answer prayers today, we do not have miracles like were observed in New Testament times.

Of course we should recognize that the idea of UFOs and aliens is inextricably linked to the concepts of abiogenesis and evolution. So all evolutionists are going to believe in aliens. Also we should recognize that God instilled in us an innate desire to worship something or someone greater than ourselves. So that propels atheists to think about how they would be inferior to any alien visitors and to search out for a superior race or perhaps even the ones who created us. I remember when the movie ET the Extra-Terrestrial came out, it was clear that especially at the end there was a metaphor of ET being somewhat of a deity, even taking on a Christ-like appearance when he was resurrected and was wearing a hooded robe...and then ascended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit

All I’m ‘implying’ is that your original statement “this general election where most voted for the conservatives,  basically was proof the majority are FOR Brexit” was wrong as most people didn’t vote Conservative or even for parties with a blatantly pro-Brexit stance. I objected to your statement because it was not supported. I was not implying that the election shows the majority were against Brexit and I even stated ‘there were a number of other issues in play”. Congratulations on your strawman slaying.

I am sure you are aware that it is possible to say “this statement is not supported” without implying “the opposite of that statement is supported”. Apply that to this situation.

Avatar

I have no time or inclination to get into a long discussion about this (and I’ve probably been on this forum long enough to have read the arguments already anyway) so I will keep this short.

 

How many gods do you believe in?

How many gods do I believe in?

Is the statement in my avatar accurate?

 

Do you honestly believe that conversions to Christianity are the only religious conversions that are life changing?

 

Finally, if you believed in the Norse gods you would probably want to pray to Eir to cure an addiction. Are you sure you’ve looked into the Norse gods adequately to be able to discount them? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

Brexit

All I’m ‘implying’ is that your original statement “this general election where most voted for the conservatives,  basically was proof the majority are FOR Brexit” was wrong as most people didn’t vote Conservative or even for parties with a blatantly pro-Brexit stance. I objected to your statement because it was not supported. I was not implying that the election shows the majority were against Brexit and I even stated ‘there were a number of other issues in play”. Congratulations on your strawman slaying.

I am sure you are aware that it is possible to say “this statement is not supported” without implying “the opposite of that statement is supported”. Apply that to this situation.

But your objection was that pro-brexit parties have less than 48% of the vote, and your statement would not disprove my statement anyway, because a "pro-brexit party" isn't the same thing as the percentage of people that voted for "pro brexit". the percentage wouldn't necessarily apply, it's just something I want you to consider. Thats why I think we can only sort of peruse the labour-tory percentage as a general indicator, that's all I was doing really. It points more towards more people wanting brexit that we thought, perhaps because of being cheated out of their vote, as many people feel the politicians have just been trying to stop brexit against the democratic vote. 

That is the point, there may be people from the non-pro-brexit parties that were in favour of brexit and vice-versa, there is only so much that a statistic can tell us. 

So I am saying I don't believe your percentage proves me wrong on that technicality. A lot of people would agree with me that we wouldn't have expected this result if there was a majority against brexit. I certainly was surprised by it since it seemed Boris had ended up looking a bit of a plonker with all of the things that happened beforehand. It's just my opinion.

4 hours ago, Jambobskiwobski said:

Do you honestly believe that conversions to Christianity are the only religious conversions that are life changing?

 

Finally, if you believed in the Norse gods you would probably want to pray to Eir to cure an addiction. Are you sure you’ve looked into the Norse gods adequately to be able to discount them?

It's common knowledge that nobody is going to be cured from an addiction or have a life changing experience because of a belief in Thor. If you're honest there really is only going to be a handful of religions that can be taken seriously by genuine people in their consideration. As you say we dismiss 99.9% of all other religions, and there is a reason for that. That reason is that most genuine people don't just accept any fantastical claim without real life reasons. Surely you can relate to that. 

The point I am making Jambob, is that everybody knows this including atheists. Everybody knows that the vast portion of the broad term, "religion" and the broad term, "gods" consists largely of things that are so superficially meaningless that they're clearly invented. We don't need proof to know that, because it's basically a silent agreement in that nobody in the modern world would take those things seriously apart from a handful of fringe lunatics like flat earthers or whatever. 

So the point I was making is that there are a wealth of Christian testimonies out there were there is true change to a person, true life-changing, meaningful change because of the true power of the gospel, which is evidence of it's true power even if it is not technically proof. There are witnessed miracles. I myself have witnessed personal miracles that are beyond chance, way beyond it. That only counts as personal proof of course, like the innocent man in prison, it's experiential knowledge. 

So in context what was I therefore saying? In context I was saying that INITIALLY you may treat all "gods" so to speak, as equal claims but when you genuinely test those claims very quickly you can rule out the rather superficial gods as it's clear to any adult that most of them are going to be vacuous invention like Santa Claus. Just using the pedantic technicality that it can't be proved is nothing more than opportunistic intellectual WANKING. 

It's nothing more than; "Hahaha, I can use this technicality against you because there are so many false claims."

Yes but IN REALITY you know that Thor was invented. In reality you know cows aren't holy. In reality you know there was no meaning to the Roman gods other than to stroke the Romans' pride.  Those types of gods disappeared very quickly did you noticed? Wasn't it Christ who said, in a Roman world, "my words shall never pass"? What a laughable prediction at the time, in a Roman world and in a place where even the Jews largely rejected Christ. 

Can you tell me about anyone today who was healed of cancer because of Apollo or Thor, or who shot themselves in the face high on drugs as an atheist then found Christ and not only never attempted suicide again but got free of drugs? After all you are the one who is claiming the Lord God Himself, is just another god, so have you got any examples of those other gods having any real meaning or power in peoples lives?

That's all I was trying to get you to see. I am not claiming proof, I am asking for a comparison, rather than lumping all "p type" things into a category as though this proves those things identical. It doesn't, it's just opportunism. 

Quote

Finally, if you believed in the Norse gods you would probably want to pray to Eir to cure an addiction. Are you sure you’ve looked into the Norse gods adequately to be able to discount them?:D

Yes but you smile and that smile is a tacit admission that you already know there wouldn't be anyone who would be serious about curing an addiction because of Thor but that the power of the true God does lead to testimonies of cures. Thor has no power to deliver anyone of addiction, but do you know how many testimonies exist for people who have changed their ways in so many diverse ways and have looked everywhere for deliverance only to find it in Christ?

After all if all "gods" are the same, why didn't the gospel just disappear like Thor did? Why does it have influence in todays world, in peoples lives, it must have power Thor does not have. The Roman Empire and it's gods are now gone, and Christ's words are still here 2,000 years later, and still changing lives. Why isn't it the same for Apollo, Thor, Zeus and the Egyptian gods?

Note that I am not saying I can prove that the Lord is God. Even the bible itself says that the only way to please God is through faith, and that, "we walk by faith not by sight." But we both know when it comes to the numbers of, "gods", you can't really even take the claims seriously for a great portion, since most were clearly only created for man's vanity.

Can Thor for example answer the big questions? Why are we moral, intellectual, creative beings anyway? Why do we exist? The ants nor the trees ask this. The bible is unique in giving the answer to many things about the human condition. Why we do the things we do, the sinful nature. Why is the world the way it is anyway instead of a paradise? Do other religions if you are honest, really give any proper answer? Do they describe our unavoidably factual sin nature and do they explain that the world began without any such problems? No but rather most religions will just expect us to accept that the problem of evil and suffering is just a part of God's creation. But do you think that really makes sense? I'm not asking that to argue with you, but I hope you can see that what would make sense is what the bible indicates, that evil and suffering isn't something God would create. 

Please think about some of these things. This is my last post this year, by all means have the last word. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing Jambob. There is a thought where you may think, "well who could study all the religions anyway?" Believe it or not there is one person who basically went through all the main religions, his name is Nathan Wheeler. He ended up a Christian. Basically his conclusion was that ultimately the difference was that Christianity has a meaning all the others don't.

This guy delved deep. He had hallucinatory and other experiences, he said he could "fly in his astral body", all sorts of mad religious experiences, but at the end of it all they all ultimately didn't satisfy he said, or really ultimately mean anything. I don't know if you would have the patience to listen to his videos, but here is one of his vids anyway, he has a testimony but it literally comes in parts that are hours and hours long because his experiences were since he was a child.

So it's kind of funny that this guy seemed to sample every religion, or every main theme in some way, and ended up ultimately a Christian. It's an hour but the first five or ten mins gives an overview of what he went through. I'd appreciate it if you gave that five mins a watch. 

Here he talks briefly about studying all of the worlds religions;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K4KYbew0Hg&t=20s

One quote of what he says here at the start: "in my opinion whether your're an atheist or you're a religious zealot, really your mind is going to think about these things and life; at the core pillar we desire to know the truth. Why are we alive, why do we exist, and that is why I have spent most of my life dedicated to finding that answer."

(and let's face it, not many people would do this. His experience is kind of unique)

At 16 mins he starts talking about the bible and his experiences.

(he also says, "there's so much confusion, there's so much deception, because basically humans are lazy, that's the bottom line.")

This is a guy who has read all the main religious books, also the bible in Aramaic, greek and Hebrew. You have to listen to a guys opinion when he has done it all and says when comparing them only the bible stands out as true. 

I hope you listen to this guy Jambob, you will be surprised by how honest he is even about the failure of Christians.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 12:47 PM, indydave said:

Zech.13:1-6 tells us that about the time when Jesus came God would remove the prophets and the unclean spirits from the land. That means they could have been active in the past, perhaps even to the point of building some of these idolatrous temples, but as of the time shortly after Christ ascended, they are no longer active. In 1st Corinthians 13 Paul tells us that there would come a time when prophecy and tongues-speaking and miracles would cease. That time would be when that which was perfect has come. And the context tells us it is about imperfect revelation during the time Paul lived, but then shortly after he passed the revelation was completed and perfect. So although God does answer prayers today, we do not have miracles like were observed in New Testament times.

Of course we should recognize that the idea of UFOs and aliens is inextricably linked to the concepts of abiogenesis and evolution. So all evolutionists are going to believe in aliens. Also we should recognize that God instilled in us an innate desire to worship something or someone greater than ourselves. So that propels atheists to think about how they would be inferior to any alien visitors and to search out for a superior race or perhaps even the ones who created us. I remember when the movie ET the Extra-Terrestrial came out, it was clear that especially at the end there was a metaphor of ET being somewhat of a deity, even taking on a Christ-like appearance when he was resurrected and was wearing a hooded robe...and then ascended.

Hi indy i started a 'Topic' Months ago to get into this deeply.. If you'd like to address this there, that's the proper place 'I Believe'..

As i said i believe this topic is to be about U.F.O.'s/Aliens  and the likes..

If Mike wishes to delve into politics here then that's his choice to do so, i wish to talked about U.F.O.s Aliens and the likes here..

We have many other topics that deal solely with theological questions..

The one i purposely started can be found at;

Prophets And The Spirit Of God, Are They With Us Today


But no one replied at the time....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Job4:13 In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men,

14 Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.

15 Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:

16 It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,

Image may contain: one or more people, possible text that says 'SLEEP PARAL YSIS TERRORS IN THE NIGHT Sleep paralysis is nightmare experienced after coming out of dream state. After you wake up, you unable to scream, or react. While paralyzed bed, people known to experience dark presence, terrifying sensations, apparitions, astral projection, sexual invasion, among other things. Although theories abound, scientists are still about this phenomenon. The truth is that sleep paralysis spiritual nature. When demonic doorways are open, will manifest. The key to ending these night terrors- through the power of Jesus Christ!'
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms