UFO's and Religion.

[DanieltheDragon]

A defense of scripture that often comes up is why would they make it up, or why would they lie. Conversely, we can also get are you saying they lied, or are you saying they made it up. This is faulty for a variety of reasons including a false dichotomy. However, even when presented with reasons why this is an insufficient defense this repeatedly crops up.

What does this have to do with UFO's you say? UFO theories are not religious hence they provide a framework in which both parties religious and non-religious can examine how fantastical stories evolve and creep up.

Take for instance Edgar Mitchell an Apollo Astronaut who walked on the Moon in 1971, claims to have knowledge of Alien and UFO interventions on nuclear ballistic facilities during the cold war. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology ... ve-6235113

Much like the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul Edgar Mitchell's gospel of UFOs has many similar themes in terms of veracity.

1. He claims to have thoroughly researched first hand accounts interviewed witnesses and attests to their accuracy.
2. None of these witnesses are named
3. None of his claims can be verified.
4. Many will attest to his honesty
5. He thoroughly believes what he preaches.



Question for debate:

Is Edgar Mitchell lying, making things up, telling the truth, or other?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by Dropship]

What about the whole enchilada? What about all his claims? not just the specific aspects you might find plausible. Is his claims that space aliens prevented nuclear tests and war true made up or other?

[Dropship]

What about the whole enchilada? What about all his claims? not just the specific aspects you might find plausible. Is his claims that space aliens prevented nuclear tests and war true made up or other?

Well he claims to have had a 'mystical Hindu revelation', so bearing in mind that Hinduism is an evil religion, I'd say its polluted his mind and made him misguided, so I'm inclined to take anyting he says with a large pinch of salt..

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by Dropship]

What about the whole enchilada? What about all his claims? not just the specific aspects you might find plausible. Is his claims that space aliens prevented nuclear tests and war true made up or other?

There's a Star Trek novel called "Prime Directive" where the Enterprise crew (Kirk's crew from TOS) prevented a pre-warp civilization from destroying itself in nuclear war by destroying the nukes while they were in flight. Kirk and his bridge officers were arrested for violating the Prime Directive, and in their quest to find out what was going on, they find out that the civilization was manipulated into destroying itself by a planet sized creature from an older universe, one that was doing so so as to create planets covered in an algae that could only grow on planets devastated by nuclear war, and eat the algae. That creature did so out of pure instinct, it had no higher consciousness.
I recommend this book, as it's very well written.
As for what this has to do with the question - in the book, Kirk's involvement in the war is quite clear for all to see, since thousands of nukes were destroyed by phasers while they were in flight. It'd be pretty hard to cover that up or to fake it. Whereas here in the real world...where's the evidence?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 7 by Zzyzx]

I expect that most people are likely to make a decision / form an opinion based upon such things as 1) their preconceived notions / beliefs concerning UFOs, 2) the reputation (or supposed reputation) and "authority", or lack thereof, of the writer, 3) their emotions, wishes, desires, 4) a felt need to make a decision in spite of paucity of evidence, 5) prevailing opinions within their cohort / association group (social approval).

This is straight out of reality, isn't it? What do we make use of to come to our most important life decisions?

From an evolutionary standpoint, one could infer humans have not needed to know precisely, empirically, what is going on. We have taken over the planet for reasons other than our ability to know the 'truth'. Our survival as a species depended on our imaginative and innovated ways to adapt our environments, rather than the other way around.

This business of 'truth' may just now be becoming important to our survival as a species. Your list of factors in how folks (generally) determine truth worked well until we hit some critical mass of technology and population in the last hundred years or so.

4) a felt need to make a decision in spite of paucity of evidence,

I think this is our Achilles' heel. And we aren't very patient. The 'old' methods that worked great don't work well at all in this modern environment we've made for ourselves.

I don't know about other people, but it was no simple process to set aside my personal, subjective 'stuff' (preferences, opinions) for the sake of greater knowledge and understanding.

You have to admit, there's a lot less to fight about over a null position. There's no way to elevate your self- or group-importance and significance, or give yourself or your group special authority (and thus, power) with a null position. What would we have to argue about? What excuse would we have to take the other guys' resources for our own?

[Zzyzx]

.

I think this is our Achilles' heel. And we aren't very patient. The 'old' methods that worked great don't work well at all in this modern environment we've made for ourselves.

I agree -- and add: On the personal level I have cultivated (with some difficulty and effort) the ability to be patient. Rather than feeling a "need" to have things RIGHT NOW, I have no problem waiting until they can be acquired under my terms – including payment in cash with no interest. If I cannot pay up-front I do not purchase. This includes real estate, vehicles and other major items.

Relating this concept to religion, many people seem convinced that one MUST decide soon (however defined) about worshiping gods. Most do not appear to investigate the alternative "gods" available or the option of deferring decision until verifiable information is available (being Agnostic).

"You might die before you decide" is a common remark, to which I respond, "So what?" That usually leads (if I allow) to a tale about souls and afterlife that THEY have chosen to believe in spite of the paucity of evidence – i.e., impatience.

[Zzyzx]

.

What about the whole enchilada? What about all his claims? not just the specific aspects you might find plausible. Is his claims that space aliens prevented nuclear tests and war true made up or other?

Well he claims to have had a 'mystical Hindu revelation', so bearing in mind that Hinduism is an evil religion,

What, exactly, makes Hinduism an "evil religion" in more than personal opinion? How is it more (or less) evil than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shintoism?

I'd say its polluted his mind and made him misguided,

It can just as well be said that Christianity "polluted his mind and made him misguided." Wasn't it claimed that Edgar Mitchell is / was a Christian?

so I'm inclined to take anyting he says with a large pinch of salt.

Perhaps it is wise to pour a pound of salt upon ALL claims of a supernatural nature until and unless they are confirmed by multiple, verifiable, disconnected sources. This applies to tales of invisible, undetectable entities depicted in religious lore as influencing or originating human life.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by Dropship]

Per dropship reasons for dismissing Mitchell's claims

1.

If Mitchell produced just one such photo with the aliens waving to the camera out of the portholes, he might have a point..

A lack of physical evidence

2.

No doubt many of the people he spoke to saw UFO's, but that doesn't mean they were alien craft, they could have just been the usual suspects- weather balloons, weather phenomena or optical illusions etc.

Witnesses basing their claims on mistaken perception

3.

For a start he refuses to name any of the alleged "witnesses".

Anonymous sources

4.

So (no disrespect to him) but I'd say his "mystic dabbling" has convinced him that "voices" have revealed secret things to him

Information via supernatural sources

5.

EDIT- I just found out he's a fundy Christian, he said in another interview-
"..my religious training, which was fundamental Christian.."
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/sm ... temid=1059

Which brings me back to what I said earlier, as fundy christian cultists definitely like to think they're a cut above the rest of us mere mortals..

Fundamentalists are less valuable in terms of veracity.

6.

, but many military personnel have gone on public record as saying they've seen lights in the sky, so Mitchell's "revelation" is simply repeating that and telling us nothing new anyway, so he's not lying in that respect..

Personal revelations are not useful in terms of establishing veracity even when they are echoing other claims of similar revelations.

7.

Well he claims to have had a 'mystical Hindu revelation', so bearing in mind that Hinduism is an evil religion, I'd say its polluted his mind and made him misguided, so I'm inclined to take anyting he says with a large pinch of salt..

His suffers from a bias from religious influences.





For the most part minus a few points these are fairly good reasons to not assert an affirmative claim on Mitchell's comments. Do you disagree with this summation dropship? Does Dropship have valid points with regard to Mitchell's claims?

[Dropship]

What, exactly, makes Hinduism an "evil religion" in more than personal opinion? How is it more (or less) evil than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shintoism?
..It can just as well be said that Christianity "polluted his mind and made him misguided." Wasn't it claimed that Edgar Mitchell is / was a Christian?..

1- Here's Hinduism for you-


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/featu ... ables-text


2- Mitchell said- "..my religious training, which was fundamental Christian.."
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/sm ... temid=1059

but whether fundies are true Christians is very much open to debate..

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 18 by Dropship]

Here's Christianity for you (similarly applied as to the Hindus)



I dunno about those Christians, they look like they believe some really weird stuff! Maybe there's been some 'mind pollution' going on, and these guys do look evil . . .

Should we take what Christians say seriously, considering the kinds of things they get up to?

[Dropship]

..Should we take what Christians say seriously, considering the kinds of things they get up to?

There are all sorts of "christians" each with their own opinions, just as there are all sorts of atheists.
For example some atheists say Jesus never existed, but some say he did..