Genuine Question Please Don't Zap On...
Editor's Blog3 mins ago
Raelism...more Religious Drivel It Would Seem.
86 Answers
Never heard of Raelism until I saw it in today's Gaurdian :::
http://
How can any sane, educated person actually believe this nonsense. It makes Scientology look normal !
http://
How can any sane, educated person actually believe this nonsense. It makes Scientology look normal !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The interesting feature of Raelism (which I'd never heard of) or Scientology (which I know quite a bit about)
is that their stories (metaphors?), beliefs and rules, which are usually considered ridiculous by outsiders, are in fact no more so than any of the established religions.
So if nothing else they are an interesting reflection of them.
is that their stories (metaphors?), beliefs and rules, which are usually considered ridiculous by outsiders, are in fact no more so than any of the established religions.
So if nothing else they are an interesting reflection of them.
Chris, there is no ‘proof’, but I do believe evidence exists that aliens, who were mistaken for supernatural gods, may have visited this planet in the dim and distant past – and I didn’t say that the theory discounts evolution. It most certainly doesn’t.
Mikey, //complete drivel, and you know it ! //
I don’t know it – but you think you do.
Jim, //Of course you disagree that it's cultural/ speculative, but that doesn't change the fact that it is//
I’ve already said that it’s not. Another one who assumes he knows it all without ever studying the subject. Incidentally, Mr Occam and I don't see eye to eye. I want answers – not best guesses.
Mikey, //complete drivel, and you know it ! //
I don’t know it – but you think you do.
Jim, //Of course you disagree that it's cultural/ speculative, but that doesn't change the fact that it is//
I’ve already said that it’s not. Another one who assumes he knows it all without ever studying the subject. Incidentally, Mr Occam and I don't see eye to eye. I want answers – not best guesses.
It seems very odd to criticise me for thinking I know it all (which isn't true, by the way, so please stop making that false accusation), and then in the very next breath criticising me for relying on "best guess". Best guesses, in some sense, are all we have anyway -- so if you want definitive answers you will be waiting for a long time and will be sadly disappointed...
Jim, You did say you’ll rely on Occam’s Razor and leave it at that. I said I won’t. How is that a criticism?
Furthermore, without proper investigation, you’ve decided that the only evidence that exists is cultural or speculative. You’ve stated that to be a ‘fact’ – so I can only assume you do think you know it all – but you don’t. And you’re at it again. You claim I will be ‘sadly disappointed’ Will I? Why? Because you know it all?
Furthermore, without proper investigation, you’ve decided that the only evidence that exists is cultural or speculative. You’ve stated that to be a ‘fact’ – so I can only assume you do think you know it all – but you don’t. And you’re at it again. You claim I will be ‘sadly disappointed’ Will I? Why? Because you know it all?
Because anyone who wants "answers" is unlikely to get them. I don't think it's unreasonable to then say that they will be disappointed by this essential truth.
Also, I've done far more research than you seem to give me credit for. Not necessarily a lot, but certainly more than none. Enough, anyway, in my judgment, to be able to make a decision on what case I think to be more convincing. I don't know it all. I am in a position to be able to make judgment calls. Some of those calls will be right, others may turn out to be wrong. Time alone will tell, but in the meantime I can, and will, make an assessment on how likely I am to be right, and how wrong. I don't think you differ from this in any way other than on what you base your judgments.
Also, I've done far more research than you seem to give me credit for. Not necessarily a lot, but certainly more than none. Enough, anyway, in my judgment, to be able to make a decision on what case I think to be more convincing. I don't know it all. I am in a position to be able to make judgment calls. Some of those calls will be right, others may turn out to be wrong. Time alone will tell, but in the meantime I can, and will, make an assessment on how likely I am to be right, and how wrong. I don't think you differ from this in any way other than on what you base your judgments.
Naomi - On the subject of aliens previously visiting Earth I'll admit their seem to be a lot of things that might tangentially support the theory. I have watched many documentaries on the subject and for a while I thought their may be something to it.
The one thing that, I feel, puts the nail in the coffin of the "theory" is the lack of any artifacts that would surely have been left behind. There is nothing for example made of exotic or unknown metal nor anything with an obviously advanced function.
If one looks at the books of Von Daniken et al what we see, I believe, are relics of ancient cultures attempts to explain things i.e. primitive religion.
It's a shame really because I would like it to be true.
The one thing that, I feel, puts the nail in the coffin of the "theory" is the lack of any artifacts that would surely have been left behind. There is nothing for example made of exotic or unknown metal nor anything with an obviously advanced function.
If one looks at the books of Von Daniken et al what we see, I believe, are relics of ancient cultures attempts to explain things i.e. primitive religion.
It's a shame really because I would like it to be true.
Jim, //Because anyone who wants "answers" is unlikely to get them.//
Why? Because most (and note I say most) of science dismisses it without serious consideration, or because archaeologists cling doggedly to their convenient little slots, or because theologians have their heads so filled with religion that they can’t see the wood for the trees?
//An essential truth?//
Why is it? I don’t know, and neither do you – and you really don’t. And you’re mistaken. Unlike you I don’t base my assessments upon how likely I am to be right or wrong – if I don’t know, I say I don’t know – and if I’m wrong I say I’m wrong. However, the judgements I do make are based upon critical examination of the available potential evidence - something which your limited research may have missed.
The first thing I do when someone presents me with a theory that I can see no immediate rationality in is to ask them why they think as they do, so it seems curious to me that people who instantly dismiss this theory rarely ask me why I consider it to be a feasible possibility. Without having put much effort in at all, they just decide it can’t possibly be true. I suppose that’s a result of human beings limiting their vision only to that with which they are familiar – unless it involves God and the supernatural of course. Then see imaginations run riot! Wonky thinking to say the least.
Chris, obviously, over thousands of years most metal would have disintegrated. However, there are a few strange things around that indicate that a technology we assume didn’t exist in the past, actually did.
Why? Because most (and note I say most) of science dismisses it without serious consideration, or because archaeologists cling doggedly to their convenient little slots, or because theologians have their heads so filled with religion that they can’t see the wood for the trees?
//An essential truth?//
Why is it? I don’t know, and neither do you – and you really don’t. And you’re mistaken. Unlike you I don’t base my assessments upon how likely I am to be right or wrong – if I don’t know, I say I don’t know – and if I’m wrong I say I’m wrong. However, the judgements I do make are based upon critical examination of the available potential evidence - something which your limited research may have missed.
The first thing I do when someone presents me with a theory that I can see no immediate rationality in is to ask them why they think as they do, so it seems curious to me that people who instantly dismiss this theory rarely ask me why I consider it to be a feasible possibility. Without having put much effort in at all, they just decide it can’t possibly be true. I suppose that’s a result of human beings limiting their vision only to that with which they are familiar – unless it involves God and the supernatural of course. Then see imaginations run riot! Wonky thinking to say the least.
Chris, obviously, over thousands of years most metal would have disintegrated. However, there are a few strange things around that indicate that a technology we assume didn’t exist in the past, actually did.
Octavius, //another case of 'we can't explain it, therefore aliens bought it here'//
What a daft suggestion! You won’t hear that from me. It sounds all too religious.
I don’t know why I’m bothering, but here you are.
http://
http://
What a daft suggestion! You won’t hear that from me. It sounds all too religious.
I don’t know why I’m bothering, but here you are.
http://
http://
And that constitutes tangible evidence? It reminds me of the theory that was popular a year or so back that mobile phones existed in the 1920s, or some time-traveller had been caught on camera in that time, because a woman was seen holding her hand to her ear in a manner similar to that of someone talking on a phone. The theory is crazy, but at its heart the flaw is that its advocates were interpreting old actions in a modern way.
While those shapes look like planes to us, do you think that they did to the Incas? Is it not more likely that they are symbolic representations of birds, insects, and/ or fish?
While those shapes look like planes to us, do you think that they did to the Incas? Is it not more likely that they are symbolic representations of birds, insects, and/ or fish?
Naomi - I think you are proving my point. Interesting though these artifacts are they are quite obviously man made. They are also made of metal and are in quite nice condition.
I realise that they are not nescessarily contemporary with the proposed aliens they represent but if man made metal objects can last so long then I assume an alien race, far far in advance of ours, would have access to metals that would last as long.
If a race of people had the technology to travel inter galactic distances I don't think that airplanes and helicopters would be their chosen method of travel on earth.
I confess I got sucked into the whole "Chariot of the Gods" thing when the book was first released. I wondered about artifacts like these and the Baghdad Battery and the Nazca lines etc. but as I said there is one major stumbling block and that is the total lack of any alien artifacts.
I'm sure archaeologists would back me up when I say that people/beings can not live in a location for any length of time without leaving their mark.
Once again I would like it to be true and I am not dismissing the possibility but I have seen no compelling evidence.
I realise that they are not nescessarily contemporary with the proposed aliens they represent but if man made metal objects can last so long then I assume an alien race, far far in advance of ours, would have access to metals that would last as long.
If a race of people had the technology to travel inter galactic distances I don't think that airplanes and helicopters would be their chosen method of travel on earth.
I confess I got sucked into the whole "Chariot of the Gods" thing when the book was first released. I wondered about artifacts like these and the Baghdad Battery and the Nazca lines etc. but as I said there is one major stumbling block and that is the total lack of any alien artifacts.
I'm sure archaeologists would back me up when I say that people/beings can not live in a location for any length of time without leaving their mark.
Once again I would like it to be true and I am not dismissing the possibility but I have seen no compelling evidence.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.