• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Their Return

aggle-rithm said:
This has got to be the Grand Bull Moose of all semantic arguments...
Click to expand...

No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".

Is this really too difficult to understand?
 
King of the Americas said:
No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".

Is this really too difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

Michael Jordan is God Emperor of Dune. Got it.

Now what's all this ******** about aliens?
 
King of the Americas said:
No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".
Click to expand...


So would you say The Blue Angels are the gods, or is it The Thunderbirds?
 
King of the Americas said:
If you don't understand the difference between the definition of "God" and "god(s)" then I can't help you...
Click to expand...

Of course, this would make a lot more sense as an argument if the post you complained about hadn't actually used the term "gods":
carlitos said:
When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods.
Click to expand...

Once again, you demonstrate a complete failure to actually understand anything you read, or to remember what you said just a short time previously. Do you really think this is helping you convince anyone that your single unsupported memory from many years ago is accurate?
 
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...

I have repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you'll find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...

Having repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...
Click to expand...

Remind me what the premise of your OP was again?
 
King of the Americas said:
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...

Having repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...
Click to expand...

You are the one who has strayed very far from the original post and its premise, which was what, if all the anecdotes regarding UFO's were stipulated as true, one might do to attract them. Theories about gods, the supposedly lost arts of the ancient stonecutters, and such, are all superfluous to that original question, as are later attempts to cherry pick the anecdotes and reject those that don't fit your own faith. It is you who have met all attempts to address that question rationally with digressions, qualifications, redefinitions and accusations of wilful ignorance, and you have changed the initial premise by conflating UFO anecdotes with ancient myths and theologies.

I started off on this thread in good faith, thinking it an interesting thought exercise, as I think at least a few others did. But we long ago ran out of serious responses. In case you have forgotten, perhaps you should reread the earlier pages. Some of those responses may have been flippant, as befits a subject as inherently silly as this, but many were directly relevant and to the point raised.

To that point, I will repeat my original assertion. If all the anecdotes were true, this would indicate that the aliens in question have no interest in formal visiting, and the wise choice would be to assume that the aliens in question would continue to be as useless and disappointing as they have always been, and their interests almost certainly inimical to ours. We would be in this sense much like the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon, for whom the potential benefits of contact are almost entirely in the mind of the invader, and framed in the cultural biases and assumptions of the invader, while the risks to the invaded, borne out by centuries of history, are dire and often fatal.
 
macgregors2 said:
Edited by LashL: 
Removed quote of moderated content
Click to expand...
Why would government coverups thwart an attempt by aliens to make contact if they want it? If they have not figured out a safe place to land or a way to make their existence unequivocally known, then two choices present themselves: one is that they don't exist, the second is that they're so alien to our way of thinking that they're clearly unable to interact with us in a rational way. Either way, the only thing likely to be crazier than the aliens is the people who want to invite them to dinner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bruto said:
You are the one who has strayed very far from the original post and its premise, which was what, if all the anecdotes regarding UFO's were stipulated as true, one might do to attract them. Theories about gods, the supposedly lost arts of the ancient stonecutters, and such, are all superfluous to that original question, as are later attempts to cherry pick the anecdotes and reject those that don't fit your own faith. It is you who have met all attempts to address that question rationally with digressions, qualifications, redefinitions and accusations of wilful ignorance, and you have changed the initial premise by conflating UFO anecdotes with ancient myths and theologies.

I started off on this thread in good faith, thinking it an interesting thought exercise, as I think at least a few others did. But we long ago ran out of serious responses. In case you have forgotten, perhaps you should reread the earlier pages. Some of those responses may have been flippant, as befits a subject as inherently silly as this, but many were directly relevant and to the point raised.

To that point, I will repeat my original assertion. If all the anecdotes were true, this would indicate that the aliens in question have no interest in formal visiting, and the wise choice would be to assume that the aliens in question would continue to be as useless and disappointing as they have always been, and their interests almost certainly inimical to ours. We would be in this sense much like the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon, for whom the potential benefits of contact are almost entirely in the mind of the invader, and framed in the cultural biases and assumptions of the invader, while the risks to the invaded, borne out by centuries of history, are dire and often fatal.
Click to expand...

Those side trails were in direct correlation to the 2nd word in the OP title: Their "Return". These great works, the lack of tools HERE to do the work, presented as evidence that 'they' and their technology LEFT. I presented videos as to what modern tools and techniques are required to remove hard stone, to no avail.

That you use the word "silly" to describe these conclusions is all on you buddy. I think that's a cheap, ineffective, pathetic attempt to make yourself feel better about your own ignorance.

And once again, I do not believe in "aliens", but I do thank you very much for helping me prove my point.
 
King of the Americas said:
Those side trails were in direct correlation to the 2nd word in the OP title: Their "Return". These great works, the lack of tools HERE to do the work, presented as evidence that 'they' and their technology LEFT. I presented videos as to what modern tools and techniques are required to remove hard stone, to no avail.

That you use the word "silly" to describe these conclusions is all on you buddy. I think that's a cheap, ineffective, pathetic attempt to make yourself feel better about your own ignorance.

And once again, I do not believe in "aliens", but I do thank you very much for helping me prove my point.
Click to expand...
but you haven't proven any point. The questions of the original post have been addressed, to the point. You asked a question, but it's clear from your own response here and your characterization of your position as "conclusions," that it was not a question at all and that you were never interested in discussing it in the terms you specified.
 
King of the Americas said:
No.

One is the Omni-potent, Omni-present, First Mover. Literally the Big Bang of which we are all a part of. The single governing law who's rule can only be understood not even God could amended.

The other(s) are those who appear to possess super-human ability. Micheal Jordan is a basketball god. So those jetting about our skies, with seeming ease, and superior maneuvers, are known or called the "god(s) of the skies".

Is this really too difficult to understand?
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no difficulty understanding why you choose to argue about different meanings rather than discuss the fact that your claims are completely without merit.
As I said before, it's woo SOP.
 
King of the Americas said:
What I find exceedingly interesting AND SAD is the almost total lack of serious responses to ANY of my arguments.

Worse was the daily mis-statements or outright lies about my actual stance.

This exchange has been anything but an honest straight forward discussion put forward by my OP.

When ridicule and mockery take the place of critical thinking based skepticism, debate itself suffers.

When you ignore what your opponent actually says, and just make up your own strawman to attack, there can be no discussion at all...
Click to expand...
Please take your own advice. For Example:

King of the Americas said:
I have repeatedly said, "I do not believe in aliens.", yet you'll find the term constantly attributed to my beliefs from MOST of self-proclaimed skeptics here, is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
I asked you what word to use. You answered "god(s)."

King of the Americas said:
...
carlitos said:
I included the parenthetical and you ignored it. I honestly have no idea what you are claiming, and I'd rather use a common word than ridicule you with 'whatevertheyarebutnotaliens' or 'UFOliens' or something. If you prefer a word, bring it. Gods?
...
Click to expand...

...

I think lower case "god(s)" is the most accurate term one could use, historically speaking. Leave the "omni" out of it, but acknowledge they know more than us.
...
Click to expand...

My subsequent responses to you have used the word gods, plural and lowercase. Every single time.

Then, I attempt to reason with you about your hypothesis that today's UFO gods are the same phenomena as ancient drawings or carvings. Your reply? A dishonest strawman argument that you didn't say "God."

King of the Americas said:
carlitos said:
Actually, it is exactly the same phenomena. When confronted with something they couldn't explain, people assumed gods. The difference is, most people have better information now. Primitive cultures had an excuse that you do not have.
Click to expand...
Right. Which is why I've said they AREN'T "God", just someone with better/more advanced technology than we now posses.
Click to expand...

Well, neither did I buddy. Your tactics are disingenuous and obvious. You're making **** up as you go.

Again. Un - freaking - believable.



King of the Americas said:
Masquerading blatant ignorance, ridicule, and mockery as skepticism hurts or otherwise hinders everyone's search for truth.

And I think THAT is really the point or goal of skeptics here, to derail any and all efforts to find out the truth behind U.F.O.'s and their connection between history's- "god(s) of the heavens".

This place, JREF, is NOT the bastion of intellectualism it once was...
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah. Cry me a river.

Post a new, falfifiable and testable hypothesis. Stop bellyaching on the internet and go buy a book on logic. Until then, you're just trolling.
 
carlitos said:
... Your reply? A dishonest strawman argument that you didn't say "God."


...
Click to expand...

Just because you WROTE "gods", doesn't mean the inflection wasn't of God, in your example.

What the ancients saw and wrote of THEY thought were "of God". This may be true in a holistic sense, in that we are all part of this ever expanding Big Bang of a singularity, but just because you are way better than me at something, doesn't mean I should worship you.

What the ancients saw was just better technologies at work, not "God" at all. They called them that, angels, demons, or any number of other things including "god". But NONE of these terms phrases or ideas is any more accurate than the next, because THEY AREN'T HERE.

'They' are 'up there'... We are down here... So, none of us really knows what or who they are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom