An Alternative Explanation for the UFO Phenomenon

NAA_106

There’s an increasing level of buzz about some sort of “grand disclosure” coming to the world in the near future, a day of disclosure whose nearness depends on who you’re asking. Simply put it involves governments acknowledging the existence of aliens and UFOs and giving “evidence” of them. Even Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell speaks boldly and confidently about the existence of aliens in public! And many other people that believe in aliens think that the UFO phenomenon throughout the past 100 years is the result of aliens slowly making themselves known in order to prepare humanity for that day.

They fail to convince many of us.

However, why not entertain alternative theories? What if Earth, being near the center of the galaxy (as more and more scientific evidence points), is the final, ultimate destination of alien tourists?

One thing is sure, the reports involving alien interactions are almost universally negative, pardon the pun. The probes, the implants, the abductions, the abortions — these things seem to indicate that if aliens are real, they intend to hurt people, not help them, which may reveal to us their true identity. How appropriate then that alien should begin with “a lie”…

By the way, if you are ever abducted, call out to Jesus. Researchers have found it ends any abduction… immediately.

Advertisements

90 thoughts on “An Alternative Explanation for the UFO Phenomenon

      • No I don’t believe in alien beings and now I see that you don’t either.

        Demonic beings? Hmm…I’ve never really thought about it, but I am doubtful of that as well.

        Like

      • Well, thanks for being honest. Mine is just one of several plausible theories which are meant to explain the widespread UFO / alien phenomenon. There are many fake claims and fraudulent pictures, but then there are some that are legitimate. If you or any readers might be interested in pursuing this angle, you can reference LA Marzulli’s work or, better yet, Guy Malone’s work. Guy’s work is particularly fascinating.

        Joshua

        Like

      • Technological advancements by humans, right?

        If that’s what you mean, I agree that most of the supposed UFO sightings are that (though the “alien” interactions is another story). In fact, one example of this the Roswell incident appears to have been a test flight for a piece of advanced technology (a pre-Stealth-type plane) that was being developed by the US military in cooperation with Nazi scientists. People can reference “Horten Ho 229” and “Kenneth Arnold” for more evidence that supports that claim.

        Thanks!

        Like

    • Thanks a lot, Tracy.

      I read tildeb’s comments there (well, they weren’t exactly comments). I would caution taking anything he has to say seriously. He is definitely not an entirely unbiased observer. (“Is he even informed on the subject?” would be my next question.) The guy whose presentation he was attempting to slam (Guy Malone) with a rhetorical sledgehammer (which lacked specifics, by the way) lived, worked, and did research in Roswell for over 10 years, the very epicenter of a lot of worldwide UFO research. Guy has written books on the subject and talked to experts in the field who hold to all sorts of theories. In other words, he is probably more informed on the matter than a random atheist online. (At least Guy has provided evidence of his being informed about it.)

      tildeb mentions cherry-picking. Well, if anyone has never given a public lecture, only they could agree with his comments. But the reality is that Guy only had just over an hour for his presentation in an area already saturated with the “traditional” take on the UFO phenomenon. You can’t talk everything in the history of UFO research in an hour.

      Nevertheless, that Carl Sagan maintained that the least likely explanation for the UFO / alien phenomenon was extraterrestrial might mean something to the average materialistic atheists out there. Surely that’s not a minor point, is it?

      Joshua

      Like

    • If I recall correctly, Sagan was remarking on the likelihood of extraterrestrial life coming to earth and behaving in the ways attributed to them. Specifically, I recall an interview where he commented on them supposedly stealing and mutilating cattle. His response was that there were more likely explanations closer to home.

      And the cherry-picking I mention is not because of length of presentation but the way information is typically gathered and predictably organized to achieve a specific purpose in order to make a ridiculous notion more palatable for the credulous. This is done in most religions but also includes dodgy sales pitches of every kind to make the audience feel special. Exercising critical thinking is , in regards to Sagan’s mental toolbox we all need to equip ourselves to deal with such claims, puts a stop to this effect very quickly.

      You might want to try it.
      I mean, really: demons Josh? In the 21st century?

      Like

      • Unless you forgot, the issue isn’t me or my critical thinking skills, tildeb. It’s about the subject of aliens and theories to explain the evidence for them (sightings, abductions, communications). Why don’t you address those instead of wasting everyone’s time by throwing out really weak insults?

        For example: If you could find the quote you’re referring to, tildeb, it would give a bit of substance to your claims. Nevertheless, as it stands, your claims are still lacking details. That was my contention. If I’m going to be forced to rely on your recall ability as evidence, then I don’t accept it. Maybe — GASP! — you recalled incorrectly. Maybe — GASP! — it’s you who is mis-remembering or misquoting Sagan. Maybe your presuppositions and biases have even caused you to not actually hear Guy’s presentation correctly. (Did you even watch the whole thing?)

        Give us some references, not just your opinion.

        By the way, aren’t you a promoter of scientism, that only science can answer questions? If so, I would find it odd that you would have any problem with the theory of interdimensional beings, whether good or evil, since many scientists are promoting the existence of multiple dimensions for various reasons. Would you claim that if multiple dimensions actually exist, then no beings could or would or do inhabit them?

        Besides, what’s wrong with putting forth a theory of evil, interdimensional beings (demons) to explain the evidence that exists for beings which have reportedly done harm to humans and animals if evidence points in that direction? Surely you aren’t the only honest, critical thinking person in the world?

        Joshua

        Like

      • I thought your recommendation was that no one should take my comments (that aren’t exactly comments) seriously. Yet here you are…

        One aspect of critical thinking is seeing for one’s self if the people being quoted actually support the approach of the person utilizing their words. To quote Sagan in support of a demon-haunted world (note the irony when the man wrote a book called “Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”) to help some religiously motivated conspiracy nut job to explain the possible agency behind the UFO phenomenon is not just absolutely ludicrous but contrary to what the man tried to teach you: how to arm yourself from being a gullible and credulous fool.

        If you applied Sagan’s toolbox to this issue, you’d quickly realize that you’ve invited the fox into the hen house. Guy’s explanatory case depends entirely on faith-based belief. One immediately finds an age old technique: cherry picking data and inserting it into a prefabricated model but pretending the model emerges rather than having already been built. This is a giveaway: the claim cannot stand on its own merit by the use of compelling evidence independent of belief but must be squinted at juuuust so to warrant a momentary pause from outright rejection. This is a hint.

        And no, I don’t support scientism. Whenever you find the term, you will find a religiously inspired person trying desperately to improve the quality of their beliefs by denigrating knowledge. It’s a loser’s tactic.

        Like

      • Well, please don’t misinterpret my actions and think that I take your comments more seriously. I’m certainly not. It’s called teaching by example. These latest attempts are just helping me show Tracy and readers why they shouldn’t either, especially in regards to the aliens / UFO issue. I mean, look, you started into name-calling (again) instead of focusing on the issues (again).

        You’ve still not provided any substance to your arguments. You didn’t give us references to the Sagan quote you mentioned. You said that Sagan said something about “the likelihood of extraterrestrial life coming to earth and behaving in the ways attributed to them” was the context in which he was referring to the extraterrestrial explanation being the least likely. The references you linked to were about his toolbox, which I don’t find much disagreement with, especially when he recommends that we “spin more than one hypothesis” (I’ve given readers 2 alternatives here in the cartoon and commentary).

        You’ve merely complained, insulted, and provided no alternative.

        So, do you see? You make big claims and weak insults. In both cases, you limit us to your own opinion. That’s why I don’t take you seriously. You’re not a dialoging-type guy. You’re a rhetorical sledgehammer guy looking for followers by usurping the open comments section on various blogs, mine included.

        Calling Guy Malone “some religiously motivated conspiracy nut job” is just an ignorant opinion. I qualify it as an ignorant opinion because you’ve shown us nothing here that would indicate you have any knowledge of any of his years of work in the field. I reference him because of it. I figured that a dude who lived in the center of 60 years of UFO research and communicated with all sorts of people from all walks of life about it is going to be much more informed about the issue than me and you.

        Besides, you didn’t answer my other questions. Here they are again:

        1) If scientists promote the idea of multiple dimensions, why do you have a problem if beings inhabit them?
        2) What’s wrong with putting forth a theory of evil, interdimensional beings (demons) to explain the evidence that exists for beings which have reportedly done harm to humans and animals if evidence points in that direction?
        3) You aren’t the only honest, critical thinking person in the world, are you?
        4) Where’s the quote where Sagan mentions that the behavior attributed to aliens is not explained best as extraterrestrial entities?

        And just so you’ll know, I don’t do more than 2 responses. Given our past interactions, you seem to be the type that is ever satisfied unless you’re constantly posting and wasting an already engaged and busy person’s time. I will not entertain such a twisted sense of amusement.

        Joshua

        Like

  1. I guess the irony of trying to use Sagan as a means to promote a UFOs-are-really-demons angle (because of comments he made about better explanations available) is lost on you. I hinted at why by mentioning his now famous toolbox suggestion to handle such claims as the ones you have offered up here. The skeptical toolbox he mentions comes from his book Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Now do you see the irony?

    Like

  2. You’re quite right about the name-calling. My bad. My defense – inadequate as it is – is that Sagan was a notable atheist who showed why skepticism is healthy to use against just such claims as one that suggests the ‘aliens’ might be demons from another dimension. He even explained this quite well in a book dedicated to showing how belief leads to the creation of demons which then stands contrary to gaining actual pursuit of knowledge. Yet this is the very man whose words are being (mis)used to suggest that aliens as demons makes more sense than aliens as extraterrestrials. It’s enough to make the reasonable scream!

    Herein lies the lunacy of using a man who was dedicated to eliminating such notions as ‘demons’ because, as history shows us again and again, the pseudo-answer offered by such superstitions never produce knowledge. This is why he explained that it falls to each of us to use the tools of skepticism because we know there are always better explanations than demons. Always. And to prove his point he talked about the belief in demons as the standard model that interfered with our pursuit of what was really going on, such as what powered disease like germs and viruses, what explained bizarre behaviour like damaged brains and chemical imbalances, and so on. Historically, we have a long line of real life examples where turning to the explanation of demons and accepting the notion as rational has never led to the gathering of any useful or practical knowledge but a guaranteed way of blaming the victims.

    The same point remains rue for UFOs and the supposed agency behind them. It angers me that anyone could take Sagan’s words and apply them exactly contrary to his very clear and well expressed intentions. It’s an utter lack of using skepticism. To make such a link is insulting to his memory so I called anyone who would do such a thing unpleasant names because I honestly think they deserve the labels as ‘nut job’ and ‘lunatic’.

    I am also frustrated that no one else seems capable of raising these standard kind of criticisms where they are so richly deserved, how so many people miss the obvious red flags of conspiracy thinking, who blithely go along with such standard critical clunkers as claiming scientific ‘research’ backs up this or that bit of demonology and UFO lore. So if I don’t do so, who will, Josh? Synapticcohesion? Getic.Apolo.? Warrick? Tracy? I never see it. And it is badly needed when we are presented with the jewel that ‘secular researchers’ have ‘shown’ that the use of the name ‘Jesus’ thwarts alien abductions. Good. Grief.

    Like

    • “So if I don’t do so, who will, Josh?”

      If you’ll recall, tildeb, I was one of the first to voice my skepticism of aliens. Even “aliens” as being demons. In response, Joshua provided me with resources for my edification.

      Like

      • And I appreciate the skepticism, SC. You were the first in the thread to show it.

        Don’t be fooled by the caricature being drawn for us here. If anyone had watched Guy Malone’s presentation on the infamous Roswell crash, they would have seen that he was near begging the UFO / alien crowd there at the Roswell Public Library to look at the obvious evidence that suggests — GASP! — a mere terrestrial origin for the events that reportedly unfolded there. In fact, the terrestrial origin explains the evidence far better.

        It’s not that either I or Guy was ever suggesting that every single reported UFOs and aliens are evil, interdimensional beings (demons), as tildeb’s comments want to convey. But there is evidence that seems to suggest it in some legitimate cases. The article quotes experts as saying things like:

        “We are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon which is largely indigenous to planet earth.” – Dr. Jacques Vallee, Messengers of Deception, p. 20

        “We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something which disguises itself as an extra-terrestrial invasion so as not to alarm us.” – Brad Steiger, [cited in] Blue Book Files Released in Canadian UFO Report, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1977, p. 20

        “There seems to be no evidence yet that any of these craft or beings originate from outer space.” – Arthur C. Clarke, New York Times Book Review, 07/27/75

        “Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomena.” – Gordon Creighton, Official 1992 Flying Saucer Review Policy Statement

        “UFO behaviour is more akin to magic than to physics as we know it… the modern UFOnauts and the demons of past days are probably identical.” – Lynn E. Catoe, UFOs and Related Subjects: USGPO, 1969; prepared under AFOSR Project Order 67-0002 and 68-0003

        “The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon…” – Dr. Pierre Guerin, FSR Vol. 25, No. 1, p. 13-14

        There are enough names and texts referenced in that short amount of space to give readers see that the aliens-are-demons theory is a legitimate theory. And in this sort of discussion, I think it’s essential to provide some resources / references. It’s dangerous to just state our opinion and think that’s sufficient to prove our case.

        I urge readers to count and click the references I’ve given. Then do the same for tildeb’s comments. One of us doesn’t want you to just take our word for it.

        Joshua

        Like

      • That’s an interesting thought about that verse in Jude. If you’ll look at the work of guys like LA Marzulli, Patrick Heron, Guy Malone, David Flynn, and Jim Wilhelmsen, you’ll find various theories on that issue. Sorry that I don’t have the time to list links to all the specific documents and videos of each.

        As a side note, much about the “hell” of tradition is askew. For instance, that verse in Jude doesn’t actually mention “hell” or “hades”. Implications are intriguing, as the work of the researchers above shows.

        Joshua

        Like

      • “For instance, that verse in Jude doesn’t actually mention “hell” or “hades”. Implications are intriguing, as the work of the researchers above shows.”

        True–chains in “darkness.” I agree that the idea of “Hades” or “Hell” is a borrowed concept and is erroneously attributed to the Bible.

        Have you seen War of the Worlds (the one starring Tom Cruise)? All you have to do is watch the last ten minutes to see what I mean. It’s really eye-rolling stuff.

        Like

      • You’re not missing much. But it tries to draw a parallel between Jesus and aliens. Between God’s wrath and alien attacks.

        A lot of atheists believe that aliens possibly/probably created us. Even Dawkins said that he thought that it was a possibility. :|

        *shakes head*

        Like

      • “I urge readers to count and click the references I’ve given”

        You really think Arthur C Clarke is giving credence to your demons theory in that quote? You really think the atheist Clarke believed in demons?

        Like

      • You really think Arthur C Clarke is giving credence to your demons theory in that quote? You really think the atheist Clarke believed in demons?

        Don’t be ridiculous, Andy. Did you read my other comments? The idea is simple: The notion that some sort of extraterrestrial entities from space exist and are visiting the Earth is under fire in light of the evidence, which means — GASP! — that other theories for them must be proposed. This implies that people, such as yourself, who believe in evolution of life on Earth and its potential throughout the galaxy must take a fellow atheist’s remarks on this topic into account when examining theories for the UFO / Alien phenomenon.

        And don’t forget that I said in the comment you quoted:

        “It’s not that either I or Guy was ever suggesting that every single reported UFO and alien are evil, interdimensional beings (demons), as tildeb’s comments want to convey. But there is evidence that seems to suggest it in some legitimate cases.”

        Don’t overlook qualifiers like “not” and “every single” and “some” and “legitimate”. Many try to make it seem as if the aliens-are-demons theory is the first explanation that is sought. It’s obviously not, as I pointed out in my previous comment where Guy gave a presentation on the Roswell Crash / Incident and was pleading with people to look at the evidence of its terrestrial origin as an early sprint at the beginning of the Cold War race to space.

        One last thing, let me correct you again: It’s not “my” demon theory. Did you even read the other quotes in my previous comment? I fail to see how someone who actually read all the non-Arthur C. Clarke quotes and abundance of links I left would misconstrue that I was somehow promoting some new novel theory of my own, independent of the conclusions of actual UFOlogists with all sorts of religious and non-religious affiliations.

        By the way, what’s your explanation / theory?

        Joshua

        Like

  3. No I don’t believe in alien beings and now I see that you don’t either.

    Whew. That’s a relief.

    There are enough names and texts referenced in that short amount of space to give readers see that the aliens-are-demons theory is a legitimate theory.

    Yeah, a legitimate theory. Aliens are demons.
    (Not that you believe in alien beings or anything.)
    Tell us more about this. Please.
    It’s a fascinating topic.

    Aliens are demons. Space ships. Abductions.

    Like

    • What is the point of your comment, Cedric? You’re quoting SC in the first part and then me in the second quote, then you mingle the two in your commentary. Huh?

      For what it’s worth, then people say “aliens”, they usually mean “extraterrestrial beings from another part of the galaxy”. I don’t believe in those. That doesn’t mean that I can’t believe that some legitimate* alien encounters and possible abductions may be demons (evil, interdimensional beings).

      I welcome links and references. I challenge you to reference the names and texts I mentioned in the comment you quoted. (Hint: Don’t expect to find good research on Youtube.) But if you don’t reference those listed in my comment or read anything about them, then just keep your opinion to yourself.

      *”legitimate” as in there is evidence that something happened.

      Like

      • You’re quoting SC in the first part and then me in the second quote, then you mingle the two in your commentary.

        Yep.
        SC is relieved that that you don’t believe in alien beings.
        However, aliens as demons? Yep, it’s a legitimate theory.
        What’s not to love about that?

        For what it’s worth, then people say “aliens”, they usually mean “extraterrestrial beings from another part of the galaxy”. I don’t believe in those.

        Well, of course not. That would be silly.

        That doesn’t mean that I can’t believe that some legitimate* alien encounters and possible abductions may be demons (evil, interdimensional beings).

        Much more sensible. Entirely level-headed.
        Please give us more details on this. Evil, interdimentional demons and their abductions need to be exposed.

        Like

      • Much more sensible. Entirely level-headed.

        Second and final response: I’m not sure you have much ground to stand on when talking about another’s “sense” or lack thereof. You believe that complex objects create themselves, that life comes from non-life, and that everything comes from nothing. Seems to me that you’ve got enough problems to deal with apart from any theories regarding aliens and UFOs. Maybe you should focus on those instead?

        Please give us more details on this. Evil, interdimentional demons and their abductions need to be exposed.

        Well, I’m not into spoon-feeding. If you’re not going to take the time to reference the numerous documents and names I’ve referenced in the thread, you’re not going to read or look at anything else I put up now, are you? There are plenty of references there. I challenge you to check them out.

        Joshua

        Like

      • Josh:

        “I’m not sure you have much ground to stand on when talking about another’s “sense” or lack thereof. You believe that complex objects create themselves, that life comes from non-life, and that everything comes from nothing. Seems to me that you’ve got enough problems to deal with apart from any theories regarding aliens and UFOs. Maybe you should focus on those instead?”

        Worrrrd.

        Like

      • Oh come on, Joshua.
        Don’t be like that.
        You ran up a flag and nobody saluting. No biggie.
        SC isn’t biting and neither is Getic. Yet maybe that will change?
        Oh pretty please!

        Even “aliens” as being demons. In response, Joshua provided me with resources for my edification.

        Perhaps those resource will pursuade SC of the whole aliens being demons thingy with an abductions combo?
        That would be very interesting. Really interesting.

        I really hope that SC and Getic take the time to reference the numerous documents and names you’ve referenced in the thread and that they carefully read or look at anything else you put up now. There are plenty of references there. I’m sure they will take you up on your challenge to check them out. I know that I have.
        No doubt, they will come to the same reasoned conclusions that you have. I just hope they share. In great detail.

        These fallen angels can also manifest into the physical realm, moving objects, even causing injuries, while they either may be perceived, or remain invisible in the spiritual realm. I see nothing in the alien abduction phenomenon which can not be explained in the Biblically known abilities and deceptive agenda of fallen angels…

        Yep, it’s all there.

        The expert, majority opinion of Christians who have studied the alien phenomenon extensively is that what the world popularly calls “aliens” today, is in fact deceiving spirits, teaching doctrines of devils, setting the world up for a strong delusion that will embrace the New World Order, one-world government, anti-christ ruler when he appears. That’s the big picture…

        Gripping stuff.
        It deserves a close look.
        Honestly, Joshua, I can safely say this is one of the best researched topics you’ve brought up on this blog.

        Like

  4. You said: “There are enough names and texts referenced in that short amount of space to give readers see that the aliens-are-demons theory is a legitimate theory”

    Arthur C Clarke was one of the names you quoted, suggesting you believed he was bolstering the theory. It is a big stretch to cite ACC saying he doesn’t believe UFO sightings are caused by aliens, and say that this supports demons as a legitimate alternative. I could conjecture that a man was killed by voodoo, and cite as legitimacy a pathologist stating he didn’t believe the man died of natural causes. The fact that the expert ruled out, say, a heart attack or stroke, doesn’t really support my argument in any but the most tenuous of ways. I might as well state that the existence of Zeus or Thor is legitimate because lots of Christian apologists argue that a God exists.

    You said you don’t give more than two responses. That’s two from me, so I’ll leave it there.

    Like

    • Arthur C Clarke was one of the names you quoted, suggesting you believed he was bolstering the theory. It is a big stretch to cite ACC saying he doesn’t believe UFO sightings are caused by aliens, and say that this supports demons as a legitimate alternative.

      Second and final response: No, I didn’t. As I pointed out in my previous comment to your criticism, the quotes were used to indicate the necessity of alternatives to the traditional aliens-are-highly-evolved-beings-from-somewhere-in-the-galaxy theory. The aliens-are-demons theory is just one of the alternatives, as is that aliens are actually coming to Earth to see where Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected suggested in the cartoon (which presupposes the former traditional theory of aliens).

      You’ve descended into exaggerations and that’s telling. You don’t want to deal with the issue or provide any alternative explanations.

      Move along, please.

      Joshua

      Like

  5. synapticcohesion writes,

    A lot of atheists believe that aliens possibly/probably created us. Even Dawkins said that he thought that it was a possibility. :|

    *shakes head*

    A lot? Wow. That really surprises me if true. I’ve yet to come across a single atheist who believes aliens might have created us, but, hey, if you’ve got the evidence… and you do have the evidence, right? Lots, meaning a significant number. There must be data out there somewhere for such an extraordinary claim. You are actually suggesting that not just lots of atheists but Dawkins himself believes that it is a possibility that aliens created us. I don’t buy that one second. I think you’re just making stuff up here, synapticcohesion. Please, prove me wrong.

    Oh, and don’t think that “life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth” is equivalent to being “aliens possibly created us.” The two meanings are light years apart because Dawkins also states that “even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved.” That stands in direct contradiction to the notion you make that Dawkins thinks there is a possibility of humanity being “created” by aliens.

    I do, however, think you have the right idea of shaking your head. To assist you in clarifying your thoughts by such a manner, may I suggest trying a paint shaking machine?

    Like

    • “I do, however, think you have the right idea of shaking your head. To assist you in clarifying your thoughts by such a manner, may I suggest trying a paint shaking machine?”

      Ba-dum-bum!

      Thank you, tildeb will be here all day.

      Like

    • Aliens may have “seeded” us? I wish Dawkins would explain this. Are we plants? Does Dawkins know about some incredible advances in science that I don’t know about to make his loony theory plausible?

      *sigh*

      Intelligent designers can be “advanced” alien beings, but cannot be a higher being if He’s known as “God.”

      Makes perfectly logical sense.

      Like

      • Two things… sorry, three things here.

        First, Dawkins is talking strictly about the first replicating cell that could have been designed by some alien technology, but says there should be some kind of ‘signature’ for this. There isn’t.

        Second, you are using the movie Expelled! that has received blanket condemnation for misrepresenting those interviewed (many time under false pretenses). If you truly want an explanation for the notion of alien seeding, then don’t – as our Getic.Apolo is so very fond of doing – use such dubious sources. Go the the source and read some of Dawkins’ excellent books.

        Third, I notice you skip entirely my criticism that you misrepresent Dawkins supporting your claim that aliens may have ‘created’ humans. Admit it, synapticcohesion, he does No. Such. Thing.

        This raises an interesting question solely for your own consideration: how could you have miscomprehended Dawkins to such an extraordinary extent? After all, the man is a notable evolutionary biologist. This should have been a rather obvious clue that he could not support both the claim to creationism (by either alien intelligent design for humanity or Oogity Boogity!) while, at the same time, calling himself an evolutionary biologist. The two do not and cannot coexist any more than celibacy and intercourse. You either have one or the other but not both (unless you torture the language to such an extent that one means the other).

        And I mention the head shaking because it’s so incredibly arrogant of you to assume it is you who stands above another on some intellectual level (because of your willingness to prostitute reality in the service of your faith-based beliefs)… especially based on the fact that it is you suffering from miscomprehension but seemingly unwilling to even own up to that bone-headed grasp of what another is actually saying.

        Like

      • Aliens may have “seeded” us? I wish Dawkins would explain this. Are we plants? Does Dawkins know about some incredible advances in science that I don’t know about to make his loony theory plausible?

        Oh, SC.
        You’ve been sucked in by liars again.
        Google is not your friend.
        Get your facts straight next time.

        Richard Dawkins does NOT believe in “little green men”.

        Like

  6. “First, Dawkins is talking strictly about the first replicating cell that could have been designed by some alien technology, but says there should be some kind of ‘signature’ for this. There isn’t.”

    First of all, tildeb, it’s “first self-replicating molecule” not “first replicating cell” as we already have those–they’re called the cells in our bodies (and of all other eukaryotes) and prokaryotes.

    Second, you are correct–there’s absolutely no evidence for aliens having seeded us, yet he maintains that it is a possibility. Why isn’t he consistent? He says that there is no God because of supposed lack of evidence, yet he does not maintain that same definitive assertion towards the possibility of aliens existing and possibly playing a role in our design. Care to speculate on why this is?

    “This raises an interesting question solely for your own consideration: how could you have miscomprehended Dawkins to such an extraordinary extent?”

    Maybe you can enlighten me, tildeb. I still do not know what Dawkins means when he talks about the possibility of aliens “seeding” us. Please demonstrate, for all of us, your superior intellect by explaining this concept to me as I am sure YOU would never blindly defend nonsense.

    Like

    • “I still do not know what Dawkins means when he talks about the possibility of aliens “seeding” us.”

      You were the one who brought it up in the first place. If you’re unsure what he actually said then either go back to the source or stop making claims about it. It comes from an interview in the Expelled movie. Watch the original interview and you’ll understand the context.

      “There’s absolutely no evidence for aliens having seeded us, yet he maintains that it is a possibility. Why isn’t he consistent? He says that there is no God because of supposed lack of evidence”

      Dawkins was asked if he could rule out the possibility that aliens seeded us, and he honestly replied no – regardless of how unlikely it was, or how little evidence there was to support the idea, one couldn’t prove it was impossible. As Tildeb pointed out, Dawkins’ point was that even if one allows that it’s possible, he would still ultimately point to evolution as the cause, as the aliens themselves would have to have started as simpler organisms.

      On God, Dawkins never said there isn’t one. In The God Delusion he said he considers it it very unlikely and doesn’t believe there is a God. You can say you don’t believe in something without ruling it out as a possibility. It’s a statement of belief, not knowledge. In fact, his position on God seems pretty much the same as his position on panspermia. So I see no inconsistency.

      Like

      • ““I still do not know what Dawkins means when he talks about the possibility of aliens “seeding” us.”

        You were the one who brought it up in the first place. If you’re unsure what he actually said then either go back to the source or stop making claims about it. It comes from an interview in the Expelled movie. Watch the original interview and you’ll understand the context.”

        I was the one to post that segment from the video right here/ (check previous comments). I brought it up to highlight the fact that there are many atheists that promote the believe in aliens and alien design of human beings (if not all life on earth).

        “Dawkins was asked if he could rule out the possibility that aliens seeded us, and he honestly replied no – regardless of how unlikely it was, or how little evidence there was to support the idea, one couldn’t prove it was impossible.”

        Wrong; Dawkins was asked where he that magical and mystically elusive, “self-replicating molecule” came from. He responded with an “aliens-could-have-done-it” story.

        “As Tildeb pointed out, Dawkins’ point was that even if one allows that it’s possible, he would still ultimately point to evolution as the cause, as the aliens themselves would have to have started as simpler organisms.”

        Simpler organisms that evolved from some elusive, self-replicating “magic” molecule; no doubt. Maybe a more highly-evolved alien species made them, too.

        Like

    • you are correct–there’s absolutely no evidence for aliens having seeded us, yet he maintains that it is a possibility.

      Seeded us? Us… as in humanity. There you go again, with your creationist bent to try to force reality to fit your beliefs. You’re just going to continue to let this clunker of a gross misrepresentation sit out there and pretend it has nothing to do with you and everything to do with Dawkins (along with a few head shakes to show your disappointment) when I’ve shown that you, not he, is its only source. Why don’t you have the integrity to correct the mistake you continue to make here and start shaking your head at your own dishonest tactics?

      Like

      • Tildeb, are you really that surprised? Remember this is the same person who claimed Table Talk is an accurate representation of Hitler’s beliefs, and then ignored the book’s numerous references to a deity so he could claim Hitler was an atheist.

        Like

      • I’m a big believer that a lack of knowledge often leads us into thinking that we understand something when we don’t. And that’s okay. We’re always learning. And learning is a really good reason, I think, for overhauling a previous opinion or belief and replacing it with one better informed. Mind you, I don’t identify myself with a particular opinion as many believers seem to do with their faith so it’s much easier for me to change my mind (as I’ve done, for example, on climate change) because better knowledge is a pretty good reason for doing so!

        What I don’t get is how some people – in spite of the obvious cost to one’s intellectual integrity – won’t do this yet seem determined to advertise this flaw as if it were a good thing. While I don’t think any belief or opinion is worth holding on to if it means I must throw away my intellectual integrity, I think it’s pretty clear that synapticcohesion obviously feels no similar attachment to his, so it’s a hardly considered a sacrifice of integrity when he believes his allegiance to a faith-based claim is more important than respecting whether or not the claim is, in fact, true. For me, however, that cost is way too high.

        Synapticcohesion makes a bunch of claims that are wrong, claims that reflect badly on others, claims that misrepresent and distort reality. He doesn’t seem to care, which is only surprising to those of us who do.

        Like

    • Second, you are correct–there’s absolutely no evidence for aliens having seeded us, yet he maintains that it is a possibility.

      As does Dembski.
      Lots of things are “possibilities”. Bigfoot is a possibility. Magic, invisible men in the sky is a possibility. Pixies are a possibility.
      (shrug)
      Doesn’t mean he thinks that there really are aliens or that they did anything.

      He says that there is no God because of supposed lack of evidence…

      Quote? No?
      Ah, I see. What does he actually say?
      Hmm.
      Fortunately, we live in the age of Google.
      Behold….

      Science Can’t Disprove God – Richard Dawkins @ UC Berkeley

      Like

  7. ““I still do not know what Dawkins means when he talks about the possibility of aliens “seeding” us.”

    You were the one who brought it up in the first place. If you’re unsure what he actually said then either go back to the source or stop making claims about it. It comes from an interview in the Expelled movie. Watch the original interview and you’ll understand the context.”

    I was the one to post that segment from the video right here (see previous comments). I brought it up to highlight the fact that there are many atheists that promote the belief in aliens and alien design of human beings (if not all life on earth).

    “Dawkins was asked if he could rule out the possibility that aliens seeded us, and he honestly replied no – regardless of how unlikely it was, or how little evidence there was to support the idea, one couldn’t prove it was impossible.”

    Wrong; Dawkins was asked where that magical and mystically elusive, “self-replicating molecule” came from. He responded with an “aliens-could-have-done-it” story.

    “As Tildeb pointed out, Dawkins’ point was that even if one allows that it’s possible, he would still ultimately point to evolution as the cause, as the aliens themselves would have to have started as simpler organisms.”

    Simpler organisms that evolved from some elusive, self-replicating “magic” molecule; no doubt. Maybe a more highly-evolved alien species made them, too.

    Like

    • Ok, I just took my own advice and went to the source, Dawkins. Here’s what he said:

      ” Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws.

      So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek).

      The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe).”

      Like

      • Note, for emphasis: ” even in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved…”

        Like

      • Why are you afraid to watch the video segment, Andrew?

        Yes Dawkins made a fool out of himself, but that’s a reflection of the harsh reality that you can’t seem to grasp: Dawkins is a fool.

        You’re quoting what Dawkins said after embarrassing himself on Stein’s show–it’s damage control. Unsurprisingly, he misrepresents the exchange that he had with Stein. He claimed that Stein had asked him for an ID scenario. That is a lie. He also claimed that he only proposed the alien ID theory in order to appease Stein. Another lie. The truth–which can be confirmed if you watch the video clip and hear the exchange for yourself–is that Stein simply asked Dawkins where the alleged “self-replicating molecule” came from. I’m sure that Stein (as did I) expected Dawkins to come up with some sort of far-fetched abiogenetic theory that sounded “scientific.” But, no–Dawkins surprised us all with his loony, “aliens-could-have-done-it” scenario which earned him so much ridicule.

        And unfortunately, the only evidence of “panspermia” I see is of Dawkins seeding the minds of his blind (gullible) followers and defenders.

        Like

    • “He claimed that Stein had asked him for an ID scenario. That is a lie.”

      You are aware that the clip is from an edited piece of film, not a live interview? I’m going to take a guess that you don’t know how these things are put together… The clip will have reduced an hour or so of chat down to a few minutes. You have no idea what question RD was actually answering and what the preamble to it was.

      Until you find me unedited roll footage of the interview you have no authority to pompously declare what is a lie.

      Like

      • “You are aware that the clip is from an edited piece of film, not a live interview? I’m going to take a guess that you don’t know how these things are put together… The clip will have reduced an hour or so of chat down to a few minutes. You have no idea what question RD was actually answering and what the preamble to it was.

        Until you find me unedited roll footage of the interview you have no authority to pompously declare what is a lie.”

        If even Dawkins isn’t claiming that Stein had edited his response, then why are you?

        Like

    • Do you realise how easy it would have been for Stein and the Expelled producers to refute Dawkins’ accusation? Just release the unedited footage. Why do you reckon they’ve not done that?

      Like

      • When you ask synapticcohesion to think, you are asking too much. He believes. This is the blueprint he mistakes for reality. This is the same blueprint that Stein and the movie appeals to so synapticcohesion dutifully lines up and swallows what he’s told to swallow… not because it’s true but because he’s told to believe it is true. For him, this is sufficient. For anyone not shackled to his blueprint (a set of superstitious beliefs that we know does not accurately reflect reality) the gullibility needed by Stein to make the plot line believable is obvious as it is painful. Synapticcohesion simply demonstrates how and why his reliance on belief to describe reality makes him a gullible fool unwilling and seemingly unable to think for himself. He is the target audience for Stein and he does not disappoint playing his role in the charade.

        Like

      • “Do you realise how easy it would have been for Stein and the Expelled producers to refute Dawkins’ accusation? Just release the unedited footage. Why do you reckon they’ve not done that?”

        There’s no reason to. Dawkins is on the defensive–not Stein. If atheists can easily sue over a Nativity scene, then don’t you think they’d sue over misquoting or misrepresenting their position?

        But that never happened because they have no case and Dawkins never claimed to have one. The only case that exists is in your own imagination.

        Like

    • “If even Dawkins isn’t claiming that Stein had edited his response, then why are you?”

      Please quote me making that claim. I said no such thing. You made the liar claim (to me or Dawkins) that RD’s answer was in response to a particular question. I clearly replied “You have no idea what question RD was actually answering and what the preamble to it was”. This is nothing to do with editing RD’s response. Rather, it directly addressed the claim you made that RD’s reply was in response to a particular question from Stein.

      Like

  8. Cedric said:

    “Richard Dawkins does NOT believe in “little green men”.”

    Really. He distinctly claims that his scenario is a possibility (no one told him to imagine that scenario, much less ponder the possibility). And yet he has never said the same about a God scenario. Perhaps he doesn’t really care about what people believe in–as long as they don’t believe in God.

    Like

    • “Richard Dawkins does NOT believe in “little green men”.”

      Really.

      Yes, really.
      If Richard Dawkins really did believe in LGM’s then I expect him to say so.
      A simple “Yes, I believe in little green men” would do it.
      Knowing Dawkins, he’d go into the details and probably give a lengthy interview about it. Maybe even write another best seller.
      Heck, given the market for that stuff and Dawkins stardom, he’d make a fortune!
      Instead, he laughs about it and makes Ben Stein look desperate.

      All he’s said is that it’s a possibility.
      I’d be happy to say the same thing.
      Lot’s of things are possibilities.

      For example, it’s possible there are demons.
      Demons from another dimension.

      Possible? Um, sure. I guess so.

      Demonic, inter-dimensional beings bent on hurting people?
      Ok.
      I can’t prove that such things don’t exist…so….um….maybe.
      Does that mean I believe such fantastical things exist?
      No, of course not.
      Yet if I asked someone if they really believed in such stuff and they said “I do” then, well, I’d have no choice but to take them at their word.
      (Though I’d hope that they change their mind about it very quickly.)

      If you tried to tell me that you believed such things I’d assume you were being sarcastic. Explaining alien abduction phenomenon via the Biblically known abilities and deceptive agenda of fallen angels backed up by “the expert, majority opinion of mystery Christians”?
      Ah huh.
      Sure.
      I’d be strongly tempted to label it a loony theory straight away.
      I am sure that people of superior intellect would never blindly defend such nonsense. Even if your best friend posted it on his blog, you’d probably just keep fairly quiet about it and let the matter drop.
      Though if you were a genuine friend you’d try to reach out to them and set them straight rather that let them make fools of themselves.
      It’s just very silly.

      Is it possible?
      Yeah but….pretty much anything’s possible.
      (shrug)
      Special programme – Promo: Dawkins on religion

      Like

  9. Andrew said:

    “You have no idea what question RD was actually answering and what the preamble to it was”. This is nothing to do with editing RD’s response.”

    If you edit someone else’s words to misrepresent what they were responding to, then there’s no difference. If the response had been edited–placed after the wrong question. Dawkins would sue. Or at least complain about and call Stein out on it as Dawkins is clearly not one to be polite and practice restraint as he has no problem calling Stein an “honestly stupid man”–and calling others “IDiots.”

    Like

    • “If the response had been edited–placed after the wrong question. Dawkins would sue.”

      Might as well say that if Dawkins’ account of the interview had been false, the film-makers would have sued.

      The only people I know who still bleat on about Dawkins and space aliens are creationists (plus the ‘IDiots’ who claim ID isn’t just about God, because it could also be aliens who did the ‘intelligent designing’). No-one else takes the claim seriously that Dawkins believes such a thing, as he made it quite clear that he doesn’t. And even you admit that such a claim from him would be inconsistent with other things he’s said.

      “Or at least complain about and call Stein out on it”

      He did call Stein out in it. I already quoted him doing just that. You’re going round in circles now, and I’ve wasted enough time on it. How much more of your own time you waste is up to you.

      Like

      • ““Or at least complain about and call Stein out on it”

        He did call Stein out in it. I already quoted him doing just that. You’re going round in circles now, and I’ve wasted enough time on it. How much more of your own time you waste is up to you.”

        No he didn’t. He just whined about Stein supposedly making look like he believes in aliens when he has no one to blame but himself. He never claimed that Stein and his crew did any editing of the interview. Only you make that wild claim.

        Like

      • Dawkins needs to be fair; if he’s going to give some credibility to the possibility of aliens and alien designers, he better give some credence to the possibility of God and God as a designer. Otherwise he’s nothing more than a hack with a specific agenda: the atheist agenda.

        Like

  10. Knowing Dawkins, he’d go into the details and probably give a lengthy interview about it.

    Yep, I knew it.
    (Thank you, Google. Thank you. You are such a good friend to me.)

    Dawkins is not shy about sharing his opinions openly and honestly on the topic of aliens.
    There’s no need to zero in on an isolated quote or single instance.
    If you really want to know what he says then read up on it and/or watch his videos.
    He keeps good company. Neil degrasse Tyson and he get along very well on the subject.

    On Extraterrestrials

    Like

  11. ” He never claimed that Stein and his crew did any editing of the interview. Only you make that wild claim.”

    He said he was answering a particular question. It is YOU who said that must be a lie, though you have no evidence of that. So either Dawkins is lying, and he was never asked such a question, or he’s telling the truth and he was. I don’t need to make any claims here except that I find the latter more believable. As Cedric pointed out, if RD believed what you think he does, he’d just come out and say it. It’s hardly like Stein filmed him secretly.

    And if you’re claiming the Expelled film-makers did ‘no editing of the interview’, then again you’re betraying your ignorance of how films are made and how interviews are made. Do you really think the original interview was exactly the length it appears in the film? Dawkins sat there for a few minutes talking to Stein and then they called it a wrap? I’ve taken part in countless interviews. Almost always, for a start, the shots where you see the interviewer asking the questions were filmed after the interview finished. One also films “the nods” afterwards, where you just ask both parties to nod or react for the camera, for editing purposes. A wild claim? Not really.

    Your second post, of 5:13pm, shows you still don’t understand the point Dawkins was actually making.

    Like

  12. “Your second post, of 5:13pm, shows you still don’t understand the point Dawkins was actually making.”

    Sure I do. Dawkins is saying that magic can happen if it is a “slow, evolutionary process”, but it “can’t just jump into existence.”

    Makes perfect sense.

    Like

    • Still no evidence for your claim that A lot of atheists believe that aliens possibly/probably created us. Even Dawkins said that he thought that it was a possibility, I see, nor an alternative admission that you were just making stuff up.

      But I’ll wait….

      Like

      • I haven’t met a single “aliens-made-us believer” that was also a theist–as that would be a contradiction. So that would make them an atheist by default, now wouldn’t it?

        Like

      • No, that would not make them atheist by default. That’s really lazy thinking.

        Perhaps you assume that anyone who isn’t a creationist like you must be an atheist but I can assure you that many people do not consider themselves so, who espouse both belief in god or gods but also endorse evolution right here on earth for our common ancestry. Many get around this problem by believing that from god we get our souls, for example.

        Prior to the latest spurt of belief in some kind of Oogity Boogity creationism, many people considered themselves deists without this belief in some vague god impacting in any way their pondering of alien visitations. Clearly, none of these folk were atheist as long as they believed in a god or gods. But you could have figured this out quite easily if you were able to actually answer the call for evidence for your claim rather than try to worm your way out of doing so.

        Like

      • A lot of atheists believe that aliens possibly/probably created us. Even Dawkins said that he thought that it was a possibility,…

        It’s statements like this that put into question your personal integrity.
        If someone is going to say ” A lot of “(insert the group of your choice) believe in (insert the belief of your choice) then you should be prepared to instantly back it up with primary sources when called upon it.
        It’s the right thing to do.
        If it turns out that you spoke in haste…then withdraw the claim.
        Anything else is just digging a deeper hole for yourself and reflects badly on you.

        I haven’t met…

        Really bad beginning. For all the rest of us know, you live in your mother’s basement.
        (And no, that was not an invitation for you to proclaim how sociable you are.)
        Either you can back up …a lot of “(insert the group of your choice) believe in (insert the belief of your choice) or you can’t.
        Your personal experiences are neither here nor there.
        The plural of anecdote is not data.

        I haven’t met a single “aliens-made-us believer” that was also a theist–as that would be a contradiction.

        Well, no. It wouldn’t. It’s not an either/or situation.
        Seriously, think about it. Examine your built-in assumptions.

        So that would make them an atheist by default, now wouldn’t it?

        No.
        Look, if you don’t know what is an atheist then look it up.
        Just go to a mainstream atheist website or something and see how they describe themselves.
        There’s no jargon or lengthy text to wade through.
        No manifesto.
        No worldview to subscribe to.
        No set of rules.
        No club to join.
        Finding out what an atheist is very simple. It’s only a google search away.

        One can be an atheist and believe in aliens.
        One can be an atheist and not believe in aliens.
        One can be an atheist and never have even considered the possibility.
        (shrug)
        One’s got nothing to do with the other.

        Lack of belief in gods

        Like

      • Cedric and Tildeb, remember that Synaptic claims to have met atheists who think ‘God is inside them’. He also seems to define atheist as anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist Christian – his evidence for Hitler’s atheism basically came down to a few quotes that were critical of mainstream Christianity or the church in general. He had no answer at all to the many quotes from Hitler referencing his God.

        Like

      • Synaptic claims to have met atheists who think ‘God is inside them’.

        Interesting company he keeps.
        (Very confused company, but interesting.)

        Quotes? No?
        Oh.

        Like

  13. The only “Oogity Boogity” that exists, tildeb, is you and your beloved Dawkins’ “maaaagic molecule” that came out of nowhere from, who knows? Just believe in it because we say it’s “scientific.”

    *siiiiiiiiigh*

    Like

    • Can someone remind me of where the cohesion in his moniker shows up anywhere in these commentary offerings? He makes a ridiculous claim, I ask for evidence, and he starts posting Ed Sullivan segments! How is this cohesive? It seems to me to be just another example in a very, very long line of comments that demonstrates a commitment to maintain a very, very deep confusion.

      Like

      • I think it’s meant to distract you. If I was the type of person who posted video clips in lieu of arguments (as opposed to Cedric posting videos that support or make an argument), I guess I’d illustrate that with a clip of the Wizard of Oz commanding Dorothy to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

        Like

      • “He makes a ridiculous claim, I ask for evidence, and he starts posting Ed Sullivan segments!”

        Where’s the proof of Dawkins’ “magic molecule?” Or are we supposed to rely on faith?

        I had already provided evidence of Dawkins’ dabbling in alien seeding conspiracy theories (or creation stories). If you choose to ignore it or dismiss it as being fixed/altered/edited, then that is your problem with paranoia issues–not mine.

        Like

      • Sigh

        A lot of atheists believe that aliens possibly/probably created us. Even Dawkins said that he thought that it was a possibility.

        Claim A: A lot of atheists believe that aliens possibly/probably created us.

        Evidence provided: I haven’t met a single “aliens-made-us believer” that was also a theist–as that would be a contradiction.

        That’s not supporting evidence, synapticcohesion. That’s anecdote, which is why Cedric continues to point out that the plural of anecdote is not data. In addition, it has been pointed out to your that there is no such contradiction unless you only equate your kind of creationism with theism, in which case your anecdotal evidence exists only in your own mind based solely as it is on your own definitions.

        Claim B: Even Dawkins said that he thought that it (aliens created us) was a possibility.

        Evidence provided: Well, he said something sort of related used in the discredited docudrama Expelled!.

        That’s not evidence. That’s misrepresentation not just from Stein and the editors but from you, as well. It’s been pointed out several times in several ways using several sources that you have misrepresented Dawkins.

        Conclusion: your claims are false. You’re just making stuff up and refusing to own up to it. You don’t want to learn. You just want to be a strident and shrill militant creationist pretending to be synaptically cohesive in your dedication not to what’s true but to what you believe. (What were the chances? Fair to middlin’ as my Grandmother would have said I should have known.)

        Like

  14. “He makes a ridiculous claim, I ask for evidence, and he starts posting Ed Sullivan segments!”

    Where’s the proof of blah, blah, blah?

    “Whataboutism is a propaganda tactic originally used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. The tactic was used when criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, wherein the response would be “What about…” followed by the naming of an event in the Western world loosely similar to the original item of criticism.
    (…)
    See also tu quoque ”
    (Wikipedia)

    I had already provided evidence of Dawkins’ dabbling in alien seeding conspiracy theories…

    No, you haven’t. If you did, you would quote it.
    In detail. In context. Sans creative editing or interpretation or spin.
    Anything else is a misrepresentation.
    Ninth Commandment, remember?

    This is the internet. Any person curious about what Dawkins thinks about aliens doesn’t have to rely upon you.
    They can look it up for themselves on google and get multiple hits from many different sources. From there, it’s an easy job to zero in on primary sources of information.
    Dawkins is famous.
    He’s written books, articles and given interviews. His position on a variety of topics is well-known because he’s not shy about going on about them in great detail.
    There’s no need to cling to a mined quote when you have multiple primary sources to draw upon. The only people that you will fool are the foolish.

    People like myself and tildeb and Andrew use the internet.
    We know how to google.
    (It’s incredible easy and fast)
    When you tell a fib…we find it out very quickly. It’s routine by now.
    Back in the old days, you could have said any old nonsense down at the bar in the haze of cigarette smoke because instant verification was not possible and people in a casual conversation had to just let things slide.

    Yet now we have the internet.
    Instant access to primary sources such as speeches, articles, photos, science journals, etc.
    Claiming that somebody said something or believes something when they clearly do not tells a reader nothing about the person you are trying to smear but it speaks volumes about your lack of moral character and your willingness to lie no matter what the cost.
    You are left with nothing but music videos and empty retorts.
    You are doing your own side no favours.

    Lying For Jesus

    Like

  15. Dawkins has no one else to blame but himself for the holes he digs for himself. If the belief in higher power with greater abilities than we have is a “virus of the mind,” then why is he supposedly “conceding” for Stein et al. with alien creation stories? Is that a good strategy for obliterating this “virus?” If you want a drug addict to stop, do you “concede” by giving in a handing them over a little bit and continue on with you “anti-drug crusade?”

    So no, Dawkins has no excuse. He is a hypocrite. A joke. He’ll “concede” or “placate” with alien creation stories (even though though the person he’s “placating” is a Christian who does not believe that God is an alien), but would never dream of placating a Christian with a actual creation scenario involving God.

    That, folks, would be called having an anti-religious agenda.

    Like

    • Religion is the virus, synapticcohesion, merely one product of faith-based belief. There are many – including conspiracies such the one you like to believe in: an atheist agenda. There is no agenda… other than criticizing religion and its associated beliefs in public. And Dawkins has ‘placated’ those religionists by describing his non belief in any god or gods as a 6 on a scale out of 7, similar (although you don’t comprehend it) to his willingness to grant alien seeding of life on earth as an equally remote possibility. Of course, this is all tentative in that compelling evidence from reality would cause him to reassess… as it would any of us who exercise critical thinking. And, to be clear, there is zero evidence from reality for the kind of creation scenario you consider reasonable. It is that lack of compelling evidence that reveals the hole you’re standing in… believing it only by faith to be a mountain.

      Like

      • “There are many – including conspiracies such the one you like to believe in: an atheist agenda.”

        Not unlike your (and Andrew’s) conspiracy that Dawkins was edited to look like he was giving credence to an alien creation story–one that he made up himself.

        But I’m sure that was all just “fancy editing.”

        Like

      • Not unlike your (and Andrew’s)…

        “Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone’s point of view based on criticism of the person’s inconsistency, and not the position presented, whereas a person’s inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.”
        (Wikipedia)

        Like

  16. “Not unlike your (and Andrew’s) conspiracy that Dawkins was edited to look like…”

    Hardly a conspiracy. I already pointed out that ALL interviews are edited, stitched together, extra bits added filmed after the interview was finished. And it’s not even like I’m saying “Trickery must have been performed to create this bizarre impression”, as I don’t even think a bizarre impression has been created. The only people who are insisting the video shows Dawkins believing in aliens seeding life on earth is you and other creationists. You are also the conspiracy believers here, as you seem to think Dawkins accidentally revealed he believes something that he has clearly said everywhere else that he sees no evidence for.

    Finally, if you genuinely believe creationists never use dodgy editing, google ‘Richard Dawkins ‘stumped’ hoax videos exposed’ on Youtube, for a before and after expose of a Dawkins interview widely distributed online by creationists.

    Like

  17. Finally, if you genuinely believe creationists never use dodgy editing, google ‘Richard Dawkins ‘stumped’ hoax videos exposed’ on Youtube, for a before and after expose of a Dawkins interview widely distributed online by creationists.

    He won’t get it.
    It’s cruel of you to put him to such an “onerous” task.
    He’ll probably google “Dawkins” and “stumped”, find the hoax video and take it at face value just like the people that made the video want him to in the first place.
    Then it will be all “herp, derp, har, har, Dawkins stumped for an answer”.
    It won’t occur to him that there’s a reason why you volunteered the information in the first place.
    He didn’t twig to Stein, nor Lennox and he’s probably not going to get CreationOnTheWeb.
    He just won’t get it.

    Like

  18. “Finally, if you genuinely believe creationists never use dodgy editing, google ‘Richard Dawkins ‘stumped’ hoax videos exposed’ on Youtube, for a before and after expose of a Dawkins interview widely distributed online by creationists.”

    What does that have to do with anything? It seems to be an act of desperation on your part to bring up unrelated past events. Even if they were true, it has nothing to do with this situation where Dawkins–to supposedly placate a creationist–makes up an alien creation story. And worse yet, asserts that that is a possibility (albeit a remote one).

    Stein never put a knife to anyone’s throat, so Dawkins has no excuse for his “placating” alien story. He could have just simply said, “No, we need to avoid silly creation stories for which there’s no evidence for. Period.” But did he do that? No. Again, he has no one to blame but himself–and all the ridicule that he gets is richly deserved.

    Like

  19. Dawkins: Life began with the first self-replicating molecule.

    Stein: How did that self replicating molecule come to be?

    Dawkins: I don’t know. I just know that’s how it all began. Stop questioning me, science hater.

    Stein: Is it possible that intelligent design produced this “self replicating molecule?”

    Dawkins: Perhaps. But only if it were a higher, more evolved form of life–like alien beings. We don’t have the technology for this, nor is there any evidence for this, but I think that higher evolved beings could actually design and seed life with special, advanced technology.

    Stein: So, in the real world, we cannot design life–we can only alter the life that already exists. But you believe in the possibility of somehow evolving enough to be able to design life.

    Dawkins: Precisely. You are not as moronic as I assumed you were. I don’t know how it all started, I just know that it couldn’t have all jumped into existence.

    Stein: How do you know that?

    Dawkins: I don’t. I don’t “know” anything, for certain as I am not a fundamentalist like you. Are we even here? How do you know?

    Stein: O….K….
    If aliens evolved a technology to create a “self-replicating molecule,” wouldn’t that mean that they have an ability to make life…”jump into existence?”

    Dawkins: Uhhh….

    Stein: Thank you for you time, Mr. Dawkins.

    Dawkins: You’re a moron. And a poopy head.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s