See other Religion Articles
Title: Americans believe in God -- and hell, UFOs, witches, astrology: poll (and miracles - we could use one)
Source:
Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Americ ... n_God_and_hell_U_12042007.html
Published: Dec 4, 2007
Author: AFP
Post Date: 2007-12-04 17:15:46 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 1491
Comments: 110
An overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God and signicant numbers also think that UFOs, the devil and ghosts exist, a poll showed Tuesday. The survey by Harris Online showed that 82 percent of adult Americans believe in God and a slightly smaller percentage -- 79 percent -- believe in miracles. More than 70 percent of the 2,455 adults surveyed between November 7 and 13 said they believe in heaven and angels, while more than six in 10 said they believed in hell and the devil. Almost equal numbers said they believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (42 percent) -- the belief that populations evolve over time through natural selection -- and creationism (39 percent) -- the theory that God created mankind. Seventy percent of Americans said they were very (21 percent) or somewhat (49 percent) religious, while around one-third of those polled also said they believe in UFOs, witches and astrology.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
#21. To: robin, Alan Chapman, TwentyTwelve, all (#0)
I am short on time at the moment so I don't have time for a detailed deconstruction but note the following: By conflating all of these together it is an assertion of equivalence i.e., that UFOs=Witches=Astrology. When you see that kind of false reasoning you can know that the author is dishonest or is working PsyOps. Which of those has a substantial body of objective evidence and credible witnesses? UFOs. Which of those has the government consistently attacked via derision and their various operatives such as Michael Schermer? UFOs. Why? Because it is a world view shifting datum which holds the potential to upset the 1984 society that is being built. The "Septics" Society and others of their ilk, such as the less than amazing Randi, have over and over again been shown to lie, use strawmen, and character assassination to advance their agenda of defending the official paradigm.
There isn't a shred of evidence of visitation by aliens in flying saucers. Even with the proliferation of billions of cameras, camera phones, and video cameras there still isn't any compelling evidence. All of those old b/w photos of flying saucers are nothing but people tossing pie pans and hub caps into the air. Witnesses are always referred to as credible. They're often unsure of what they've seen. Many have conflicting testimony. Michael Shermer is a government operative? That's laughable. He and Randi have done outstanding work exposing charlatans and quacks. I especially like the way Randi exposed Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, and James Hydrick (who later confessed to being a fraud).
In fact Alan, take a peek at post 22 while you're at it...
On June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold claimed that he'd seen nine "crescent shaped" aircraft near Mount Rainier. He said they reminded him of saucers skimming over water. An editor of the Eastern Oregonian reported that Arnold saw "round" objects. Other reports noted "disc-shaped" objects. Within a few weeks, there were hundreds of reports nationwide of sightings of flying "saucers." It's interesting how sightings become contagious. The U.S. military built and tested many flying wings during the 1940s. Here's the Northrop N-1M. It's maiden flight was in 1941. The Germans also built flying wings. Where do people know about flying saucers? Why were there a bunch of flying saucer and alien invasion movies made in the 1950s? Science-fiction magazines from the 1920s: Orson Welles' 1938 radio broadcast of War of the Worlds
Let me guess, you're going to try to tell me these are migrating birds, right?
Birds are precisely what those are, and birds are probably what the folks in Farmington saw. The behavior they witnessed perfectly describes bird behavior.
Birds are precisely what those are Hmmm, round birds without wings that glow and dart around at approximately 10,000 feet. Yep. , and birds are probably what the folks in Farmington saw. The behavior they witnessed perfectly describes bird behavior. According to witnesses, the saucer shaped objects moved at 1000 mph and in right angles, with several apparently engaged in what seemed like a "dog fight". Yeah, birds. Uh huh.
You can tell the altitude of those birds just from watching the video? They look round for several reasons. They're far away and each one takes up only a few pixels in the image. They blur and smear when he zooms in. If you understand the way digital compression works, adjacent pixels are averaged to give a smoother picture and reduce pixelation. It's called anti-aliasing. They're not perfectly spherical. If you look closely you can see that they have greater width than height. They didn't look to me like they were glowing. They looked white like seagulls. According to witnesses, the saucer shaped objects moved at 1000 mph and in right angles, with several apparently engaged in what seemed like a "dog fight". When viewed from the ground, birds may appear to be moving at high speed when passing in front of clouds. Move your hand quickly in front of your face while looking at something in the distance. Wow, your hand must've moved at thousands of miles per hour! Birds can make high speed turns which might look like right angles. They can also ascend very quickly when entering columns of warm air. I think the Farmington residents had too much to drink and took a little creative license when telling their story. You know, the one that got away is always ten times bigger in the imagination than it is in reality.
BTW Alan, these are what geese look like when they migrate. They are dark, and don't appear as glowing orbs under bright clouds. And PS, seagulls don't fly at high altitude nor in huge flocks in formation unless over the ocean at low altitude when following a fishing vessel.. The video I had posted with the bright objects in formation do not display the characteristics of any bird. These are birds Alan.
Just because something appears to be moving fast in a video doesn't mean that it is. It's also impossible to tell how high something is without points of reference to triangulate distance. In the other video there are no points of reference. You can't tell how high or fast the objects are moving, or how high the clouds are. The objects are neither glowing, nor orb shaped. They're elliptical and white which is exactly what I'd expect white birds to look like when video taped from a distance. They're also moving in formation consistent with behavior seen in birds.
And since it is absolutely categorically impossible for them to be anything else, and only a retarded slavering drooling kook would think otherwise, it can only be birds. Therefore by decree it is birds. See, I can do Septic Siunce too.
You see flying saucers and aliens everywhere because that's what you want to see. The UFO community has nothing but a bunch of fuzzy photos, blurry videos, and tall tales from attention seekers.
{snip} The point of the foregoing quotes is simply that what a person sees in observing any phenomena is highly dependent upon what they know. If someone KNOWS that UFOs are ALWAYS something other than what the evidence suggests they might be then they will fight to preserve their view of the world by interpreting the observation in terms of what they know. Thus all observations become birds, planets, swamp gas etc., ... because based upon the observers view it could not be anything else. It agrees with their world view (paradigm) of how the universe is ordered. This principle has applicability beyond exploring the phenomena of UFOs as it can be seen at play in other realms of exploratory knowledge. The difference between the discoverer of new phenomena and the pedestrian is that the discoverer seems to be able to look, analyze, and reach a conclusion which is at conflict with the “accepted” view. In other words the discoverer of new phenomena is able to look at the evidence and reach a conclusion which is at variance with what he or she has heretofore known to be. The viewpoint is "what does the evidence suggest" not "how do I explain this away within the accepted framework"? So, returning to the beginning of the circle: When someone knows something cannot be when they are presented with evidence contrary to that paradigm they simply cannot see it. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” when a new datum, observation, or theory is in conflict with the established paradigm then it will be fought, often viciously, by those who view themselves as the gatekeepers of knowledge and by those who accept upon authority the pronouncements of such gatekeepers. Generally such people are insulted, called kooks, etc., .... When the new idea represents a true revolution in how we see the universe it is frequently fought “tooth and nail”, “hammer and tongs”. Some people actually seem to feel personally threatened by new ideas. There are some good examples of this in the history of science. Gregor Mendel who developed the basic idea and theory of the inheritablity of genetic traits was derided as a kook and upon his death his research languished for nearly 100 years before being resurrected. Today it is part of the accepted paradigm. When Alfred Wegner proposed the theory of “Continental Drift” in the 1930's he was called kook and worse. “The solid continents move? Harummmph! Absurd!” In 1958-59 (The International Geophysical Year) his theory was confirmed. We know it today as the established branch of human knowledge called “Plate Tectonics”. I could cite other examples but those suffice for my point here. And the point? That when someone knows something does not exist then they cannot and will not see it regardless of the evidence. What comes to mind as a follow on is the development of the theory of the human circulatory system. The existing paradigm, developed in ancient Greece, was that the blood flowed through the body as a tide not unlike the ocean. In 1628 William Harvey introduced the idea of the circulatory system. This was a complete variance with the accepted view of the ancient Grecian Physician Galen which had been the standard for nearly 2,000 years. One of the common refrains of the day was: “I would rather err with Galen than be right with Harvey.” So, the controversy surrounding UFOs and their nature is one of conflicting world views. On one hand you have those who accept the possibility, even likelihood, that other planets exist, are inhabited by intelligent beings, and may well be technologically well in advance of what is extant on Planet Earth. On the other hand you have the view that humankind on this planet is the only island outpost of intelligence in all the universe, that it occurred uniquely, and only once by pure chance. Thus even if others might, however impossible it is, exist we are at the technologic apex of all that is achievable. The first group is willing to consider and even accept that we are not alone and are being visited by advanced civilizations who, for whatever reason, are observing us on Planet Earth. The other group violently rejects this as even a remote possibility. It is in conflict with their paradigm and they not only reject it but oppose the view violently because it is in fundamental conflict with what they know to the truth. So, in the end those who hold to the “splendid isolation – apex of creation paradigm” cannot see UFOs as anything other than phenomena that is explainable within their framework of what they know. What they see is determined by what they know. Thus glowing orbs become “Seagulls”, a glowing object rising up out of a forested marsh becomes “Swamp Gas”. Of course some observations are misidentification of natural phenomena explainable within the existing paradigm and this is taken, and illogically without foundation extended, to account for ALL observations regardless of evidence. In other words they would rather “Err with Randi than be right with Friedman”.
As a follow-up on this point I might point out this is also why the Darwinian versus Creationist debate is so heated. Materialism can brook no opposition. Without expressing a viewpoint of my own - the Darwinian/Evolutionist viewpoint has been shot full of buckshot and the Darwinian Camp is becoming increasingly nasty as their position continues to erode, because it is NOT supported by the available evidence. This becomes clearer if you read some of the arguments presented by the leading lights of the Creationist argument. Even more galling to the Darwinists is that a few well educated Scientists have defected to the Creationist viewpoint. They were convinced by the evidence, or lack thereof, in support of the Darwinist Religion. As well many of the supporters of the Darwinian paradigm are atheists and oppose creationism in any form NOT because of science but because their philosophical materialist viewpoint does not allow them to accept the possibility because they KNOW that God does not exist and therefore creationism is impossible. Again it is the same argument, logically speaking, as the so-called UFO Skeptics, who again do not truly practice skepticism but are in FACT advocates for the existing officially propounded paradigm. Taking this a step further the Darwinians CANNOT, and again they are largely the same septics that are "UFO Skeptics" (i.e., "anti-" advocates for a point of view) accept that some UFOs might be operated by intelligent beings from somewhere else as that violates their world view as well. Remember that part of the septic/Darwinian world view is that: "...the view that humankind on this planet is the only island outpost of intelligence in all the universe, that it occurred uniquely, and only once by pure chance. ..." If they accept that there is intelligent life elsewhere than Island Earth that destroys the Darwinian argument that life is a "chance occurrence that occurred by pure chance and is unique to Planet Earth". Once that is accepted it is bye bye Darwin. As one can see, and I could add another line of argument i.e., the photographs of Mars and the Moon which appear to show artificial structures on the planetary surface, the Materialist viewpoint is eroding and it is being eroded by the accumulating weight of evidence that is contrary to their pronouncements. Of course I might point out that the septics go ballistic over those photographs too - again they do not agree with the viewpoint the septics push and thus since the evidence is contrary it must be shouted down and suppressed. Heaven forbid that it should be objectively examined.
I'm coming to the table here late, but this controversy/subject is intriguing. Creationism suffers from not being a provable theory. It is pretty much a "default" theory. That is, it's the theory one may believe when no other option looks attractive, or at least *until* another option becomes attractive at which time it's subject to being abandoned until that alternate theory loses appeal. If it were a provable theory, then it could stand on its own regardless of what other theories abound. I myself believe in a higher power, but I have no problem accepting that evolution was the mechanism of our creation by that power. For me, in fact, it's kinda a cool idea to think that the Creator authored the laws of the universe such that life could arise. As a programmer myself, I see that as the ultimate programming job, if you will, and as one, totally, totally awesome. More awesome in fact than just sitting back and speaking stuff into existence. For me, that's less enthralling. Almost "cheating" if that were applicable but of course God is far beyond such judgments from any of us. In which case they are not true scientists, as a true scientist will not form his conclusions around his preconceived ideas. That's a valid criticism for those doing that, but it's no less what many creationists do who refuse to believe anything other than creationism only because it similarly contradicts their preconceived world. That's not science either. This is the first time I've heard of ET life being used against Evolutionists. I would expect ET life instead to play against creationists insofar as Christ died once for all time, and since he was human, it implies there is no other intelligent life throughout the universe that is in need of the gospel or redemption via the cross. Is it possible that intelligent ET's might exist out there that have neither sin nor knowledge of good and evil, which we humans inherited as per garden of Eden? That's hard to imagine. What the chances are of life arising via random chance is speculation only. Some claim the odds are so ridiculously low that the universe would have to be some 5000 billion years old for it to have a reasonable chance of happening (contrasted to the current belief of it between only 10-15 billion years old), but that assumes the scientists have those odds right which is pure speculation.
Life could be very common across the Universe. In fact, every single star might have at least one planet with life on it.
There are no replies to Comment # 110. End Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "...while around one-third of those polled also said they believe in UFOs, witches and astrology."
#25. To: Original_Intent (#21)
#27. To: Alan Chapman, Original_Intent (#25)
#32. To: FormerLurker (#27)
#38. To: Alan Chapman (#32)
#52. To: FormerLurker (#38)
#53. To: Alan Chapman (#52)
#55. To: FormerLurker (#53)
#93. To: Alan Chapman (#55)
They're not perfectly spherical. If you look closely you can see that they have greater width than height. They didn't look to me like they were glowing. They looked white like seagulls.
#94. To: FormerLurker (#93)
#95. To: Alan Chapman, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, robin, all (#94)
(Edited)
They're elliptical and white which is exactly what I'd expect white birds to look like when video taped from a distance. They're also moving in formation consistent with behavior seen in birds.
#97. To: Original_Intent (#95)
#98. To: Alan Chapman, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, christine, robin, all (#97)
(Edited)
Somebody once observed to the eminent philosopher Wittgenstein how stupid medieval Europeans living before the time of Copernicus must have been that they could have looked at the sky and thought that the sun was circling the earth. Surely a modicum of astronomical good sense would have told them that the reverse was true. Wittgenstein is sad to have replied: "I agree, but I wonder what it would have looked like if the sun had been circling the earth."i
”This view of the universe permeates all aspects of our life. All communities in all places at all times manifest their own view of reality in what they do. The entire culture reflects the contemporary model of reality. We are what we know. And when that body of knowledge changes so do we.”ii
i. Burke, James, The Day The Universe Changed Pg 11, (Little, Brown and Company, 1985)
ii. Ibid., Pg 11
#106. To: All FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, christine, robin, Alan Chapman, Indrid Cold, Pinguinite, Zipporah, FOH (#98)
So, the controversy surrounding UFOs and their nature is one of conflicting world views. On one hand you have those who accept the possibility, even likelihood, that other planets exist, are inhabited by intelligent beings, and may well be technologically well in advance of what is extant on Planet Earth. On the other hand you have the view that humankind on this planet is the only island outpost of intelligence in all the universe, that it occurred uniquely, and only once by pure chance. Thus even if others might, however impossible it is, exist we are at the technologic apex of all that is achievable.
#108. To: Original_Intent (#106)
This becomes clearer if you read some of the arguments presented by the leading lights of the Creationist argument.
As well many of the supporters of the Darwinian paradigm are atheists and oppose creationism in any form NOT because of science but because their philosophical materialist viewpoint does not allow them to accept the possibility
Taking this a step further the Darwinians CANNOT, and again they are largely the same septics that are "UFO Skeptics" (i.e., "anti-" advocates for a point of view) accept that some UFOs might be operated by intelligent beings from somewhere else as that violates their world view as well.
#110. To: Pinguinite (#108)
What the chances are of life arising via random chance is speculation only. Some claim the odds are so ridiculously low that the universe would have to be some 5000 billion years old for it to have a reasonable chance of happening (contrasted to the current belief of it between only 10-15 billion years old), but that assumes the scientists have those odds right which is pure speculation.
Replies to Comment # 110.