Could E.T. have influenced religion?

[lilphil1989]

ok first of all i am not CLAIMING anything, so do not seek to ridicule me by pretending i am saying something i am not.

I'm not ridiculing you, I'm ridiculing the belief that aliens visited ancient man. If you hold that belief, too bad. If you don't, why take offense?

you dismiss my picture of 'a man sitting on something vaguely rocket-shaped' before even understanding the purpose of why i used it. it is an EXAMPLE. i did not intend for that picture alone to be taken as all of the evidence i have used to create this thread, c'mon give me some credit here.

Yes, an example of evidence. I dismiss it as such.

you speak as if this is what i am saying to be true, when i am not, i am just giving food for thought. i am just giving a point of discussion which i myself find interesting.

We are discussing whether or not the belief has any basis in reality. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. Although given the defensive nature of your post, it does seem as though you're being somewhat dishonest about what you believe.

i will try to help you understand why i think this theory is as valid as the next persons.

It's not a theory, at least not by the scientific definition of the word.

firstly i want to draw your attention to the pyramids. now can you explain to me how in three different continents at the same time three different civilisations were creating these wonders which we cannot replicate today? they had no way of communicating with each other so that would leave two possibilities. you take this phenomenon as a fluke, a coincidence. OR something influenced these peoples to start builiding these immaculately precise structures at the same time. now i will leave it to you to come up with a theory of your own as to what this 'something' was. i am not saying it was DEFINITELY aliens, BUT i am saying that it is perfectly valid.

You're arguing from incredulity, which doesn't hold any water at all.
I also think you're being dishonest and trying to make it seem more unlikely that it really is. Firstly, within several centuries is not "at the same time". Secondly, the buildings are not as similar as you would have us believe. Thirdly, I contend your statement that they cannot be replicated today. It would take a lot of money, manpower and effort, but if someone were so inclined they could have a replica of any of the ancient pyramids built.

We clearly have different definitions of the validity of a claim. To you it seems to mean that it is simply not impossible, to me it means there is evidence in support of the claim.

third, what about the nazca lines in peru?
these are massive drawings on the ground which can only be viewed properly from the air? why the hell would a civilisation without the power of flight design these drawings so that they can only be visible from miles up in the sky? to honour their gods? this is exactly the point i am making, what if their 'gods' were these space faring beings!
on top of that how does this civilisation draw an image of a spider which is only viewable under a microscope without the use of A MICROSCOPE?!? can you answer me this? the only solution i can think of myself and forgive me if i am missing something here, but the only thing i can think of is some sort of intervention by something more technologically advanced. either that or again your telling me it's a fluke.

The Nazca lines are fucking amazing, sure. Are they evidence of an extra-terrestrial visitor to Earth?

No.

The microscope claim refers to the idea that the Orion Spider actually depicts the Ricinulei spider, a claim which, as far as I can tell, was put forward in the book Beyond Stonehenge, and doesn't seem to appear at all in the peer-reviewed literature. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a claim that appears nowhere but in a somewhat obscure archaeology book.

i think i have given you enough there to come back to me with. i would again like to stress, i do not submit this all as fact, the whole purpose of this thread was to provide food for thought...

Again, whether or not you believe it to be fact isn't really relevant to a discussion of whether or not it is supported by evidence.

...and make people realise this is just a viable theory as any other as to where religion came from.

No, it simply isn't, and stating that it is over and over again will not make it so.