Talk:UFO religion

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFO_religion&diff=706922684&oldid=706848602 --192.222.158.172 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition

message: Couldn't the title and the entire subject of this article perhaps be considered POV? If these groups wouldn't agree with this classification, isn't it POV to group them as such? We should cite sources for every grouping made in this article and phrases it as "X source defines Y group as a UFO religion". Tfine80 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The expression seems to be widely used, and it has no obvious pejorative  intent. It is IMO entirely acceptable to use it here.#fhmit# 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. The defintion is reasonably objective and usable. Venus Copernicus (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Yeah.  Ummm, is that Mulderism religion real, or did someone just make a pretty big joke?  I'm sorry if I am offending a real Mulderian.
:: I can find no sources for it aside from that one website. Joke or not, it's a vanity entry and I'm tossing it. wikipediatrix 15:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The X-Files 

message: someone care to make an entry on them here? 
:Done. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 09:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ashtar Command

message: In the episode, Attack of the Saucer Morons, of Invader Zim they parody UFO religions when Zim crashes his ship in the middle of one's convention, Should this be listed in the article? --68.224.37.19 03:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invader Zim 

message: "A publication produced at this time that received some press attention was titled "How to build a U.F.O." and purported to describe an interplanetary spacecraft built out of materials such as old tires."
There may have been an actual publication titled "How to build a U.F.O." that purported to describe an interplanetary spacecraft, but I suspect with the reference to "materials such as old tires" that, at the very least, this publication is being confused with Earth Ship: How to Build Your Own, a how-to book produced by Heaven's Gate.  Despite the title, it's not a how-to on building an interplanetary craft but rather a style of architecture which used recycled tires as a major component. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suspect confusion... 

message: Anyone who's read the story of Xenu cannot see Scientology as anything other than a UFO cult. Serendipodous 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology should be included

message: While I seriously disagree with the inclusion of Scientology since it is definitely not a so-called "UFO religion" (neither is Mormonism), it is obvious that arguing with anti-Scientologists about these kinds of articles is pointless, since they have very little first-hand knowledge of the belief system aside from what hearsay they find on the Internet.
That said, I corrected some serious issues regarding the OT III story. By this point, no anti-Scn has any excuse for misleading people about what this is all about since Touretzky's OT III page has been on the Web for years and years and contains the entirety of the story. In addition, the word "alien" is never mentioned by Hubbard in ANY of his lectures - in all the thousands of lectures Hubbard has given, he has used the word "alien" only once and that was in reference to an immigrant. Anyone who claims Hubbard is talking about aliens had better produce some concrete evidence that shows he explicitly uses these terms. I guarantee you that you will not find such evidence because it doesn't exist.
If you listen to Hubbard's key lectures on "space opera", it is obvious he believes human beings have existed on other planets in other galaxies and universes. This doesn't mean he believes that they were alien creatures or little green men. He refers specifically to human beings who look exactly as we do, except perhaps that they were generally taller. Also, he makes mention of "doll bodies" (robot or cyborg bodies operated by spiritual beings). Furthermore, some of these "extraterrestrial" societies (he never uses that term either) such as the Marcabs exactly mirrored modern-day Earth civilization. 
In other words, Hubbard believes human history on Earth is simply a dramatization of past events that occurred in other civilizations, a notorious example that has been spread on the Web being that Jesus Christ is an implant and that the actual person who claimed to be Jesus on this planet was simply dramatizing the implant. According to Hubbard, all religions with the sole exception of Theravada Buddhism and the Gnostic faiths are the result of implants.
These beliefs are radically different from what is typically associated with so-called "UFO religions" like the contactee groups, Raelians, Solar Temple, etc. You will not find any support for those kinds of ideas in any Hubbard lecture or book. Laval (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies regarding Scientology section

message: This article needs a good, precise, and cited definition for UFO Religion. It seems that an obvious choice is a religion centered on UFO's, however do the practicers of these religions all worship flying machines? I think a more suitable definition is a religion centered on extraterrestials, or a religion which teaches that extraterrestials exist. What are your thoughts?--AirLiner (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always a good idea to post new topics at the bottom of a talk page, many times they can get lost in the shuffle otherwise. By all means, a properly cited formal definition of "UFO religion" would be more than welcome in the opening paragraph, I'd suggest that quoting either Partridge, Lewis or Tumminia, or all three with references would be great. However, unless a proper citation can be provided in support of the notion of including the Mormons in this article, they'll have to go. It's not up to us as editors to make the sort of interpretive decisions you're implying, unless a specific citation from a reliable source can be provided that indicates that they belong in this category, Wiki policy is clear, they should be excluded.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO Religion Definition 

message: This is an except from a letter written by the Marian T Rowley, Secretary-General of the Urantia Brotherhood, on August 31, 1960 to a member of the Washington Saucer Intelligence who was attending a saucer convention in Chicago. Rowley writes, "...The point that I shall try to make very clear is that The Urantia Book is a book on religion, a revelation intended to enlarge our cosmic viewpoint and show us that we are only a small part of a very large universe; and the main theme is the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, and the whole thing leads up to the enlargement and an enhancement of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Urantia Book has nothing to do with space ships or saucers. It does not validate them, it does not disprove them, it simply takes no notice of them. Any study groups which are formed must not be integrated with space age groups. As a group, our business is solely religion, but any individual many become involved in any outside activity -- and I'll read the quotation along this line. We'll encourage study groups and help them in all ways possible if they keep the study on The Urantia Book." See historical document at http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/BK19600901_RowleyM_02.pdf
It is befitting that the Urantia Book be removed from this wiki. Just because an instructor teaches school and plays golf in his or her leisure time does not mean that the school is affiliated with golf course.
71.138.164.30 (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unable to locate any mention of the Urantia Book in this article at the moment. Please explain what you're referring to. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Urantia Book 

message: I was very suprised to see that a normal theological term like Exotheology had virtually nothing written under it on WikiPedia, and yet this derogatory term "UFO Religion" is loaded with information.
It seems to me both pages should be reconstructed.  The legitimate content of Exotheology should be on that page, perhaps with an occasional reference to the use of a slang term called "UFO Religion".   I mean really, a relgion about UFO's?  They are physical objects, space ships.  This is condescending to the concept that extraterestrials may have visited and influence earth and relgion.  It's like calling Christianity the "Cross Religion", because it is all about the Cross.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallonaj (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move UFO Religion Content to the ExoTheology page 

message: I note that this has been added, removed and added again. Would this be worth raising an RfC to resolve or should the inclusion criteria be changed, though defining what might be a "valid" "religion" in this context may be highly problematic.—Ash (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think a RFC might be an interesting exercise here. In my opinion, defining what constitutes a "real religion" is  outside the mandate of what Wikipedia is about according to our policies; we're not here to substantiate a final conclusion regarding the potential truth claims of the religious "validity" of given groups, our only concern is whether or not a particular claim can be verified through the use of reliable references. I contend that the Church of the SubGenius fails in that regard, reliable references can easily be put forward to show that it constitutes a "parody" or "mock" religion, but I'm unaware of any acceptable source that categorically claims it to be an actual "religion"; this is not the case with the other groups mentioned in the UFO religion article. The onus for providing reliable references before allowing the inclusion of potentially controversial material to an article is clearly on the editor who is adding that material, not on the person challenging its inclusion. The only potentially reliable source that I've ever encountered that appeared inclined toward including the Church within a truly "religious" (or I should say an "irreligious") category was an unpublished 1996 MA thesis from the University of Virginia department of sociology, in which the Church of the SubGenius is categorized as a form of "audience cult". In the past, I've attempted to add that thesis as a reference to the SubGenius article itself, and it was rejected by other editors as an "unreliable source" because it was "unpublished". If reliable sources are available that can substantiate that the Church is in fact an actual religion, which is the case with the other groups included in the UFO religion article, I'd be more than happy to change my mind on this issue, if they can't be found, I don't see why we should be making the Church of the SubGenius a special case in this instance. Either claims for inclusion can be substantiated or they cannot.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with having an RfC and the limitations of policy, but disagree with your conclusion about onus -- for the same reasons that List of Christian denominations has (after much discussion) boiled down to a list of organizations who at some point have self-defined themselves as Christian. Consequently a "reliable source" in this instance may be a new-age or cult association that happens to define themselves as "christian" on their website (and I note SubGenius defines themselves as a religion and a UFO religion on their website, see FAQ and UFO cult party). The reason for this rather weak definition is that there is no "official" definitive way to judge which type of organization is a denomination as there is no authority that rubber-stamps an organization in this way.—Ash (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church of the SubGenius 

message: All referred to from the Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., Lindsay Jones editor-in-chief, in John A. Saliba's entry on "UFO religions" written in 2005. On page 9433 - Association of Sananda and Sanat Kumara, Semjase Silver Star Center, White Star, Ashtar Command, Cosmic Star Fellowship, Solar Light Retreat, Extraterrestrial Earth Mission, and Mark-Age. On page 9434, Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, Cosmic Circle of Fellowship, Ground Crew, Chen Tao, Nuwaubians, and Planetary Action Organization. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should indicate that I meant each of those listed are UFO religions, as defined by their inclusion in that source, and we base established we base status as a UFO religion on being called that by a reliable source. And notability, not established membership, is what we have to go by, because as I know from elsewhere some groups refuse to report or even estimate numbers, for whatever reason, sometimes because of a lack of any sort of official structure or membership. All those listed above are called UFO religions in that book, and their inclusion there, and often in one or more of the Lewis, Beit-Hallahmi, or Chryssides encyclopedias, among others, are sufficient to establish notability. If, however, there is comparitvely little content that can be generated, then maybe the best place to put that content would be this page, and turn the individually named page to a redirect here. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with John Carter's position. If a given group is contextualized with other organizations that are defined as "UFO religions" in what are considered reliable sources according to our policies, if we wish to remain neutral on the matter they should be included in the encyclopedia, even if that consists of a simple referenced mention in an appropriate article or adding a redirect page. Restricting inclusion to only those groups which exceed an arbitrarily determined membership number imposed by Wikipedia editors is clearly outside our mandate. Our job is to go where existing reliable sources indicate it is merited. When we're dealing with a fringe topic from the onset, it also seems hopelessly arbitrary to me to restrict inclusion to only those groups where mention of them has been previously made in mainstream "national newspapers" and such. By definition, information regarding an "esoteric" subject matter such as the one being discussed here, is normally ignored by that type of source and is only available through specialized academic literature. Provided that the source is in fact deemed reliable and neutral according to our policies, I can't think of a neutral basis for excluding the material on that basis.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds okay to me too, if the sources actually define a religion based on UFOs. I would however point out that the initial text above includes things like "Ashtar Command" on the list of religions (which is a channelling based group rather than a religion, though these channellings may be claimed as the basis of organizations such as "The College of Universal Wisdom" (which never claimed to be a religion)) and the text in the article includes "Avatar" which claims to be a self-development course (and its founder Harry Palmer has explicitly stated this is not a religion; as quoted in third party sources). Consequently I contest the way the text is currently expressed in this section and reliable sources need to be used correctly, rather than assuming that because a sequence of words can be found in a (probably internet based) search of encyclopaedia of religions that this means such organizations are religions.—Ash (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm actually using the paper copy, not an internet version. I was looking for something else earlier and saw UFO religions as a separate entry, so decided it would be useful. And self-definition, like Harry Palmer's, does not override independent sources; in fact, independent sources trump self-description for groups, although not in direct BLPs, but descriptions of groups do not qualify under BLP. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what is the name that independent sources give to the religion that members of Harry Palmer's organization worship, but don't call a religion, and how many members of this religion are there? I would have thought that third party sources should at least make this level of detail clear before inclusion in this article (at the moment there is none). I'd like to point out that (i) going on Palmer's training course does not make you a believer in a religion, so figures for his training course are not the same thing as religious membership (ii) a "UFO cult" is not the same thing as a "UFO religion", for example there is a definite "Dr Who cult" but it definitely is not classed as a religion.—Ash (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am saying is that wikipedia's policies regarding original research do not allow us to make the distinctions you propose on our own. And regarding the point of Palmer's groups, we only report what the sources say. We do not make the decisions you are seemingly demanding of us, all we do is repeat what reliable sources say. What you personally think sources should do is more your concenr than ours. Regarding your other points, they may or may not be valid, but in most of the cases you present it really isn't our place to make those determinations. Again, we rely on what the reliable sources say. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misunderstood my last paragraph, I was asking for sources to be added, so your re-statement that we rely on what sources say doesn't seem to make sense. I'll add a tag in the article to make this clearer.—Ash (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other organizations 

message: Reworked the lede to bring to a higher standard, redact the UFO focus, since Scientology is by far the largest and UFOs as such are no part of it. "UFO Religion" is the received term but actually UFOs don't dominate as portrayed. Lycurgus (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede redaction 

message: I never want to see that on the list again. Jediism is simply off the Jedi in Star Wars, which is an entirely authentic belief system, as George Lucas based it entirely off real world beliefs. Just like all of the languages and cultures in Star Wars are also based off real life languages and cultures, sometimes to the point of being an exact replica called by a fictional name. It has nothing to do with UFOs, or a belief therein. It may come from science fiction like Scientology, but it is nothing like Scientology, and is not about either E.T. aliens or U.F.O.s. Therefore, IT HAS NO PLACE ON A LIST OF UFO RELIGIONS!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.217.220 (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jediism Is Not About UFOs 

message: Substituted at 09:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I noticed that the parody religion Church of the SubGenius is listed in this article; in that case, should you also list Pastafarian (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)?  Rowan Forest (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parody religions listed?