Talk:Raëlism/Archive 2

What about Eve?

I'm always fascinated that no one will talk about the human cloning stuff. Even in December 2002, the news wouldn't talk about it besides just saying "it's obviously fake." Do we have any reason to believe the Eve stuff either happened or didn't happen?--Mrcolj (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any information solid enough to believe that it did or did not. The assumption with such a claim with no verification is simply "it's not true". Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several Scenarios were discussed in Aliens Adored: Rael's UFO by Susan J. Palmer. I wont get into them here other than Say to say:

Could have been a hoaxed perpetrated on the media (and possibly on Rael as well)
Could be real and in hiding
could have been real thus the Anouncement and died shortly after from complications like many cloned animals do and thus the sudden back pedal.

We Simply dont know and may never know. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?

I don't quite see what the basis is to call Raelism a religion or a church. Could someone please explain. Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raelians self-identify as a religion. From their website:

Do Raelians consider Raelianism as a religion?

In the etymological sense, yes we do. It is clear that the word ‘religion’ has been used, misused, and abused so much throughout the Ages that it is no wonder many people nowadays shy away from anything that is labeled ‘religion’ and would not touch it with a 10-foot pole. At the same time, many people have the wrong idea of what ‘religion’ really means and view it as a belief in a deity of some kind. The word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin word ‘religare’ which means ‘to create a link,’ whether it be a link between people, or between the Creators of humanity and their creation, or between humans and the stars, or between the Earth and the Sky, etc… it really does not matter because the most important is to ‘create this link.’

Editor2020 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on religion starts out: "Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe.[1] It is commonly regarded as consisting of a person’s relation to God, gods, or spirits.[2] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories associated with their deity or deities, that are intended to give meaning to life. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature." So I guess the thing about the "origin and purpose of the universe" might work. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lines of demarcation get a little fuzzy sometimes. :) --Editor2020 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "spirit" clearly does it. Raëlism denies that the universe had an origin. It is creation of life on Earth that had an origin. "Spirits" could also apply to "those who came from the sky" or "Elohim".Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 23:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitfoxxe I think the question is why would it not be religion? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because generally "religion" refers to the relationship of humans to supernatural beings, which the Raelians' space aliens do not seem to be. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to tweek the wording in the opening sentence of religion per Kmarinas86's comment. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. The wording has been changed in the last two days. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh the old Victorian Anthropology Definition of Religion. Religion 20th and 21st century defintion are not so narrow. Cant beleive our article on Religion boils it down that The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article?

I started trying to remove some of the "however" defenses in the article, before I realized this article is filled with so much biased, with a sizable quantity of sources cited themselves being nonciting texts and websites. Does anyone else have interest in editing this article? Dominicanpapi82 (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a sizable quantity of sources cited (are themselves) nonciting texts and websites" Since when did news sources actually cite their sources? All they will say is "he said, she said, they said" etc. News media rarely quote books, published journals, etc.. Do they give book titles, page numbers, issue numbers, or even the year published? Of course not. You would be VERY lucky if your local five 'o-clock news offered all that information to you at no extra cost. Also, some of the third-party research aside from news sources (e.g. Susan Palmer) are basing the claims on primarily the author's experiences, intuition, and/or research, while any reference to other authors about the same subject (i.e. Raëlians) are scant at best.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately wikipedia already has a policy on this, WP:R, specifically the WP:NEWSORG section. Basically, news sources that are known to be fairly reliable are preferred, and academic articles are always preferred over news articles. Ashmoo (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with Dominicanpapi82. The article is extremely bloated with fairly weak sourcing, including anecdotes and is dominated by directly citing Vorilhon's primary material. We need to tighten up the sources and try to find reliable 3rd party sources for most of the article. Ashmoo (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"World Swastika Rehabilitation Day"

Celebrated a few days ago, probably should be mentioned on the article: Raelians to Celebrate 'World Swastika Rehabilitation Day' on June 26 by PR Newswire (official link apparently http://www.proswastika.org/page.php?9 )... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China or Israel ?

Hello Everyone,

http://raelianews.org/news.php?item.401.1 says:

"He added that the Elohim wish to have an embassy built to officially welcome them back to Earth and they would like it to be build in China."

ALL RELIGION IS BANNED IN CHINA BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.69.196 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While, The reference (ref no. 133) in the section Raelism#Proposed_architecture_and_location suggests:

"On December 13, 1997, the leader of the International Raëlian Movement had decided to extend the possibility of building the embassy outside of Jerusalem and also allow that a significant portion of the embassy property be covered with water."

Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://www.cesnur.org/2003/mi_rael.htm (read the answer for second question) suggests that the original venue for the embassy that was Israel, is not being considered anymore! Guyz, it's time to update the article.

Thanks! Sincerely: --Abstruce ^(Talk) 19:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active Movement by Ex-Raelians

I don't see links or an article section to the vibrant ex-raelian's who have an active site posting personal information about Rael's blatant copying of Jean Sendy's works back in 1974. I mean, to base an entire "religion" or movement, or whatever you call it, on a plagiarized book seems relevant to people understanding the basis of Rael's movement. One only has to look at the myriad examples of Claude Vorhillon stealing directly from Jean Sendy, sometimes quoting direct passages, to see that there should be, at the very least, a controversy section in this article. I suppose I should start working on one, but I don't know where to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katslikefun (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Correlation does not imply causation:

Long quote about determining causation

“

Determining causation

David Hume argued that causality is based on experience, and experience similarly based on the assumption that the future models the past, which in turn can only be based on experience – leading to circular logic. In conclusion he asserted that causality is not based on actual reasoning: only correlation can actually be perceived.^[1]

Intuitively, causation seems to require not just a correlation, but a counterfactual dependence. Suppose that a student performed poorly on a test and guesses that the cause was his not studying. To prove this, one thinks of the counterfactual – the same student writing the same test under the same circumstances but having studied the night before. If one could rewind history, and change only one small thing (making the student study for the exam), then causation could be observed (by comparing version 1 to version 2). Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.^[2]

A major goal of scientific experiments and statistical methods is to approximate as best as possible the counterfactual state of the world.^[3] For example, one could run an experiment on identical twins who were known to consistently get the same grades on their tests. One twin is sent to study for six hours while the other is sent to the amusement park. If their test scores suddenly diverged by a large degree, this would be strong evidence that studying (or going to the amusement park) had a causal effect on test scores. In this case, correlation between studying and test scores would almost certainly imply causation.

Well-designed experimental studies replace equality of individuals as in the previous example by equality of groups. This is achieved by randomization of the subjects to two or more groups. Although not a perfect system, the likeliness of being equal in all aspects rises with the number of subjects placed randomly in the treatment/placebo groups. From the significance of the difference of the effect of the treatment vs. the placebo, one can conclude the likeliness of the treatment having a causal effect on the disease. This likeliness can be quantified in statistical terms by the P-value.

When experimental studies are impossible and only pre-existing data are available, as is usually the case for example in economics, regression analysis can be used. Factors other than the potential causative variable of interest are controlled for by including them as regressors in addition to the regressor representing the variable of interest. False inferences of causation due to reverse causation (or wrong estimates of the magnitude of causation due the presence of bidirectional causation) can be avoided by using explanators (regressors) that are necessarily exogenous, such as physical explanators like rainfall amount (as a determinant of, say, futures prices), lagged variables whose values were determined before the dependent variable's value was determined, instrumental variables for the explanators (chosen based on their known exogeneity), etc. See Causality#Economics. Spurious correlation due to mutual influence from a third, common causative, variable, is harder to avoid: the model must be specified such that there is a theoretical reason to believe that no such underlying causative variable has been omitted from the model; in particular, underlying time trends of both the dependent variable and the independent (potentially causative) variable must be controlled for by including time as another independent variable.

”

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, in a nutshell, you're stating that just because two similar works arose at approximately at the same time, and used the same exact language as each other, or rather, if one work appeared just shortly (by a few months) after another work, and had distinct sections copied word for word from one work to another, that that does not prove causality? Surely, if it came to light that the Christian Bible was copied word for word from a pagan or druidic text, that would not cause some issue with it's membership? This is quite different from say, a faith adopting the symbolism of the Christmas tree, or the timing of a specific date. Doesn't controversy of Raelian Membership have a place in an objective article about the faith? Perhaps a brand new article titled Criticism of Raelianism might be a better place for this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katslikefun (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some alleged evidences of plagiarism. I have also added some Google Books search links to get the ball rolling on your own independent comparisons. Obviously the texts are different and even disagree on many points, but others see it differently.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison table

Main characters in both books: Elohim, Yahweh, Serpent, Lucifer and Adam

"those who came from the sky"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

When we read the Bible in that way, we must first note that the Hebrew word Elohim, usually translated as "God," is a plural. If we read "Those who came from the sky," or "the Celestials," each time the plural Elohim occurs, we find ourselves reading a narrative that needs no exegesis, no helpful prodding, no religious conviction, in order to be thoroughly coherent. (page 13)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Elohim, translated without justification in some Bibles by the word "God" means in Hebrew "those who came from the sky" and furthermore the word is a plural. It means that the scientists from our world searched for a planet that was suitable to carry out their projects. They "created", or in reality discovered the Earth, [...] (page 20)

"leader of the Elohim"

La Lune, cle de la Bible (1968)

But Yahweh "boss of the Elohim?" [...] when he speaks and acts, from beginning of reciting until his farewell to Noah, Yahweh speaks and acts as "boss of the Elohim." (page 78) Yahweh, boss of the Elohim, is not mentioned by name until Chapter II, 4b... (page 158) Yahweh like the god of the gods. (page 173) The Moon: Outpost of the Gods (1968)

So it seems best to stick with the text taken literally: when he "speaks to Moses" in Exodus, Yahweh "speaks" as a professor may make Carnot "speak" ; when he speaks and acts from the beginning of the story to Noah's farewell, Yahweh speaks and acts as the "leader of the Elohim." (page 63) Yahweh, the leader of the Elohim, is not mentioned by name until Chapter 2, Verse 5. He appears there both as the leader of the Elohim and as the Celestial who is personally in charge [...] (page 130)

Extra-Terrestrials Took Me To Their Planet (1975)

This residence is, in fact, very large, since it is an entire planet where the members of the Council of the Eternals live as well. My name is Yahweh, and I am the president of that Council of the Eternals. (page 149)

If Israel ultimately declines to allow a grant of extra-territoriality, as already indicated, we will most likely establish the embassy on Palestinian or Egyptian territory or in another neighboring state. In fact the lower slopes of Mount Sinai would make an excellent alternative choice, since that is where Yahweh, the leader of the Elohim, first appeared to Moses. (page 208, Author's Postscript) Note: Jean Sendy's French books used the informal word "Patron" which means "boss." Claude Vorilhon Rael used the formal word "president" in his French book. However, while translating to English, both translators chose the same word "leader."

"a man intended to produce descendants"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

The Lord the questions him, discovers how he was led to disobey, and curses the "serpent," condemning him to crawl. Condemning a serpent to crawl makes no sense unless the word "serpent" is being used as an insult. [...] Was the "serpent" a mutant, a man intended to produce descendants who would equal the Celestials, and was he cursed by being condemned to "crawl," to remain attached to the earth, in bondage to it, like ordinary men? I believe he was. [...] The mutant, the "serpent," had proved to be incapable of keeping the secret of the "tree of knowledge." [...] because of the "serpent's" disobedience and this meant that it was no longer usable, since the goal of the experiment was an intellectual mutation. Without a control group, the experiment had to be abandoned. (page 145-146)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Yahweh Elohim said to the serpent: be damned... on your belly you shall crawl and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.Genesis 3-14. The serpent was this small group of creators who had wished to tell the truth to Adam and Eve and as a result they were condemned by the government of their own planet to live in exile on Earth (page 24)

"the more intelligent mutants, symbolized by Lucifer"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

The Celestials did not intend to turn over the management of the planet to the control group, symbolized by Adam, but to the more intelligent mutants, symbolized by Lucifer. Would Lucifer have been more successful in managing the planet if, instead of trying to impress Adam, he had held his tongue and let the Celestials continue their experiments on him and his lineage? (page 152)

Let's welcome the Extraterrestrials (1979)

Lucifer is one of the Elohim who created life on Earth, thus created Man. Lucifer was heading a small group of scientists working in one of the genetic engineering laboratories which studied the behaviour of the first synthetic men. [...] Lucifer and his group of Elohim felt love and affection for their syntetically created humans. (page 84)

"planet better adapted to human needs"
La Lune, cle de la Bible (1968) To begin, the men created, taking out from nothing of anonymity, the planets of the system in which they came to penetrate, and more particularly the planet better adapted to human needs which they named Eretz. (the Earth, in Hebrew) (page 151)	The book which tells the truth (1974) the scientists from our world searched for a planet that was suitable to carry out their projects. They created, or in reality discovered the Earth. (page 20)

"Eretz"

La Lune, cle de la Bible (1968)

Eretz was apparently deserted (...) under the cloak of opaque clouds which had reigned an eternal night. The men placed the natural satellite on Eretz, which consiste of a convenient platform-port. (page 152) Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

I will limit myself to what Genesis says about the arrival of the Celestials. At that "beginning," when the "spirit" of the Elohim "hovered" above the earth, [...] (page 83)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

This means the scientists made reconnaissance flights and what you might call artificial satellites were placed around the Earth to study its constitution and atmosphere. The Earth was then, entirely covered with water and thick fog. (page 20)

(Note: The original French version book has above 2nd sentence, but it was removed since sometime in later version.)

"light on Eretz"

La Lune, cle de la Bible (1968)

First of all, it had to dispel the opaque clouds, to bring back the light on Eretz. (page 152)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Claude Vorilhon Rael just skipped from Genesis 1-2 to 1-4 without quoting Genesis 1-3, which goes like this:

And Elohim said, Let there be light: and there was light.

"for 2160 years"

La Lune, cle de la Bible (1968)

The first of 'slices' that the biblical text denominate 'days' occupied the Celestial for 2160 years, as it means a linear interpretation of the Pythagorean cycle? (page 154) Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

What is true of a twenty-four-hour day is also true of a "day" that lasts more than twenty centuries. Yes, twenty centuries - 2160 years, more precisely - as we will see in the chapter devoted to the fourth "day." (page 87)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

This research took quite some time. The day mentioned here corresponds to the period in which your sun rises under the same sign on the day of the vernal equinox, in other words, about 2,000 years on Earth. (page 20)

"we do seem to be in the middle of the scale"

The coming of the gods (1970)

[...] continuity of the universe with a scale of sizes called a "reconsideration of man's place in the universe." [...] a human head is about halfway between the size of an atom and that of sun, and halfway between the nucleus of an atom and the diameter of the solar system. That scale of sizes proves nothing! I have been told by several very serious people (from whom I had treacherously concealed the fact that its author is George Gamow). And they are quite right; the idea is not to prove anything, but to titillate the imagination. [...] We are not at the center of the universe, but we do seem to be in the middle of the scale and therefore qualified to reason on the basis of an "assumption of mediocrity," which will later be discussed at length. (page 15)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Progress continues, and our own research continues for the purpose of understanding and relating to the large being of whom we are a part, and on whose atoms we are parasites. These atoms are the planets and the stars. In fact we have been able to discover intelligent living beings in the infinitely small, who live on particles that are planets and suns to them. They ask the same questions as ourselves. (page 81)

Note:

I really wonder if any Raelian truly understands the meaning of the infinite. Jean Sendy brought these scales and idea in his book "The Coming of the Gods (1970) on page 14-15" and he clearly mentioned that he brought the idea only to titillate the imagination. Even wording ancient Greek philosophers were not dare to assert this kind of absurdity, Claude Vorilhon Rael is the unique man asserting this on Earth and probably in this vast galaxy too. An atom can divide continuously overtime absolutely CANNOT prove the infinite such as whole civilization is existing and living in one single cell of living organism, and so on, therefore infinitely. Can it be proved if infinite time is given? Yet, infinite time cannot prove the theory of evolution. This is correct but Rael contradicts himself with this. Same as flaw of the Moor's law that number of transistors placed on an integrated circuit can be doubled approximately every two years. As physicist Michio Kaku mentioned, there will be a short-circuit some point. sinkarma86 says: Actually you do not need infinite or finite time. You see, all you have to do is understand mathematical proof by induction. If you solve for a recursive equation, there are often solutions for determining whether a series will diverge or not. So the assertion that you cannot prove patterns to infinity is an underestimation of what science is able to accomplish..

Even though we assume that an atom can be divided continuously over time; however, to find these civilization, or living organism or whatever, you have to divide an atom as small as particle of an air (I'm sure that air particle is bigger than an atom, I'm not a scientific guy), or even smaller, and that small particle as an air has infinite number of civilization living inside. And infinite times smaller than the particle of an air has infinite number of civizization living inside, and so on. Now, Rael's claim become pointless, why limits only to living organism to have living being inside? Because does it sound plausible? Can anyone understand this or imagine this?

That limit never touches zero but actually becomes zero (nothing) which inevitably leads to the conclusion "Nothing is indeed consist of everything." Again, he contradicts himself with what he plagiarised from ancient Greek cosmology "Nothing comes from nothing, everything comes from something," in his book "Yes to human cloning (page 78)" which he has been saying throughout the seminars to impress people. If my assumption is wrong then you can safely assume that mankind's great event landing on the Moon is also big fraud and also we will never able to land on any planet since the mathematicians used the same limit calculation to have men landed on the Moon. Maybe space is infinite, but not in a sense of what Rael said. Rael's concept of the infinite involves with blind belief, not with understanding on any human level. Whether Rael plagiarized this idea from Jean Sendy or not, he made a big mistake. And this is another proof that he is just a fraud.

"the bond between the sky and the earth"

The coming of the gods (1970)

"Religion" comes from the Latin "religio," meaning "bond." Since Lenin said that religion is the opium of the people, it has become common to forget that the etymology of the word accurately states the initial purpose of religion: to maintain the bond between "the sky" and the earth. (page 202)

Let's welcome the Extraterrestrials (1979)

"Religion" from the Latin means "that which links" or "the tie" which unites the creators to their creation. [...] If you take the mysticism out of the words, then the sentence becomes rationally understandable for everyone. Thus it becomes clear that the Raelian Movement is a religion, it ties the creators of Humanity with their creation (page 120)

"in our image" "ancient astronauts"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

Read in this way, Genesis appears as an account of the arrival of perfectly concrete Celestials, physically in our image, who behaved on earth as we can imagine our own astronauts behaving on another planet in a future [...] (page 13)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Let us make man in our own image after our likeness: [...] Genesis 1: 26. In our image! You can see that the resemblance is striking. (page 23) You must understand that barely thirty years ago, people of countries that are now advanced were still primitive. You are only just emerging. There are millions of people on Earth who are still primitive and incapable of seeing something in the sky as anything other than a 'divine' manifestation. (page 141)

"chariots of the gods" "trial and error"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

[...] it would evolve in a laboratory where biologists experimentally obtained the "initial spark" and the by trial and error, sought to create the most complex, diversified and efficient living forms, without fearing to make bold experiments leading to monstrous forms that were allowed to survive and eventually die out, thus providing detailed knowledge of mistakes to be avoided in the future. (page 24)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Our scientists had started to create primitive, embryonic forms of life, namely living cells in test tubes. Everyone was thrilled by this. The scientists perfected their techniques and began creating bizarre little animals but the government, under pressure from public opinion, ordered the scientists to stop their experiments for fear they would create monsters, which would become dangerous to society. In fact one of these animals had broken loose and killed several people. (page 19)

"the rats who ate a little bit of the brain"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

We begin by submitting a group of rats to "test labyrinth", which allows you to select the most intelligent one from the group: to the end of a certain number of course, it is in fact always the same rat who memorize better succession turns to take, and who first comes to the piece of cheese placed at the end of the course. This champion of intelligence is then sacrificed, we remove his brain, and we ingest it to a half of the another group of rats whose group never saw the labyrinth that the champion had demonstrated his intelligence - the other half group serve as control group. We then proceed to the second part of the experiment, and we certify, every time, that the rats who ate a little bit of the brain of the champion go through the labyrinth with much more facility than the rats who did not received their lunch. (page 44)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Your scientists have just discovered that if you inject the liquid from the memory of an educated rat into the brain of an uneducated rat, it will learn what the other knew. We can transmit information by the injection of brain memory matter, thus our children have almost no work to do. They regularly undergo injections of brain matter taken from people possessing the information necessary for instruction. Therefore, children only spend their time doing interesting things, which they decide on themselves, such as rebuilding the world in theory and fulfilling themselves in sport and the arts. (page 102)

Note:

Today's science shows that neither Jean Sendy nor Claude Vorilhon Rael was correct. Any brain surgeon or brain scientist will laugh himself to death if he reads these theories. This is another proof that Claude Vorilhon Rael is just a fraud and plagiarism is dangerous idea.

An ex-Raelian Jiro Kambe did excellent research on this. [<a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/jiro-kambe/raelism-vs-science-chemical-education/243689825669165" style="text-decoration:underline; font-size:10pt; color:#0000cc" target=_blank>Raelism vs. Science: Chemical Education</a>]

kmarinas86 says: http://raelian.com/en/?mode=viewguestbook

157. By kmarinas86 (kamarinas at uh d0t edu) Visit this dude's homepage from Space City, USA 2011-10-15 "One wonders where the 'brain memory matter' is really extracted from to inject regularly into the brains of children[....]Rael says they are taken from 'people' possessing the information. But, how much brain matter can be extracted safely and does that mean the donor loses his memory or gets brain damaged?" Ever think that maybe nanotechnology replaces the syringe, and that incisions are unnecessary for extraction? What if memory is like the leaves of a tree? You remove some; can't the leaves can grow back? What about evidence present by people such as "Dr. John Lorber" of normally functioning human beings, sometimes attending college, and yet who lack a cerebral cortex (1 of 3 major sections of the brain) where instead there was just water? Maybe neurons are simply the learning crutch provided by the Elohim to allow humans to begin understanding consciousness? Maybe neural connections merely *correlate* with the underlying quantum responsible for consciousness?

"the principle that the present atomic movement has always been the same"
Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969) Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of several centuries for events that took place more than twenty thousand years ago. (page 48)	Let's welcome the Extraterrestrials (1979) [...] methods based on radioactivity named 'Carbon 14' [...] In short, the error in these dating methods is to start with the principle that the present atomic movement has always been the same, and starting from there, to make calculations based on false information, because nothing is invariable in time or in space. (page 26)

"receive them as gods"
Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969) [...] adventurous astronauts set off for another planetary system where they had good reason to believe that the primitives would receive them as gods. (page 75)	The book which tells the truth (1974) If you reach the stage where you become evolved visitors on primitive worlds, you will be forced to use such a system, which is in fact very amusing and involves passing yourselves off as gods in their eyes. In fact, this is extremely easy since, for primitive people, if you come from the sky you can only be divine. (page 142)

"our planet was not a piece of property to be exploited"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

Two thousand years? When I think about it, it does not seem at all excessive. To the Celestials, our planet was not a piece of property to be exploited, it was an immense laboratory in which could test theories. (page 95)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

It means that the scientists from our world searched for a planet that was suitable to carry out their projects. [...] In this magnificent and gigantic laboratory, they created vegetable cells from nothing other than chemicals, which then produced various types of plants. All their efforts were aimed at reproduction. [...] The scientists spread out across this immense continent in small research teams. Every individual created different varieties of plants according to their inspiration and the climate. (page 20-21)

"material goods are taken for granted"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

They had long since gone beyond the dreary stage of the "consumer society" in which wealth enables some to enjoy material goods that others cannot afford. On Theos, as on every other planet with a fully developed technological civilization, material goods are taken for granted. (page 122)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Can you describe the day of an average individual where you live?

In the morning they would get up and bathe, since there are swimming pools everywhere, have breakfast and then do whatever they feel like doing. Everybody works, but only because they feel like working as there is no money where we live. Thus those who work always do it well, since it is by vocation. (page 99)

"Life is eternal"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

The cells of any living creature are made of molecules that have been circulating for countless millions of years and will continue to circulate after the death of the body in which they have been temporarily brought together. Life is eternal, as all gods know. (page 124)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Death is not a very important thing, and we should not be afraid of it. It is just like falling asleep, except it is an endless sleep. Since we are a part of infinity, the matter of which we are made does not disappear. It continues to exist in the soil, or in plants, or even in animals, clearly losing all homogeneity and, therefore, all identity. (page 177)

"enclose our Eden. We can begin growing food there even before we have brought rainfall back to normal on the rest of the planet, because we will be living in our own controlled climate"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

In any case, the natives will provide us with labor for the construction of the wall that will enclose our Eden. We can begin growing food there even before we have brought rainfall back to normal on the rest of the planet, because we will be living in our own controlled climate. (page 125)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

The creators in exile who were left under military surveillance, urged the human beings to bring them food in order to show their own superiors [...] (page 26)

Here there is no winter; we all live in a region comparable to your equator, but as we can scientifically control the climate, it is always fine weather and not too hot. We make the rain fall during the night when and where we wish. (page 152)

"The gardeners of Eden, who constituted the control group, had permission"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

The "gardeners" of Eden, who constituted the control group, had permission to "eat from any tree in the garden" except one: they were forbidden to eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," [...] The Hebrew word usually translated as "to eat" often occurs in contexts where it can have only that meaning, but it also occurs in contexts where its meaning is obviously different. In Ezekiel, for example, a voice orders Ezekiel to "eat" a scroll, then go and teach what he has learned by "eating." (page 141)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

Of every tree in the garden you may eat, but of the tree of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat of it, you shall die. Genesis 2-17.

This means you - the created - can learn all you want, read all of the books that we have here at your disposal but never touch the scientific books, otherwise you will die. (page 23)

"Celestials"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

As soon as the man and the woman had "swallowed" this knowledge, their eyes were opened and they saw that they were "naked." [...] the knowledge they received may have been only of a few general facts, such as that the Celestials were of the same nature as men [...] the "serpent" offered to show them proof inside the "tree of knowledge." [...] The tempter promised them that they would not die, and that if they did as he said, their knowledge would be equal to that of the Celestials. (page 144)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

The serpent... said to the woman... of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden... you would not die, for Elohim know that on the day you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened and you shall be as gods. Genesis 3: 1-5. Some scientists in this team felt a deep love for their little human beings, their creatures, and they wanted to give them a complete education in order to make them scientists like themselves. So they told these young people who were almost adults that they could pursue their scientific studies and in so doing they would become as knowledgeable as their creators. (page 24)

"to prolong"
Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969) The Lord of the Celestials says that man "has become like one of us." The text also states that if man took "fruit from the tree of life" and "ate" it, he would live forever. The plurality of the Celestials is confirmed by the phrase "like one of us," (page 146)	The book which tells the truth (1974) Now that man has become one of us, thanks to science... Now we must ensure that he does not put out his hand to take from the tree of life, eat and live forever. Genesis 3-22. Human life is very short but there is a scientific way to prolong it. (page 25)

"remains on earth"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

If the Biblical text has a rational meaning, Noah did not bring two elephants, a pair of fleas and a raccoon couple into his tebah: he took with him what the Gilgamesh Epic calls "the seeds of life." [...] all that was preserved for us by Noah in his tebah. (page 156) The astronauts of the Apollo program obey orders sent to them from earth by the scientists who conceived the program they are carrying out. In the Biblical story, the positions are reversed: the scientists who conceived the "tebah program" are in space, having left the earth, and Noah, who is carrying out the program, remains on earth. (page 158)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

However when the exiled creators were informed of the project they asked Noah to build a spaceship which would orbit the Earth during the cataclysm containing a pair of each species that was to be preserved. This was true figuratively speaking, but in reality [...] a single living cell of each species, male and female, is all that is required to recreate a whole being. (page 27)

"atomic explosion" "Sodom and Gomorrah"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

What about the atomic explosion of Sodom and Gomorrah that some mystery-lovers like to associate with the Deluge? [...] whose destruction suggests a super-Hiroshima. (page 156)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

so they gathered in the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah and, having managed to salvage a few scientific secrets [...] They warned those who were peaceful to leave the town because they were going to destroy it with an atomic explosion. [...] As the people were leaving town, they were in no particular hurry because they did not realize what an atomic explosion could mean. (page 29-30)

"when the only known propulsive mechanism was the bow"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

Since the affair of the "Tower of Babel" took place in prehistoric times, when the only known propulsive mechanism was the bow, the tower must have been conceived as the stock of a mammoth ancestor of the crossbow. [...] that men did not know what they were doing in trying to reach the orbit of the moon? No, because the Biblical text comments on it in terms that show an awareness of space travel as a concrete human possibility: the Lord of the Celestials is quoted as saying that now that the tower-builders have undertaken their project, nothing they have a mind to do will be beyond their reach. Genesis 11-6 (page 167)

The book which tells the truth (1974)

BUT the most intelligent race, the people of Israel, was making such remarkable progress that they were soon able to undertake the conquest of space with the help of the exiled creators. The latter wanted their new human beings to go to the creators planet to obtain their pardon, by showing that they were not only intelligent and scientific but also grateful and peaceful. So they built an enormous rocket - The Tower of Babel.

And now they have decided to do this, henceforward nothing they plan to do will be beyond their reach. Genesis 11-6. (page 28)

"the only known evolutionary process"

Those gods who made heaven & earth (1969)

"Mutations, the only known evolutionary process, nearly always correspond to phenomena of regression or repetition. [...] Not one of them has ever produced a new organ. [...] For a bird, loss of wings is a calamity [...] (page 182)

Let's welcome the Extraterrestrials (1979)

The mutations that we are familiar with and which they wish to consider responsible for the coming to being of the whole of life on Earth are not more than organic deprivations, deficiencies and losses of pigments or appendices, or doubling of pre-existing organs. In any case they never bring anything really new and original to the organic layout, and nothing that we believe might be the beginning of a new organ or the start of a new function. (page 140)

End Quote.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 02:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...ok, now is all that even remotely reasonable? That massive wall of bright text is almost impossible to form a thorough response to. Also, where did you source all of that from? You obviously didn't type all of that up on the fly. Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did it in about two hours using the material at (http://raelian.com/en/jean_sendy.php) [not the original author mind you], converting it to wikitext at (http://bmanolov.free.fr/html2wiki-tables.php), and formatting it with a little help of a spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel) and notepad.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 23:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, as stated below, you'd obviously need sources because what you have here is a truely massive pile of original research.Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The set of claims I have quoted which attempts to connect the Raelian books with those of Jean Sendy IS of original research indeed.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 22:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple: any criticism or anything of the sort can be added, if you include references. (See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ David Hume (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
^ Paul W. Holland. 1986. "Statistics and Causal Inference" Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 81, No. 396. (Dec., 1986), pp. 945-960.
^ Judea Pearl. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge University Press.

Graph

The membership graph should be changed to the standard form with time increasing on the horizontal axis to the right, and membership as the vertical (dependant) axis. Otherwise, it is initially misleading. 71.139.171.89 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I changed the Controversies section subtitle to Reception - as in, "Reception in Popular Culture" - to make it more neutral. The section currently reads like a POV-dump. There's nothing wrong with negative reactions from reliable sources, but some of them appear to be "Dick and Jane" testimonials that don't add any weight to the article. A few positive or neutral perspectives by notable observers are needed here to keep this article out of GAR. Ignocrates (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think it needs more information

i have been asked to pick a religion that my humanities teacher has never heard of. i came across this religion and i was imediatley attracted by the religion. i love the religion and i agree with many things. i do however, have struggled to get some information. e.g their views on the world and their views on sacrifice. if anyone could add information i would be very grateful. i need it to be done by Friday 12th July 2013. thyank you.

Cardmagiciangirl (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try Raelianews.org. Good luck.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 17:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largest UFO religion?

I followed a link to this page from UFO Religion, which cited a source saying that Scientology is the largest UFO religion. This page says that Raëlism is the largest. Can anybody clarify? Webster100 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reference for that is apparently a book of fiction Utopia On the 6th Floor: Work, Death, & Taxes-Part 2 by by Steven Propp. The lectures cited are by a fictional character within the book, "History Professor Morton Thompson". That cite should go, and unless there's a better cite, that claim should go too. AndroidCat (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raël

Who is Raël? The word shows up frequently and seems to be referring to a person. Is this another name for Claude Vorilhon? If so, there needs to be clarification in the "History" section. Scarabola (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: Raëlism, also known as Raëlianism or the Raëlian movement, is a UFO religion that was founded in 1974 by Claude Vorilhon, now known as Raël. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Must have missed that. Though I was more focusing on the history section. There should be a mention of when and how Claude changed his name somewhere. Scarabola (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to the second paragraph, though maybe that's not perfect. I don't know when exactly when he decided that he should be called Rael. But the beginning of the section calls him Vorilhon and the following paragraphs call him Rael so there should be some sort of explanation in the middle where the switch of names happens. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

How is this word pronounced? That seems like a fundamental thing for an article about any non-English or uncommon English word, so I’m surprised that this article has nothing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation is plain, in accordance with standard English formalism. The diaresis above the e indicates that the e is to be pronounce as a distinct, vowel-only syllable, as in Raphael; thus, Ray-ell-ism. This should require no additional explanation in the article. rowley (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that first paragraph makes absolutely no sense and needs fixing . Almost seems like some words were forgotten or almost a sentence is missing .

What the hell is meant by saying all these prophets informed humans of each era ? It's stated like we are already supposed to what is being talked with these eras of informing when absolutely NOTHING has been written about them until they were just mentioned .96.233.70.198 (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the word informed is used here in the same sense as one would use it in saying that a particular culture is informed by those preceding; as an informed sensibility. It's an, admittedly, archaic or dated usage of the word informed, but it is still used in formal writing, and the meaning should be clear.

Also, in English, we usually place the period, or full stop, immediately after the preceding word, with no intervening space. rowley (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean " who MISinformed each human era ??? Lol

DUH96.233.70.198 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are not just another fanatical Theophobe who got triggered by the mention of religion, you may have a point. Given that the Räelians are atheists who believe in godless aliens, then if the great religious figures of history were purportedly alien agents, then (from the viewpoint of this cult), they must have been lying to humans in proclaiming the existence of God, not "informing" us. The other thing is that people like Jesus and Buddha had completely contradictory messages, so how could both have been agents representing the same aliens? (In Quebec, the Räelians are widely regarded as a sci-fi themed hedonistic cult, and not really a "religion".)77Mike77 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that the diaresis should go over the e, not the a. This shows how the word is to be pronounced. (Disclaimer: I am not a Raëlian; I am a typographer and copy editor, and a godless atheist.) rowley (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Raëlism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829194959/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/rael.html to http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/rael.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209143213/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=19567&sec=42&cont=all to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=19567&sec=42&cont=all
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20050130091250/http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=9560
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20040404225641/http://www.calgarysun.com/cgi-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=Lifestyles&p=78796.html&a=1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20080424141117/http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20061205/CPNOUVELLISTE/612050740/5409/CPNOUVELLISTE
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20010409153354/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/rael.html#operation%20condom
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20071206062725/http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200308/FOR20030806a.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223205421/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=24268&sec=42&cont=all to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=24268&sec=42&cont=all
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20030409164435/www.rael.org/english/pages/embassy/emb_overview.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20030410013549/www.rael.org/english/pages/embassy/emb_plan.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20030409211345/www.rael.org/english/pages/embassy/emb_requirements.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20030108015235/http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,865915,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/20051114214451/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/28/cloning.vatican/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Raëlism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Raëlism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception area: added information about lawsuit that followed the "amateur documentary."

In case there is any question as to my use of primary sources in this update, here's how I came to those decisions: I was curious what came of the documentary mentioned in the Reception section, so I Googled "Abdullah Hashem," and among some other (mind-boggling) links I found this PRNewswire page https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-federal-court-rules-filmmakers-lied-about-raelians-130411248.html

Obviously that's a press release put out by the Raelism org, and doesn't qualify as a reliable source. But I thought that, if the documentary is mentioned in that section, so should the legal case and resulting judgement. So I did more digging, and all I could find are the case files from court docket websites. There doesn't appear to be one outside news source that reported on this judgement, and the press release has a few factually sketchy parts itself. So...

I opted to include the press release citation early in the paragraph, when it's detailing some of the allegations made by IRM. But I took the RICO charge terms directly from the court documents, and when it came to the actual details of the default judgment, I directly quoted the primary source in a few places to make clear the full outcome of the case. There is precedent for doing this on Wikipedia, when no secondary sources are available, which reported on the publicly available court documents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_16#Primary_vs._Secondary_sources

And yes, I did search that and other court databases, to confirm no further action had been entered regarding that case. As best I can tell, nothing was done after September of 2011, and that was just notice sent to all parties of the August 2011 decision. There are some other bits and bobs online to this story, from people on both side, but it's all highly inflammatory and unreliable. So much so that, I'm not entirely sure the reference to the documentary should even be here. It's all starting to feel a bit like one NRM attacking another NRM, for profit or publicity. But given it was somewhat publicized, omitting it feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. CleverTitania (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol

They're not a Jewish or Israeli organisation, so why do they base their symbol on the Star of David? Jim Michael (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Star of David#See also for similar shapes. Editor2020 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] David Hume (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[2] Paul W. Holland. 1986. "Statistics and Causal Inference" Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 81, No. 396. (Dec., 1986), pp. 945-960.

[3] Judea Pearl. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge University Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]