lol creationists

[handrewrites]

It would make more sense to ask

Creationist: Is it possible for aliens to exists?

Evolutionist: Yes!

C: Is it possible for them to exist in a form different than us?

E: Yes!

C: Is it possible for it to exist in a radical sense, unlike any sense here on earth? Consciousness that exist purely in energy form only, for example?

E: Yes!

C: Is it possible that they may have abilities, that here on earth would seem super human? Telepathy for example?

E: Yes!

C: With our one technology advancing even to the point of cloning animals, is it possible for an alien race to be so advanced that it could create life?

E: Yes!

C: How about matter then? Is it possible they could create whole worlds possible if they were advanced enough?

E: Yes!

C: Destroy worlds?

E: Yes!

C: So its possible for an alien race to have all of these qualities at once?

E: Yes!

C: So an Invisible alien, with the ability to read minds, create worlds and people on it, that also has the ability to destroy the world it created and populated, could exist somewhere, right? Its possible?

E: Yes!

C: Can God exist?

E: Of course not, don't be silly.

=D

I am definitely open to and intrigued by the possibility that aliens created or at the very least contributed to the engineering of humans and human civilization.

As the late Arthur Clarke stated, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I'd like to add though that even with this sort of stuff I'm an "agnostic" - I'm not into the sort of pseudoscientific stuff spouted by the likes of (the late) Zecharia Sitchin.

 

[wayn3]

Its funny how you declare people who believe in god, or some conscious entity who created the universe nuts, acting as if you knew how it came into existence.

We know nothing about how it happened. According to fairly well understood laws of physics, we know that it cant have existed forever. So something must have happened for the universe to begin existing. Chances are theres something "beyond" the boundaries of the universe that transcends reality as you know it. Something that cant be described because your way to feel, act, think and express yourself is bound tightly to the laws that govern this universe. Some kind of deity creating universes in their spare time doesnt make much less sense than a universe just popping up from eternal void for no good reason.

Why cant you just leave each other alone. You make fun of ridiculous religious extremists, turn around and go into a similar frenzy the moment someone questions your precious science. A science you know nothing about (summaries written by journalists who werent able to study something real dont count). Even if it knew answers to the questions you think can easily be answered, you wouldnt understand a word of them. Your belief in science is not at all different from religious peoples belief in god.

 

[guerilla]

I am probably at the nexus of deism, alien astronaut theory and indifference.

 

[JoseArmando]

Why I like chocolate ice cream is also devoid of fact. I may rationalize my choice with selective facts, but those facts aren't anything I can use to prove a universal.

I still don't think people get it. Religion has nothing to do with facts. NOTHING!

I think we're basically both saying the same thing just from a different angle. Religion in itself is an interpretation of objective reality without any form of scientific method, which perfectly aligns with what personal preference is.

It's basically a deduction based on fallibility of human psyche without even trying to introduce logic devoid of cognitive biases.

It is however a description about how we form these beliefs.

It's not a description of the type of belief. One is personal preference and another is a claim about reality. Belief in a God or a Minotaur can never be a personal preference without AT THE SAME TIME being a claim about reality.

However, a personal preference such as chocolate over vanilla can be a belief that doesn't make any claims about reality what so ever. See what I'm saying?

They can overlap but they are not the same. Neither of them is based on facts though like you said.

 

[HKSEO Rotzee]

I am definitely open to and intrigued by the possibility that aliens created or at the very least contributed to the engineering of humans and human civilization.

As the late Arthur Clarke stated, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I'd like to add though that even with this sort of stuff I'm an "agnostic" - I'm not into the sort of pseudoscientific stuff spouted by the likes of (the late) Zecharia Sitchin.

Whats a great question is this....If scientist finally prove that the earth was created by an alien. It created man, the earth, the animals and the alien has God like powers/technology...and it was responsible for the birth of religion....and this alien still preached the same morals of the bible/torah/q'uran etc.

Would they still worship it? Or does it get weird then?

 

[guerilla]

I think we're basically both saying the same thing just from a different angle. Religion in itself is an interpretation of objective reality without any form of scientific method, which perfectly aligns with what personal preference is.

Not really, but ok.

It's basically a deduction based on fallibility of human psyche without even trying to introduce logic devoid of cognitive biases.

It's not fallible because an ought cannot become an is.

Two different domains of knowledge.

However, a personal preference such as chocolate over vanilla can be a belief that doesn't make any claims about reality what so ever. See what I'm saying?

Sure it makes a claim about reality. That chocolate tastes better than vanilla.

I didn't understand the rest.

 

[JoseArmando]

Sure it makes a claim about reality. That chocolate tastes better than vanilla.

One is true just for you another implies that it's an universal truth. What's there not to understand?

 

[guerilla]

One is true just for you another implies that it's an universal truth. What's there not to understand?

What if I say that chocolate is better than vanilla and anyone who likes vanilla is a dummy?

Same problem.

TBh, we're close enough, I would rather just say you're right so I can unsubscribe from this thread than continue to debate minutiae.

 

[JoseArmando]

What if I say that chocolate is better than vanilla and anyone who likes vanilla is a dummy?

Same problem.

Well that's an issue of character then. If you believe in God though you can never rationalize that it's a subjective kind of thing. It's either true for all or not true at all.

TBh, we're close enough, I would rather just say you're right so I can unsubscribe from this thread than continue to debate minutiae.

Yeah it's a small enough distinction but also a good time waster since my funds got frozen for today so I had a few extra hours to post here.

 

[productionhead]

Its funny how you declare people who believe in god, or some conscious entity who created the universe nuts, acting as if you knew how it came into existence.

We know nothing about how it happened. According to fairly well understood laws of physics, we know that it cant have existed forever. So something must have happened for the universe to begin existing. Chances are theres something "beyond" the boundaries of the universe that transcends reality as you know it. Something that cant be described because your way to feel, act, think and express yourself is bound tightly to the laws that govern this universe. Some kind of deity creating universes in their spare time doesnt make much less sense than a universe just popping up from eternal void for no good reason.

Why cant you just leave each other alone. You make fun of ridiculous religious extremists, turn around and go into a similar frenzy the moment someone questions your precious science. A science you know nothing about (summaries written by journalists who werent able to study something real dont count). Even if it knew answers to the questions you think can easily be answered, you wouldnt understand a word of them. Your belief in science is not at all different from religious peoples belief in god.

 

[productionhead]

But yeah. 99.99% of the science pushers consume it from news articles, get amazed at what other people are able to do in the material world, feel proud for "progress", but have probably never even read an abstract before, nor know that science is applicable within only limited domains and is Not The Answer To Everything.

The Tao that can be named is the not the eternal Tao.

 

[JCash]

Bottom line here, real boobs that look fake are 100 times better than fake boobs that look real.

 

[inplainview]

Whenever I argue with a creationist...

 

[guerilla]

Well that's an issue of character then. If you believe in God though you can never rationalize that it's a subjective kind of thing. It's either true for all or not true at all.

I try to avoid universals because most of what we think is fact, usually ends up being opinion.

Within the context of the human experience being psychological,

"If it looks and feels real to you, does it matter if it is true objectively?

Yeah it's a small enough distinction but also a good time waster since my funds got frozen for today so I had a few extra hours to post here.

My work list hates you

 

[Moxie]

Spend time here
stefbot - YouTube

I allegedly know people that know Stefan. Oops, Guerilla can't read this and also now says he won't read my PMs.

HighSchool.jpg

I disliked Christopher Hitchens because he was full of shit. If he didn't want to be judged that way, he should have stayed out of the public, but this stuff where people hold him up as some great intellectual just shows how little exposure people have to great thinkers. I feel fairly confident that people like Aristotle wouldn't have given Hitchens a fraction of the time I give you.

Stefan is/was very into Hitchens. It's funny that if Stefan had an account here under a different name, Guerilla would call him an idiot peasant and put him on ignore.

YouCan'tMakeThisStuffUp.gif


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERBnU2nG5zo&]RIP Christopher Hitchens, Atheists are as Feared as Rapists, and the Natural Morality of Infancy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[clyde]

Direct result is impossible to prove one way or another.

My point is, someone can concurrently believe in the supernatural and make meaningful contributions to science. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Believing in God is no different than believing that chocolate tastes better than vanilla. The reason why we don't have threads arguing over chocolate and vanilla is that those values aren't part of our psychological identity. Our religious, political etc perspectives very much define who we believe we are.

Not impossible, I already gave you the examples: "burning of the witches" or "stoning of adulterers" are the direct results of Christianity and Islam. The widespread of Vegetarianism in India is the direct result of Hinduism.

You're right though, it's no different than beliving in Chocolate tastes better than Vanilla, which is why it's redundant that you mention it. The fact that Hitler was baptised once has nothing to do with the genocides that he committed. I don't contest the fact that you can contribute to science DESPITE being religious. Religion just has nothing to do with it.

 

[guerilla]

Not impossible, I already gave you the examples: "burning of the witches" or "stoning of adulterers" are the direct results of Christianity and Islam.

You can't assign away human acts as being caused by ideology independent of the actors.

I don't contest the fact that you can contribute to science DESPITE being religious. Religion just has nothing to do with it.

It probably has something to do with it. Your morals, your belief system are all part of your identity.

 

[WildGunner]

Why do people bring up Hitler when attempting to validate or strengthen their point or to invalidate others? It's like an overused and over-the-top fallacy gone haywire.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Guerilla would call him an idiot peasant and put him on ignore.

I still do respect Guerilla for many of the posts he makes here and for the fact that he is an accomplished businessman and intellectual, but,

He's a pompous douchebag that loves simply stating "You are wrong." and leaving it at that, because anything further would be a waste of his precious and invaluable time.

I've argued dozens of theists and atheists alike who act in the same manner, and I do my best not to act the same. I make sure that when I make a point, I explain it for those that may not understand. Giving somebody else deeper understanding on a topic is not a waste of my time.

 

[jhoffy22]

Why do people bring up Hitler when attempting to validate or strengthen their point or to invalidate others? It's like an overused and over-the-top fallacy gone haywire.

Couldn't have said it better myself.