God, Aliens and Astronauts

[HaMMerHeD]

Again your post are refreshing. That is the thing about religion. At some point a person realizes that they aren't gonna know every thing. I know enough to believe. I don't study the Bible to gain scientific knowledge.

You don't study the bible to gain scientific knowledge because there is no scientific knowledge to be gained from it. But that doesn't stop you from using it to deny scientific knowledge. It doesn't stop you from asserting that a set of scientific truth is invalid because your unscientific book says something different. Do you not see how hypocritical that is? Have you even read the bible?

Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.

Yes, religious people have a very long track record of preying on people who are in very weak places. And yes, there are countries where outright religiosity is easier to get away with. What does that prove?

 

[jl-austin]

You don't study the bible to gain scientific knowledge because there is no scientific knowledge to be gained from it. But that doesn't stop you from using it to deny scientific knowledge. It doesn't stop you from asserting that a set of scientific truth is invalid because your unscientific book says something different. Do you not see how hypocritical that is? Have you even read the bible?



Yes, religious people have a very long track record of preying on people who are in very weak places. And yes, there are countries where outright religiosity is easier to get away with. What does that prove?

All personal attacks. It's okay man, it's all good.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

All personal attacks. It's okay man, it's all good.

So questioning your statements and beliefs constitutes personal attacks?

Interesting. Completely wrong, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Jakke]

Dude, I'm Canadian. That means that I can summon an army of bears to my side at telepathic command to re-enact the battle of Pelennor Fields.

Bears eh? That's cute...

You do know what the etymology of the word "berserker" is?

>Dressed in bear (skin)

Check and mate.

Oh, the USA? Check mate....

I may believe in a space ghost with a zombie son who is the savior of all mankind, but even I'm not crazy enough to believe that.

You said it

 

[bhakan]

I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.

Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.

Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.

I will admit, I know very little about the Bible, so it is probably incredibly easy to poke holes in my arguments, but all the arguments so far have been in "our court" (science), so it is only fair to discuss the other side also.

One thing that has always confused me is this: Certain things in the Bible are wrong (for example, I think it says in genesis that the Earth was made before the sun or any stars). If some aspects of the book are wrong, how do you determine which are correct and which aren't? In response to this, i have heard that it isn't meant to be taken literally, but as more of a metaphor. In this case, how do we determine which aspects are literal and which are not?

 

[jl-austin]

One thing that has always confused me is this: Certain things in the Bible are wrong (for example, I think it says in genesis that the Earth was made before the sun or any stars). If some aspects of the book are wrong, how do you determine which are correct and which aren't? In response to this, i have heard that it isn't meant to be taken literally, but as more of a metaphor. In this case, how do we determine which aspects are literal and which are not?

Looking at it from a purely scientific point of view it would be hard to believe that the Earth was created first. However, science has not always been correct about our place in the universe, at one time they thought that the whole universe revolved around Earth. It might still be possible for a discovery that the Earth is older than the sun. I know that is not a good answer. I doubt I would believe that if I were in your shoes, but that's all I have about that.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

Looking at it from a purely scientific point of view it would be hard to believe that the Earth was created first. However, science has not always been correct about our place in the universe, at one time they thought that the whole universe revolved around Earth. It might still be possible for a discovery that the Earth is older than the sun. I know that is not a good answer. I doubt I would believe that if I were in your shoes, but that's all I have about that.

Also note that the geocentric hypothesis had origins in religion. And when a mathematically viable heliocentric model for the solar system was first produced by Nicolaus Copernicus, religious officials of the day fought mightily against it.

 

[Xaios]

>Dressed in bear (skin)

Not THESE bears, son.

World's largest land carnivore is likely to use that wimpy axe for a tooth pick.

Oh, the USA? Check mate....

Firearm statistics disagree. Besides, give us a hockey game and us Canadians will take all comers in the rowdy sports fan department too.

(Except the Brits. Those guys are fuckin crazy.)

 

[bhakan]

Looking at it from a purely scientific point of view it would be hard to believe that the Earth was created first. However, science has not always been correct about our place in the universe, at one time they thought that the whole universe revolved around Earth. It might still be possible for a discovery that the Earth is older than the sun. I know that is not a good answer. I doubt I would believe that if I were in your shoes, but that's all I have about that.

That's true, nothing in science is a certainty, but the fact that the sun is older than the earth is as close as it gets. Regardless, my main point wasn't about that specific part, but that there are some inconsistencies. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is 100% literally true, and if not, how do you determine which are and which aren't?

 

[HaMMerHeD]

That's true, nothing in science is a certainty, but the fact that the Earth is older than the sun is as close as it gets. Regardless, my main point wasn't about that specific part, but that there are some inconsistencies. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is 100% literally true, and if not, how do you determine which are and which aren't?

I do hope you meant that the other way around. The earth formed in a process we call accretion from a dust and gas ring in orbit around the sun, so the sun is indeed quite a bit older.

 

[bhakan]

I do hope you meant that the other way around. The earth formed in a process we call accretion from a dust and gas ring in orbit around the sun, so the sun is indeed quite a bit older.

Haha, sorry . I switched those. Should have actually read my post before posting.

 

[jl-austin]

That's true, nothing in science is a certainty, but the fact that the Earth is older than the sun is as close as it gets. Regardless, my main point wasn't about that specific part, but that there are some inconsistencies. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is 100% literally true, and if not, how do you determine which are and which aren't?

There are some things in the Bible I find hard to believe as 100 percent literal. There is one story in the old testament that I struggle with. There are concepts that I don't fully understand. I hate to admit this, but any thing spiritual I really have a hard time understanding.

The first time I read the Bible straight thru, there were a lot of things that I said, "yeah right". I have always had the opinion that it is okay to question the Bible, as long as I have an open heart about what it says. I have always had the belief that if God is who he says he is, and I truly have an open heart, I will find the truth.

There are things that are not literal, things that are figurative. I have found that an understanding of the whole Bible helps me understand the things that are not literal. I have also found that for me it's not about understanding the mysteries, but how for me to be a more loving person, and trying to get to know about Jesus more.

 

[flint757]

I enjoy your post the most. You seem to be approaching this from an intellectual point of view.

It is true that I have not taken any courses on statistics/probability/etc. However, from my point of view, they say there is no proof of God's existance, I say, I have not heard a number of the probability of the human race "just coming into being" either. If it is probable, then there should be a number, right? The number would be HUGE, I would say impossible. Thus my therory of there being an almighty God is just as probable as any other therory.

It is observable and repeatable even if only on a small scale. Think about horse breeders. They pick and choose horses based on certain characteristics so that there genes will most likely pass on as dominant genes. Evolution takes this process and extends it over a much longer period of time and is controlled by the fact that one animal with a particular trait that is more suited for his environment will live longer and as such be given more time to procreate and spread his dominant traits. It takes what is quite easily observable and manipulated today and translates them over millions of years. Small changes add up over time. To give you a visual think about erosion. If you watch something eroding you won't typically see much change. Come back a year later and it look quite a bit different.

I'm not saying it is impossible that there is a God, but that there is no evidence to prove there is a God. There very well could be one for all anyone knows and it isn't impossible that the World spins on its own, but God and nature are one in the same. If one day this is ever proven to be true I will gladly change my position, but as of now I am a non-believer. I imagine most Athiests are Agnostic Athiests considering we follow the evidence and hold a willingness to admit when we are wrong. To say there isn't a God would be just as inaccurate as saying there is IMO. My position is it is possible, but highly unlikely, as far as I'm concerned.

Nope. Attempts have been made to quantify the odds of humans coming into being through evolution, and you are right that the odds are very small. However, it did happen, and all available evidence suggests that the theory of evolution explains how it happened. The thing is, it only had to happen once, and we can see that it did happen, so humans are a known quantity.

However, the likelihood for something like Yahweh existing is considerably smaller. Unlike humans and evolution, however, there is exactly NO evidence whatsoever to indicate that it does now or ever did exist. God is an unknown quantity, but the probability of that quantity being 0 is very, very large.

Yep. Lets say the odds are 1/1000000000. If 1000000000 mutations and gene selection occur it isn't impossible or even random. Metaphorically it'd be like me measuring a screw to figure out the thread, length, head size (intelligent approach) and me trying them all out until I find the one that works (random approach). They both lead to the same result.

Evolution did not only happen once. It does not explain the creation of humans, it explains the creation of all animals. The theory is proved by all organisms.

Also, just as a note, evolution isn't really all that random. Within a species, different specimens exhibit slightly different qualities. If one organism is taller and can more easily acquire food, it will live where a shorter organism may die. Over millions of years, all of those little changes add up to where we are now.

If you will allow me to bother you more, how do you think primitive man and other organism came into being, are they related to a common ancestor, or were they put on earth in their current form?

As far as the chicken, that protein which is found only in chickens was a mutation in the first chicken. It is relatively easy for an amino acid to get switched in replication, resulting in a unique protein. This protein probably happened to be superior to the previous protein and aided in survival of eggs, which allowed the modern chicken to pass on its genes (including this protein) better than the species before it.

And just to be clear, no hard feelings at all. I respect your opinions and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just curious to hear your viewpoint.

I hope you all can see that I am quite confident in my beliefs. I have tried to point out things to convince. I see that you all are equally confident in your beliefs.

Trying to use a play of words or try to explain away things that "might" have happened is not a good arguement in my opinion. This is how it goes typically. The person that does not believe in God typically has no real reason, just that they don't want to believe. I have been thru this sooooo many times, I have grown tired of it. Just for once, I would like for someone to have a point of their own, instead of trying to make a play on words, or use the "what if" excuse.

Just for once I would like someone to say, I don't believe because the Bible says "such and such". Then we could have a discussion. I'm sick of the "what ifs". Peace.

They aren't what if's, they are theories. It is an attempt to explain what happened a long, long time ago and is supported with as much evidence as possible. These theories are always up for question and if proven wrong removed and replaced.

Often times the reason to believe in God comes from a heavy loss at some point in ones life. Often times the more wealthy a person is (and just about everyone from a first world country is wealthy), the harder it is for that person to put their faith in God. We tend to put our faith in our jobs and our wealth. Go to a country like the Philippines and it is MUCH easier to talk about God.

So people who are downtrodden and have nothing left to lose hold the strongest faith. Wonder why?

People turn to worship in the scenario you described not because it is more likely to work, not because they are more faithful, not because they have been untainted by the modern world, but because it is a last ditch effort at an attempt to better ones self. At that point it just offers hope and it is kind of a "What do we have to lose" scenario. I know that will just come across as being cynical to you, but it is quite observable that religion perpetuates in extreme poverty and I see that as grasping at straws personally.

 

[flint757]

Also note that the geocentric hypothesis had origins in religion. And when a mathematically viable heliocentric model for the solar system was first produced by Nicolaus Copernicus, religious officials of the day fought mightily against it.

He was largely ignored for awhile considering he didn't post his findings right away. His successors wasn't so lucky though, Bruno was burned at the stake for his claims.

 

[The Reverend]

I hate to be nitpicky, especially since I actually share the same belief in a fundamental way, but..

You aren't 100% positive. You don't know anything. I suspect there is life outside that which we know; saying I know there is puts me in a position of ignorance. It's when people start thinking they know the answers to questions we either can't answer outright or can't answer just yet that you pave the way to institutionalized ignorance.

We spend so much time in our own little heads, convinced that the way we see the world is much more accurate than everyone else's, and it's never the case. In the back of your mind, and mine, and everyone anyone who reads this has ever met, we think we are right. Our sly brains slip us little lies, excuses, really, for why other people don't get it. Oh, they don't have the knowledge I do. Oh, they aren't smart enough to understand it. Oh, they're in denial, but they secretly know the truth. It's bullshit.

Worse than being bullshit, it leads to things like religious persecution, state-supported genocide, parasitic elitism, and idealistic slaughters. Individuals or groups who think they are right without first trying to disprove themselves with an open mind are behind the worst atrocities in our collective human history, and will be behind all the atrocities to come.

I beg anyone who reads this to reconsider whether they know anything and are right about it. I beg anyone who reads this to question whether what they think is right should be forced on anyone else, even. After all, someone with an opposing viewpoint thinks that they are just as right as you. We see it on SSO all the time. This isn't the first ancient astronaut thread, and AoA and Explorer have tussled over this much more eloquently and humorously than I have or will, but the fact remains that neither has changed positions. Enlightened debate only occurs when both parties say, "This is what I support/believe; convince me otherwise," and then proceed to honestly evaluate the evidence presented and ignore the cognitive dissonance hardwired into our brains.

America.

Yeah...


JL, look. I have nothing against you personally. But if you're going to discuss things with atheists, you need to understand some things.

1.) Most contest the very authenticity of the Bible. First you must prove that it is the infallible word of God, then you can use it as evidence. If I write a book about aliens dumping the souls of an entire galaxy into a volcano, and 1,500 years later people use it as the base of their religion, is it historical proof of events happening?

2.) You must be willing to examine your own arguments when they are rebutted. Google some things people have said, find multiple sources that confirm or deny it, and form a conclusion. If you feel they lack logic or are untrue, say so. But to dismiss people offhand like you just did shows a lack of respect for others. You aren't the smartest person here, nor have you done the most extensive searching for a higher power here. By virtue of the internet's anonymity, you could be speaking to a educated theologist or a redneck from a small town outside of Houston.


Read this, if nothing else:

The purpose of discussing things people disagree on, in a perfect world, is not to convince the other party that they are wrong. It should be two people with opposing ideas mutually seeking the truth through an examination of counter-arguments and all available evidence. If someone refutes one of your arguments, and you internally discover another aspect of your opinion you hadn't fully considered or even realized, that person just expanded your awareness of the topic. Be grateful, not hateful.

Because you're also from Texas, instead of ending this the way I usually do...

Texas.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

He was largely ignored for awhile considering he didn't post his findings right away. His successors wasn't so lucky though, Bruno was burned at the stake for his claims.

Yeah. Galileo had some issues too.

 

[bhakan]

There are some things in the Bible I find hard to believe as 100 percent literal. There is one story in the old testament that I struggle with. There are concepts that I don't fully understand. I hate to admit this, but any thing spiritual I really have a hard time understanding.

The first time I read the Bible straight thru, there were a lot of things that I said, "yeah right". I have always had the opinion that it is okay to question the Bible, as long as I have an open heart about what it says. I have always had the belief that if God is who he says he is, and I truly have an open heart, I will find the truth.

There are things that are not literal, things that are figurative. I have found that an understanding of the whole Bible helps me understand the things that are not literal. I have also found that for me it's not about understanding the mysteries, but how for me to be a more loving person, and trying to get to know about Jesus more.

So you are saying that by reading and understanding the Bible as a whole, it becomes clear which parts are literal and which are more figurative? Is is clear cut, or more "you hear what you want to hear"?

One of the reasons I have never really trusted the Bible is since some things are factually incorrect, it makes it more difficult for me to have any faith in the parts that we don't have proof of either way. If genesis is a figurative way of explaining the creation of the world, how would I know the whole notion of a god isn't a figurative way of describing one's own conscience or heaven isn't a figurative way to describe dying at peace with your life?

Also, thank you for having a civilized discussion. I find these discussions fascinating, but in real life I'm mostly met with people just saying either "Let Jesus into your life!" or "You're going to Hell" without actually answering any questions or making any points.

 

[jl-austin]

I'm not saying it is impossible that there is a God, but that there is no evidence to prove there is a God. There very well could be one for all anyone knows and it isn't impossible that the World spins on its own, but God and nature are one in the same. If one day this is ever proven to be true I will gladly change my position, but as of now I am a non-believer.

God is Spiritual. I have found it VERY difficult to understand spiritual things. I doubt science will ever prove the existence of God, because science only deals with things of a physical nature (meaning not spiritual).

 

[jl-austin]

Also, thank you for having a civilized discussion. I find these discussions fascinating, but in real life I'm mostly met with people just saying either "Let Jesus into your life!" or "You're going to Hell" without actually answering any questions or making any points.

I am trying my hardest to be civil, and discuss topics.

I have been a non-believer in the past, I would not have listened to anything I have said when I was at that point. I am trying my hardest to respect the fact that not everyone believes.

I know what I said a out reading the Bible to understand the Bible sounds a little backwards, but that is what I have found to be true.

 

[The Reverend]

God is Spiritual. I have found it VERY difficult to understand spiritual things. I doubt science will ever prove the existence of God, because science only deals with things of a physical nature (meaning not spiritual).

Spiritual experiences by definition have to have an effect on the physical for us to perceive them. If it is measurable, it is science. If I feel peace after going through my T'ai Chi forms (of which I know two ) that peace can be measured scientifically, through observing how my brain pattern is altered.

In fact, you should consider researching the quest to find the God-center in the brain, and the resulting things found during that quest.