Thread: Intelligent Life

very few religions explicitely deny the existence of life outside of this planet, actually. its possible that it would actually convince many people that some religions are based more in truth than they previously thought.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

very few religions explicitely deny the existence of life outside of this planet, actually. its possible that it would actually convince many people that some religions are based more in truth than they previously thought.

It would ruin mainstream religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism. All who claim to be the special unique reason for existing.

For others like say... scientology, it would only reinforce it...
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

It would ruin mainstream religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Mormonism. All who claim to be the special unique reason for existing.

For others like say... scientology, it would only reinforce it...
~

Well the books of the judeo-christian religions sometimes refer to god as "Elohim" but the exact meaning of the word is unclear as it doesn't necessarily only refer to a single all powerful creator. There are some that believe that the word was literally used to refer to other worldly creatures and creators that came from heaven, which is the sky or above the Earth; being extra-terrestrial.

The mormons specifically believe in other planets and sentient life and that Earth is just one of many of Gods creations.

The hindu religion is also unclear as to whether their gods are purely spiritual or are also physical in nature. There are some hindu followers that believe shiva, krishna, kali, etc. were all real people who either came from other planets or were born on Earth.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well the books of the judeo-christian religions sometimes refer to god as "Elohim" but the exact meaning of the word is unclear as it doesn't necessarily only refer to a single all powerful creator. There are some that believe that the word was literally used to refer to other worldly creatures and creators that came from heaven, which is the sky or above the Earth; being extra-terrestrial.

The mormons specifically believe in other planets and sentient life and that Earth is just one of many of Gods creations.

The hindu religion is also unclear as to whether their gods are purely spiritual or are also physical in nature. There are some hindu followers that believe shiva, krishna, kali, etc. were all real people who either came from other planets or were born on Earth.

And here we see the contingency plan for theism to fall upon - taking references out of context and manipulating it.

Oh well, delusions are impervious in mass numbers, right?

Some may have legitimate belief in alien life-forms, but my point here is just that, in any case, theists will have some manipulated contingency plan for any case.
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

And here we see the contingency plan for theism to fall upon - taking references out of context and manipulating it.

Oh well, delusions are impervious in mass numbers, right?

Some may have legitimate belief in alien life-forms, but my point here is just that, in any case, theists will have some manipulated contingency plan for any case.
~

Why must it be manipulative? Why does there have to be under-handed connotations about it just because it relates to religion? I don't understand the idea that if you are an atheist, you are allowed to revise your beliefs but if you are a religious person, any revision based on new evidence is seen as manipulation and negative alteration.

These are the facts; the Torah, the talmud, the Q'uran, the new testament, the Vedas, The Gitas, etc., etc., all religious texts were written. These texts were inspired by certain circumstances. The circumstances that inspired these texts are largely unknown. Why must you see it is a negative thing to try to understand what the knowledge of our distant anscestors was based off of? Why must we believe that everything that people believed 2000, or 6000 years ago was wrong in order to progress?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why must it be manipulative? Why does there have to be under-handed connotations about it just because it relates to religion? I don't understand the idea that if you are an atheist, you are allowed to revise your beliefs but if you are a religious person, any revision based on new evidence is seen as manipulation and negative alteration.

These are the facts; the Torah, the talmud, the Q'uran, the new testament, the Vedas, The Gitas, etc., etc., all religious texts were written. These texts were inspired by certain circumstances. The circumstances that inspired these texts are largely unknown. Why must you see it is a negative thing to try to understand what the knowledge of our distant anscestors was based off of? Why must we believe that everything that people believed 2000, or 6000 years ago was wrong in order to progress?

You are right. I should not misrepresent the theistic rebuttals or justifications for discoveries. My point is that they are capable of explaining any discovery and only God manifest itself could prove otherwise (or for it).

I try and give room for atheism as the kind that I have only recently embraced only professes to know and understand what we have reason to believe or what we can empirically show to justify.

Theism does not have this facet and relies (almost entirely) on dogmatism. I want to state that I respect this and those that believe it. I simply have no reason to also believe it. Once I do, then I will concur.
~

I disagree entirely. Scientific theories and research of empirical data gave me my religious beliefs. My conclusions are based on scientific evidence, I just have different conclusions than you do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I disagree entirely. Scientific theories and research of empirical data gave me my religious beliefs. My conclusions are based on scientific evidence, I just have different conclusions than you do.

What you are doing then is attaching theism (I do not know what your belief is, so I am left so assume theism) to science. Science can exist on its own in a form of atheism. Once you attach any supernatural, unexplainable theories to science, it is no longer an isolated, circumscribed form of atheism but annexed with your theistic choice.

Unless you have an alternate annexed religion to science..? I am interested in how you can annex a religion to science and still maintain that it is isolated and circumscribed alone as science.

Note: I am intending science as a body of atheism in the idea that atheists, like myself, would believe in a God if we were given good empirical reason to do so. I am not stubborn in my beliefs and would gladly appreciate and accept any justifiable reasoning.
~

By saying that I am simply attaching my beliefs to science, or attempting to explain the evidence with pre-existing beliefs is insulting.

I would suggest that atheists simply apply the belief that there is no god to scientific evidence simply because they do not have a clear understanding of what god is. As someone who has studied science indepth and will continue to do so through out my whole life, I personally see it as silly to believe that there is nothing beyond what we physically perceive, no pattern more complex than those that we have created and no truth to what what humans have held as fundamental for all of our recorded existence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

By saying that I am simply attaching my beliefs to science, or attempting to explain the evidence with pre-existing beliefs is insulting.

I would suggest that atheists simply apply the belief that there is no god to scientific evidence simply because they do not have a clear understanding of what god is. As someone who has studied science indepth and will continue to do so through out my whole life, I personally see it as silly to believe that there is nothing beyond what we physically perceive, no pattern more complex than those that we have created and no truth to what what humans have held as fundamental for all of our recorded existence.

Hrm.. okay, forgive my rhetoric - I am tired and obviously not doing my best to be sensitive.

Here's how I look at it:
- Science; judging and believing in things you can empirically and repeatively represent for those to believe and justify a certain theory. (ie. gravity).
- Atheism; believing in only what science has to offer. Still allowing leeway to the possible existance of God but requires justifiable reason to believe in such.
- Theism; believing in science with the belief that God is the creator and designer of all things science discovers.
- Agnosticism; believing that we will never grasp or understand the true nature of God.

Perhaps we are seeing these definitions differently..? Or my defining is off..? Please let me know what you think - I really want to strive to respect and understand your beliefs.
~

I don't see god as the creator of all things science discovers, rather all things science discovers collectively is god and science is a way to better understand its nature.

I believe our anscestors may have had a more intimate understanding of the nature of the universe intuitively, without the evidence to accurately explain themselves. This is why it is not strange to me that angels may have been a poor description of extra-terrestrials. When all we knew was the earth, everything not from here was mysterious. There is a reason why heaven is both up, and also the source of the unexplainable. This is because that is the direction our anscestors were the least capable to go in.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't see god as the creator of all things science discovers, rather all things science discovers collectively is god and science is a way to better understand its nature.

This part intrigues me; what is God then? How does God differ from mere energy that binds materialism?

I worry that you are a reluctant atheist.

I believe our anscestors may have had a more intimate understanding of the nature of the universe intuitively, without the evidence to accurately explain themselves. This is why it is not strange to me that angels may have been a poor description of extra-terrestrials. When all we knew was the earth, everything not from here was mysterious. There is a reason why heaven is both up, and also the source of the unexplainable. This is because that is the direction our anscestors were the least capable to go in.

Yeah, I have often thought the samething. There must me a paramount of knowledge we could have by now if we were capable of archiving it properly over the centuries. However, it has been sadly lost.
~

I am not an atheist because I believe in non-physical things that existed before humans thought of them, I believe transcendental things are tangible even though they lack physical substance and I believe in consciousness that transends the physical computer brain and that we only understand in that way because it is what we posess. I see a possibility that our religions are largely based on sun symbols because the sun is an actual conscious being that our anscestors were justified in worshipping and I see the same possibility in all advanced and complex systems.

My belief system is based on the idea that a pattern is a conscious being that wishes to propagate and spread, and that consciousness is graded on the level of complexity in any given pattern.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I am not an atheist because I believe in non-physical things that existed before humans thought of them, I believe transcendental things are tangible even though they lack physical substance and I believe in consciousness that transends the physical computer brain and that we only understand in that way because it is what we posess. I see a possibility that our religions are largely based on sun symbols because the sun is an actual conscious being that our anscestors were justified in worshipping and I see the same possibility in all advanced and complex systems.

My belief system is based on the idea that a pattern is a conscious being that wishes to propagate and spread, and that consciousness is graded on the level of complexity in any given pattern.

Can you separate for me the difference between this God and Evolution? They sound exactly the same.
~

Evolution as seen by atheists is a process, not an entity. Also, the classical understanding of evolution involves forward progress that I don't accept. A strip of wallpaper may show a line that becomes a leaf and then a flower and in it you can see a face, but the line does not evolve in to a face or a flower, it just is and the pattern reiterates.

Ancient Buddhism and the most modern advances in scientific theory both say that reality can be compared to a flat sea and that all of existence is composed of deviations from the flatness. These deviations in my mind are simultaneously the result of, and creation of consciousness. A wave does not evolve no matter how complex the wave form becomes, because ulimately it is fundamentally unchanged and is capable of reverting to its ground state at any time and when seen from certain angles, is still in its ground state.

What would you class yourself as, religiously, Xaq?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Evolution as seen by atheists is a process, not an entity. Also, the classical understanding of evolution involves forward progress that I don't accept. A strip of wallpaper may show a line that becomes a leaf and then a flower and in it you can see a face, but the line does not evolve in to a face or a flower, it just is and the pattern reiterates.

Ancient Buddhism and the most modern advances in scientific theory both say that reality can be compared to a flat sea and that all of existence is composed of deviations from the flatness. These deviations in my mind are simultaneously the result of, and creation of consciousness. A wave does not evolve no matter how complex the wave form becomes, because ulimately it is fundamentally unchanged and is capable of reverting to its ground state at any time and when seen from certain angles, is still in its ground state.

Does evolution state that all things evolved can't revert back to it's ground state? We are still atoms of the same sea, no matter how complexed the atom formation is. It's all about new patterns and that's what evolution is. It does seem like it has some sort of purpose, but trying to comprehend it by attaching theories is meaningless, in my opinion. Whenever you chose a theory, there is an infinite nuber of others that could also be used. Back to the buddhist idea: If we see this sea as fundamental building blocks and the wave as a difference in complexity then the wave has evolved.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Evolution as seen by atheists is a process, not an entity. Also, the classical understanding of evolution involves forward progress that I don't accept. A strip of wallpaper may show a line that becomes a leaf and then a flower and in it you can see a face, but the line does not evolve in to a face or a flower, it just is and the pattern reiterates.

Ancient Buddhism and the most modern advances in scientific theory both say that reality can be compared to a flat sea and that all of existence is composed of deviations from the flatness. These deviations in my mind are simultaneously the result of, and creation of consciousness. A wave does not evolve no matter how complex the wave form becomes, because ulimately it is fundamentally unchanged and is capable of reverting to its ground state at any time and when seen from certain angles, is still in its ground state.

Bonsay makes a good point that I would like to see your response to.

Also, evolution, as per scientific description, does not have any eventual goal or purpose aside from its immediate goal of fitness.

More importantly, what is the difference between calling evolution an "entity" and calling the birth process an "entity"?
~

Seems to me, based on history, it'd go through the following stages:

1. The church would deny their existence at first and harrass anyone that claims they exist as a heretic.

2. The Church would pretend they always believed this and never thought we were living alone.

Yay!

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

These are the facts; the Torah, the talmud, the Q'uran, the new testament, the Vedas, The Gitas, etc., etc., all religious texts were written.

Yes, they were written. That's why you can buy them at a book store.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Does evolution state that all things evolved can't revert back to it's ground state? We are still atoms of the same sea, no matter how complexed the atom formation is. It's all about new patterns and that's what evolution is. It does seem like it has some sort of purpose, but trying to comprehend it by attaching theories is meaningless, in my opinion. Whenever you chose a theory, there is an infinite nuber of others that could also be used. Back to the buddhist idea: If we see this sea as fundamental building blocks and the wave as a difference in complexity then the wave has evolved.

Well the ground state that I was refering to is not breaking in to atoms, but ceasing to exist entirely. I'm not really sure what it is you are disagreeing with here. I'm not a creationist; I can see that a change of form in biological creatures over time (evolution) is happening. My point was that when expressed in terms of relativity, nothing "progresses" as the passage of time is a construct of the human psyche similar to the perceived motion in a cartoon. Therefore, things don't truly evolve, the pattern just becomes more complex as you trace further along the line.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Yes, they were written. That's why you can buy them at a book store.

Okay, whats your point?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't understand the idea that if you are an atheist, you are allowed to revise your beliefs but if you are a religious person, any revision based on new evidence is seen as manipulation and negative alteration.

Because religious people believe what they believe is the Truth. Without doubt. The truth can't change. A statement about the state of the world today that is true today will be true tomorrow. If the theist wants to change the Truth, obviously something is wrong. It implies that there are flaws in the theist's system of thinking. The theist denies this. So what happened?

I'm sorry, you are wrong. Your generalizations do not stand up under inquiry.

A)To believe in a religion does not require one to deny the possibility that they are wrong

B)truth changes constantly

Example. Truth as of November 29th, 2007; Evel Knievel is alive. Truth as of November 30th, 2007; Evel Knievel is Dead.