Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

MaxWig · 20-03-2015 03:01PM

Do you mean you do not feel like you imagine it would feel like to be an animal? If so then this is a rather meaningless statement since what you imagine it feels like to be an animal is neither hear nor there.

Whether it's imagined or not, it is a unique position in the animal kingdom. As conscious beings, we are cut off from the rest of nature. It may only feel like that in our 'imagination', but that does not change the feeling of isolation that accompany.

First of all we are a different species of animal to other animals. It is bound to be a different feeling to being an ant to a dog. The idea that all these animals feel similiar but we feel different is nonsensical.

It is not nonsensical. We are very different from other animals. Our world is governed by symbols, where theirs is governed by instinct. That is a fundamental difference, and it is 'felt' by us.

Secondly who are you going to ask what it feels like to be an animal? No other animal other than a human can communicate feelings.

That's an excellent point.

Or to put it another way, how do you know a dog doesn't feel exactly the same as you do :pac:

How do you know there is no God?

Science doesn't say that.

Science says all things are determined.
That is, free will is an illusion.

TheLurker · 20-03-2015 03:10PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Whether it's imagined or not, it is a unique position in the animal kingdom. As conscious beings, we are cut off from the rest of nature. It may only feel like that in our 'imagination', but that does not change the feeling of isolation that accompany.

Again how do you know this? How you know dolphins, chimps or elephants don't feel "different" to other animals around them?

MaxWig wrote: »

We are very different from other animals. Our world is governed by symbols, where theirs is governed by instinct. That is a fundamental difference, and it is 'felt' by us.

It is also an arbitrary difference, like saying being German is very different to being any other country (ie you could replace "German" with any other country and have the same outcome)

We certainly are different to other animals, and we have characteristics that as far as we know have no appeared in any other species. We build with complex tools, and communicate with symbols, and we have high level of consciousness.

The point is that it is only us that assign any great significance to these differences precisely because it is the attributes that we consider of interest.

An alien civilisation studying the 4 billion years of Earth's existence might think that is not all that significant. They might say that the micro-organisims who terraformed the entire atmosphere from carbon to oxygen really stood out in the history of the planet. They might say those were the truly "different" organisms.

MaxWig wrote: »

How do you know there is no God?

Because humans instinctively invent supernatural agents in nature and that provides a more plausible and supported theory as to why people think there is one. And things we invent tend not to correlate with things that actually exist.

So I know there is no God in the same way I know Star Wars didn't really happen.

MaxWig wrote: »

Science says all things are determined.
That is, free will is an illusion.

No it doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact, look at the mess that is quantum mechanics.

Also 'free will' is not defined to a degree that science could comment on it either way. Ask 100 people what free will means and you will get 100 different answers. Free will is one of these wishy washy terms that people think is significant but when you get down to exploring it the whole thing crumbles

MaxWig · 20-03-2015 03:47PM

Again how do you know this? How you know dolphins, chimps or elephants don't feel "different" to other animals around them?

Fair point. I do not. I should have perhaps said, we experience our position as unique. Our consciousness, to the best of our knowledge is unique, but of course, may not be.

It is also an arbitrary difference, like saying being German is very different to being any other country (ie you could replace "German" with any other country and have the same outcome)

It may be arbitrary in it's origin, but not in it's effect. We have essentially broken our world down into a system of symbols. We have shrunk it, and so, unlike other animals (to the best of our knowledge), we no longer act automatically, upon instinct. We get to think about our world, rather than simply respond to it. We have mastered nature, including the rest of the animal kingdom. We are 'gods' - pretty unimpressive gods, but you know what I mean.

We certainly are different to other animals, and we have characteristics that as far as we know have no appeared in any other species. We build with complex tools, and communicate with symbols, and we have high level of consciousness.

The point is that it is only us that assign any great significance to these differences precisely because it is the attributes that we consider of interest.

Yes, but it is only what we believe that is of any interest. We believe that we are significant. We each feel it, individually. We are the master of our particular world.

An alien civilisation studying the 4 billion years of Earth's existence might think that is not all that significant. They might say that the micro-organisims who terraformed the entire atmosphere from carbon to oxygen really stood out in the history of the planet. They might say those were the truly "different" organisms.

Granted, but I fail to see the relevance.

Because humans instinctively invent supernatural agents in nature and that provides a more plausible and supported theory as to why people think there is one. And things we invent tend not to correlate with things that actually exist.

Ah come on, that is hardly a proof. Certainly not the level I was expecting

So I know there is no God in the same way I know Star Wars didn't really happen.

And I know my Golden Retriever is not sitting at home contemplating the rings of Saturn in much the same way.

No it doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact, look at the mess that is quantum mechanics.

I'll give you that. But action at a distance, in my pretty pathetic understanding is removed from discussions of determinism in human behavior.

TBH, if quantum mechanics is coming into this conversation, I'll need to bow out, because .... well, need I say more.

Also 'free will' is not defined to a degree that science could comment on it either way. Ask 100 people what free will means and you will get 100 different answers. Free will is one of these wishy washy terms that people think is significant but when you get down to exploring it the whole thing crumbles

I don't think it's wishy washy. I think it's a pretty profound idea - that we do not have free will

TheLurker · 20-03-2015 04:07PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Fair point. I do not. I should have perhaps said, we experience our position as unique. Our consciousness, to the best of our knowledge is unique, but of course, may not be.

Probably, the over all point is just because one of our attributes is unique doesn't give it any particular significance. Lots of species have things only that species does.

We tend to assign significance to our unique characteristics because we, naturally, view the world from our particular vantage point.

But again it is like thinking that the unique things about German make Germany special. A Mexican is thinking the same thing about the unique aspects of Mexico. An Irish person is thinking the same thing about the unique aspects of Ireland.

MaxWig wrote: »

It may be arbitrary in it's origin, but not in it's effect. We have essentially broken our world down into a system of symbols. We have shrunk it, and so, unlike other animals (to the best of our knowledge), we no longer act automatically, upon instinct. We get to think about our world, rather than simply respond to it. We have mastered nature, including the rest of the animal kingdom. We are 'gods' - pretty unimpressive gods, but you know what I mean.

But how is that of any cosmic significance?

Sea bacteria terraformed the Earth, significantly altering the atmosphere. Why is that less impressive than what we have done?

MaxWig wrote: »

Yes, but it is only what we believe that is of any interest.

I would take the other view, what we believe (as opposed to what is true) is of very little interest to me. People believe the oddest things after all.

MaxWig wrote: »

Granted, but I fail to see the relevance.

The relevance is that our species attributes are only interesting to you because you happen to be a member of said species. Again this is like a German person thinking the unique aspects of German are of far more significance than the unique aspects of any other country. Non-Germans would probably disagree :pac:

It is the ego-centric aspect of human nature that makes us think that the things that we notice are what should matters in an objective/cosmic sense.

MaxWig wrote: »

Ah come on, that is hardly a proof. Certainly not the level I was expecting

What more proof would you require?

If I asked you to prove Star Wars didn't happen you would no doubt point me to George Lucas and say "Of course it didn't really happen, this guy made the whole thing up".

That seems as good a reason to believe something is made up and didn't happen as anything else.

MaxWig wrote: »

And I know my Golden Retriever is not sitting at home contemplating the rings of Saturn in much the same way.

Sure. Your dog is sitting at home with a system of smell 100 times more sensitive than yours.

So why is contemplating the rings of Saturn any more special than being able to smell cancer forming in another persons organs (as dogs can)?

MaxWig wrote: »

TBH, if quantum mechanics is coming into this conversation, I'll need to bow out, because .... well, need I say more.

You don't need to bow out unless you are going to continue arguing that science has said human behaviour is deterministic. Since science hasn't said that the sensible option would be to not argue that and continue in the discussion

MaxWig wrote: »

I don't think it's wishy washy. I think it's a pretty profound idea - that we do not have free will

In my experience it is very wishy washy. I would doubt you can, in any significant detail, explain what it would actually mean to have free will or to not have free will. When the the topic is explored in any particular depth the argument falls apart because few know what they mean by "free will" in any meaningful sense.

indioblack · 20-03-2015 06:07PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah well, there you go then. You let on that we are talking about a conflict between science and Christian doctrines. Yet, when pushed to provide actual evidence of how science conflicts with those doctrines you resort to phrases such as "I think it would be better to think of things this way."

Sorry, but some guy on a message board saying that he prefers to think of things one way rather than another way does not add up to scientific evidence.

The argument that you can't prove God isn't responsible is a fair argument if it is countering a claim, made repeatedly but ultimately never supported by evidence, that you know of some actual conflict between science and particular doctrines.

Circular arguments that rely on assuming the non-existence of God in the first place won't cut it either.

I've already wasted enough time asking for this non-existent scientific evidence, my publishers are leaning on me to meet a deadline and I have a week-long conference in the Philippines next week, so I'm going to bow out and, if you guys wish, you can carry on.

I'm not flouncing out of the thread, and I might pop my head in from time to see if anyone has brought anything new to the table. But it's pretty clear to me that my requests for evidence are unlikely to yield anything more than bluster, repeated assertions, and circularity.

It might be more useful if a question was answered, or at least responded to.
How can an omnipotent God allow imperfection to exist?
The evidence for this is in his creation.

ScumLord · 20-03-2015 06:34PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Whether it's imagined or not, it is a unique position in the animal kingdom. As conscious beings, we are cut off from the rest of nature. It may only feel like that in our 'imagination', but that does not change the feeling of isolation that accompany.

It is not nonsensical. We are very different from other animals. Our world is governed by symbols, where theirs is governed by instinct. That is a fundamental difference, and it is 'felt' by us.

Not really, religion has left a lot of people with the idea that the rest of the natural world is here to serve humanity and that humans are something different from the rest of the animal kingdom. But science has shown us that we're just as susceptible to basic animal behaviour as any other animal.

Birds use a sort of symbolism to attract mates, The bowerbird in australia that builds elaborate nests that have next to no practical value and is entirely an aesthetic symbol to attract females.

Chimps, birds and dolphins have shown remarkable human like abilities of reasoning and complex thought. Dogs can read human faces just the same way humans read other human face's while they read other dogs in a completely different way. They've adapted to our way of facial communication.

There isn't really anything humans do that's totally unique to humans. Our biggest advantage is our brains ability to predict the future in an intuitive way that doesn't rely completely on experience. But again, we've found birds have similar abilities. We just do it better.

We've found that the human brain depends on high speed tricks rather than cold hard logic. We are a fantastic animal, but still an animal.

Cen taurus · 20-03-2015 08:13PM

orubiru wrote: »

I wouldn't do it personally but there are many people who do.

I know that you have no problem with the big bang theory or with the theory of evolution but there are definitely religious people out there, Christians even, that do indeed try to push the idea that Evolution, for example, is "just a theory".

Personally, I don't think that there is anything I have seen that contradicts the idea of "God". However, there is plenty that contradicts specific beliefs or claims about God or Religion (the historicity of the Noah story, for example).

Any individual may hold belief/non beliefs about established facts that are factually incorrect. But picking out specific individuals and extrapolating that their beliefs are representative of everyone's is just not correct. Again, it's avoiding the issue by making it about a selected person instead of actually dealing with the issue. Exactly what about Christianity, has been proven to be false ? (This forums charter defines Christian belief, as the apostles creed). Literalists, whether they are believers / non believers are those who take figurative language in scripture literally. It makes as much sense as claiming the phrase "it was raining cats and dogs" is a claim it actually was, instead of interpreting it in the context and purpose it was written for.

TheLurker wrote: »

The philosophy of science says that the claims that religions make as true should not be claimed as true because they cannot be supported.

If these claims could be supported then the processes used to make these claims would be part of the scientific process. If we could learn truths about the universe by reading a holy book we have decided is true, that would be PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

It isn't, and it isn't for a reason. It is because it is not reliable and determinations about the true nature of reality should not be based off it. That is what science says.

As such people should not consider religion claims reliable and determinations about the true nature of reality should not be based off them. Despite this religious people do this all the time.

That is where the conflict between science and religion exists. Any religion claiming anything about reality is being anti-science.

This nonsense about different realms of exploration is just that, nonsense.

There is no difference between claiming you have determined God exists after reading the Bible and saying that you have decided light is a fluctuation in the Luminiferous aether. Both are claims about reality.

Where is this expressed in the philosophy of science about belief ? Christianity is a belief, and scripture continually emphasises the importance Christ places on belief.

A belief or a non belief is not an established proven fact, its a belief/non belief, if it were a fact, it would not be a belief / non belief.

e.g. There's been no evidence found to date for alien life (life that did not originate on earth), in absence of it not being known either way, it's perfectly reasonable to believe either that alien life probably exists, or that it probably does not exist. It's not a claim that alien life does or does not exist, nor does Science claim which belief is correct.

jaffusmax · 20-03-2015 08:32PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Where is this expressed in the philosophy of science about belief ? Christianity is a belief, and scripture continually emphasises the importance Christ places on belief.

A belief or a non belief is not an established proven fact, its a belief/non belief, if it were a fact, it would not be a belief / non belief.

e.g. There's been no evidence found to date for alien life (life that did not originate on earth), in absence of it not being known either way, it's perfectly reasonable to believe either that alien life probably exists, or that it probably does not exist. It's not a claim that alien life does or does not exist, nor does Science claim which belief is correct.

Part of Christian belief is that Christ walked on water, turned water into wine and so on. The probability of such things having occurred are the same as the probabilty that I could preform such acts without some sort supernatural intervention or some mass hysteria involving mind alternating drugs.

Mohamed ascended into heaven on a winged horse, the probability of anyone coming across a winged horse are the same as finding a leprechaun!

When we study atoms, scientists predict where an electron is orbiting around the nucleus based on probability, they never actually observe an electron in orbit but can observe and predict their effects.

We study the stars and know by the astronomical large number of stars and planets out there that the probability if conditions similar to earth occurring again are quite high, based on the fact we exist!

Cen taurus · 20-03-2015 08:38PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Part of Christian belief is that Christ walked on water, turned water into wine and so on. The probability of such things having occurred are the same as the probabilty that I could preform such acts without some sort supernatural intervention or some mass hysteria involving mind alternating drugs.

Not really, unless of course you were God, in which case it would be quite easy to perform.

jaffusmax wrote: »

Mohamed ascended into heaven on a winged horse, the probability of anyone coming across a winged horse are the same as finding a leprechaun!

The problem is these are not equivalent events, it's a bit like saying the probability that the universe can come into being is the same as the probability of a leprechaun coming into being. In probability or any terms, none of these are equivalent events. and if it comes down to probability, then life on earth should probably not exist, or even the universe for that matter.

jaffusmax wrote: »

When we study atoms, scientists predict where an electron is orbiting around the nucleus based on probability, they never actually observe an electron in orbit but can observe and predict their effects.

Electrons are known to exist, they are not a belief.

marienbad · 20-03-2015 08:44PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Not really, unless of course you were God, in which case it would be quite easy to perform.

The problem is these are not equivalent events, it's a bit like saying the probability that the universe can come into being is the same as the probability of a leprechaun coming into being. In probability or any terms, none of these are equivalent events. and if it comes down to probability, then life on earth should not exist, or even the universe for that matter.

Electrons are known to exist, they are not a belief.

Do you believe the walking on water or the marriage feast or the loaves and fishes were actual historical events ?

jaffusmax · 20-03-2015 08:50PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Not really, unless of course you were God, in which case it would be quite easy to perform.

There is no verifiable evidence any miracles ever occurred that can be placed through scientific scrutiny. All we have is second/third hand accounts, myths and legends relating to mircales. Christ's "miracles" would have been a suspension of the natural order.

Cen taurus wrote: »

The problem is these are not equivalent events, and if it comes down to probability, then life on earth should not exist, or even the universe for that matter.

Its not a problem if there have been an infinite number of big bangs and alternative/multi universes

Cen taurus wrote: »

Electrons are known to exist, they are not a belief.

How do you really know? Nobody ever physically observed one, how we know they exist is by their effects

Cen taurus · 20-03-2015 11:12PM

(What's with the moderators text ?)

jaffusmax wrote: »

There is no verifiable evidence any miracles ever occurred that can be placed through scientific scrutiny. All we have is second/third hand accounts, myths and legends relating to mircales. Christ's "miracles" would have been a suspension of the natural order.

There's no verifiable evidence or counter claims that the events did not occur. If there was verifiable evidence either way, then it wouldn't be a belief / non belief.

jaffusmax wrote: »

Its not a problem if there have been an infinite number of big bangs and alternative/multi universes

If covers a lot of things, e.g. if God exists / does not exist etc.
If there were, why would there be one for this universe ?

jaffusmax wrote: »

How do you really know? Nobody ever physically observed one, how we know they exist is by their effects

So science doesn't know if they exist or not, it's just a belief ?

jaffusmax · 21-03-2015 12:00AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

(What's with the moderators text ?)

There's no verifiable evidence or counter claims that the events did not occur. If there was verifiable evidence either way, then it wouldn't be a belief / non belief.

If covers a lot of things, e.g. if God exists / does not exist etc.
If there were, why would there be one for this universe ?

So science doesn't know if they exist or not, it's just a belief ?

Bottom line is no one can totally rule out the existence of a god. All I am saying is based on evidence alone the probability of there being a god is the same as there being a Buzzlightyear doll orbiting Pluto.

The probability of electrons being real based on evidence from their effects is the same as the probability a bulb will light up if you pass a current through it

It is not up to non believers to prove/disprove that Christ preformed miracles, it is up to Christians to prove it as its your belief not ours. It does seem convienent that miracles became less prevelant the more science and rational thinking became established.

Cen taurus · 21-03-2015 10:12AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

Bottom line is no one can totally rule out the existence of a god. All I am saying is based on evidence alone the probability of there being a god is the same as there being a Buzzlightyear doll orbiting Pluto.

If that is correct, there should be no bother presenting the working of the probability calcs to prove that, unless of course all of God's properties and abilities are not assigned to the entity "buzz" then it's a non equivalence, if they are assigned, it's a mere name swapping fallacy.

There's no evidence of alien life (life that has not originated on earth) physical or spiritual having been found to date, yet many people, including me, believe that there is alien life out there somewhere. Some people will simply say they don't believe in alien life. I have no problem with that. Some people who don't believe in alien life will claim that alien life is equivalent to Leprechauns, Teapots, Unicorns or whatever straw man they wish to construct.

jaffusmax wrote: »

It is not up to non believers to prove/disprove that Christ preformed miracles, it is up to Christians to prove it as its your belief not ours. It does seem convienent that miracles became less prevelant the more science and rational thinking became established.

A belief is not a claim, it's a belief. If it were a claim, it would not be a belief, it would either be a proven fact or not. It's not up to people who believe / don't believe alien life exists out there somewhere to prove so. It would be, if they were claiming that alien life definitely existed as a fact, or definitely did not exist as a fact.

silverharp · 21-03-2015 10:31AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

A belief is not a claim, it's a belief. If it were a claim, it would not be a belief, it would either be a proven fact or not. It's not up to people who believe / don't believe alien life exists out there somewhere to prove so. It would be, if they were claiming that alien life definitely existed as a fact, or definitely did not exist as a fact.

to take your analogy of alien life, the question is open of course but if some claimed that aliens landed in Roswell in the US in the late 40's we now have something to work on and can decide based on arguments , evidence or lack of whether to dismiss it or not.
Judaism and Christianity claim various particular "landings" which is completely different to a general assertion that there is or isnt a God.

jaffusmax · 21-03-2015 10:59AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

If that is correct, there should be no bother presenting the working of the probability calcs to prove that, unless of course all of God's properties and abilities are not assigned to the entity "buzz" then it's a non equivalence, if they are assigned, it's a mere name swapping fallacy.

There's no evidence of alien life (life that has not originated on earth) physical or spiritual having been found to date, yet many people, including me, believe that there is alien life out there somewhere. Some people will simply say they don't believe in alien life. I have no problem with that. Some people who don't believe in alien life will claim that alien life is equivalent to Leprechauns, Teapots, Unicorns or whatever straw man they wish to construct.

A belief is not a claim, it's a belief. If it were a claim, it would not be a belief, it would either be a proven fact or not. It's not up to people who believe / don't believe alien life exists out there somewhere to prove so. It would be, if they were claiming that alien life definitely existed as a fact, or definitely did not exist as a fact.

Religion claims to know the mind of God on a wide range of matters that effect my life as a none believer. The belief in Aliens dose not affect my daily life, those that believe in Aliens do not get Tax breaks or have schools that only Alien Believers children can attend, I do not klnow what stance Alien Believers have on abortion! If you beleive in Aliens or Religion then it is best keep it a private belief until evidence is proves otherwise.

Computing the Probability of God (take of this what you will so far it stands at zero 10–36
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/04/computing-the-probability-of-god/

TheLurker · 21-03-2015 11:01AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Where is this expressed in the philosophy of science about belief ? Christianity is a belief, and scripture continually emphasises the importance Christ places on belief.

Science is a methodology for assessing how much weight we can give claims (theories/models) about reality, and a set of philosophical determinations that underpin that methodology.

If you hold a belief about reality as being accurate but which fails the scientific test you are being anti-science. More specifically you are saying that the philosophy of science is wrong, that you can hold as accurate a belief about reality without the support that science says is necessary. And if you are saying science is wrong you are by definition being anti-science.

Christianity is a set of claims about the nature of reality. God exists, he is an intelligent and emotional being, he created the universe and Earth, he created humans, he communicates with humans, he judges humans, he sent his 'son' to Earth, his son performed miracles, died and his spirit survived etc etc

All of these are claims about reality. They are, in scientific terminology, theories or models about how the world really is.

None of them have support any where remotely close to the requirements that the philosophy of science says we require to consider them accurate.

Yet millions of Christians consider them accurate. So accurate in fact that they will make further claims about correct behaviour and how one should live ones life based on these initial claims. So accurate that some kill or die for them.

This is anti-science. These Christians are saying that I can hold these claims as highly accurate without the support science says is necessary to do so. In other words science is wrong about what it says I require to hold a belief about the world as accurate.

And you can't think science is wrong without being anti-scientific.

Cen taurus wrote: »

A belief or a non belief is not an established proven fact, its a belief/non belief, if it were a fact, it would not be a belief / non belief.

And science says that a "belief" as you are using the term without support for its accuracy is to be considered an unknown rather than a supported claim about reality.

If Christians said "There is this claim about the existence of a God but we cannot support it, it is untestable and as such there is no reason to believe it is accurate" that would be fine by science, but then they wouldn't be Christians.

Christians believe the claims of Christianity are accurate models of reality, without any of the support science says you need to believe that. That is anti-science.

Cen taurus wrote: »

e.g. There's been no evidence found to date for alien life (life that did not originate on earth), in absence of it not being known either way, it's perfectly reasonable to believe either that alien life probably exists, or that it probably does not exist.

a) if that were genuinely true (that there is no evidence) no it wouldn't be perfectly reasonable to believe either. It would be anti-scientific, anti-rational and pretty silly. The scientific answer is 'we have no evidence for either hypothesis'

b) there is evidence for alien life. We are that evidence. If life can develop on one planet that is evidence it can develop on other planets, as our planet is nothing special. How 'alien' that life is is just a matter of location. If an observer came across Earth then we would be the alien life and we would be support for the idea that life exists in this universe.

Cen taurus wrote: »

It's not a claim that alien life does or does not exist, nor does Science claim which belief is correct.

It is anti-scientific to hold as accurate claims that you cannot support. It is also irrational and stupid (both of which are also anti-science)

jaffusmax · 21-03-2015 11:14AM

TheLurker wrote: »

sis b) there is evidence for alien life. We are that evidence. If life can develop on one planet that is evidence it can develop on other planets.

I wonder how an technologically advanced Alien race would react to a conversion attempt by a Christian missionary! One of the biggest obstacles an Alien race would find on earth would be its inhabitants belief in an Iron Age myth of a Creator Being!

TheLurker · 21-03-2015 11:23AM

jaffusmax wrote: »

I wonder how an technologically advanced Alien race would react to a conversion attempt by a Christian missionary! One of the biggest obstacles an Alien race would find on earth would be its inhabitants belief in an Iron Age myth of a Creator Being!

There is a idea that if we found intelligent alien life human religions would die out in a matter of years, that our religions could not survive the broadening of horizons that such a discovery would cause, taking out view point out of a purely Earth based one and into the skies. Most religions require a very narrow view point of humans and Earth, which as you say isn't surprising since they originated in the iron age.

One can hope :pac:

jaffusmax · 21-03-2015 11:33AM

TheLurker wrote: »

There is a idea that if we found intelligent alien life human religions would die out in a matter of years, that our religions could not survive the broadening of horizons that such a discovery would cause, taking out view point out of a purely Earth based one and into the skies. Most religions require a very narrow view point of humans and Earth, which as you say isn't surprising since they originated in the iron age.

One can hope :pac:

When in darkness best advice is to follow the blind man, when the lights are on that's just insane!
Religion has been hanging onto the bumper of science since Galileo put the Sun at the center of our solar system! The sad thing is Science does not need Religion at all, but Religion seems to have an obsessive need to bring science under it fold to validate its beliefs!

looksee · 21-03-2015 11:33AM

TheLurker wrote: »

There is a idea that if we found intelligent alien life human religions would die out in a matter of years, that our religions could not survive the broadening of horizons that such a discovery would cause, taking out view point out of a purely Earth based one and into the skies. Most religions require a very narrow view point of humans and Earth, which as you say isn't surprising since they originated in the iron age.

One can hope :pac:

If Jesus came again (or similar event) some people would accept him, most would ignore him, a good percentage would declare him a chancer. The authorities would put him into psychiatric care.

If aliens arrived some people would get very excited, most people would just get on with their lives, a good percentage would decide the whole thing was a plot by governments to fool us for some reason. The authorities would try and keep it secret.

TheLurker · 21-03-2015 11:40AM

looksee wrote: »

If Jesus came again (or similar event) some people would accept him, most would ignore him, a good percentage would declare him a chancer. The authorities would put him into psychiatric care.

If aliens arrived some people would get very excited, most people would just get on with their lives, a good percentage would decide the whole thing was a plot by governments to fool us for some reason. The authorities would try and keep it secret.

Depends on what you mean by Jesus came again. If a random dude turned up saying "I'm Jesus", then yeah sure he would be ignored. We get random dudes saying this every day.

Bit harder to ignore aliens walking around.

Also I always found it rather bizarre the idea that our authorities would be able to cover up the existence of alien civilisation with interstellar ability, as if they would have that ability. Its like supposing the next FIFA World Cup will secretly take place in my back garden but you won't know because the authorities have covered it up.

When dealing with conspiracy theories people seem to extend magical powers to these 'authorities' that far out strip the fantastical secret they are supposed to be covering up

jaffusmax · 21-03-2015 11:42AM

looksee wrote: »

If Jesus came again (or similar event) some people would accept him, most would ignore him, a good percentage would declare him a chancer. The authorities would put him into psychiatric care.

If aliens arrived some people would get very excited, most people would just get on with their lives, a good percentage would decide the whole thing was a plot by governments to fool us for some reason. The authorities would try and keep it secret.

If a Jesus type came and declared he would and then preformed the act of turning the worlds nuclear arsenal into wine. I would defiantly throw my lot in with that sort of superhero!

If Aliens landed I would be the just get on with my life sort!

marienbad · 21-03-2015 12:54PM

marienbad wrote: »

Do you believe the walking on water or the marriage feast or the loaves and fishes were actual historical events ?

Cen Taurus any chance of an answer to this please.

Harika · 21-03-2015 01:20PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

I wonder how an technologically advanced Alien race would react to a conversion attempt by a Christian missionary! One of the biggest obstacles an Alien race would find on earth would be its inhabitants belief in an Iron Age myth of a Creator Being!

Was it Ken Ham or Pat Robertson that already confirmed that they are no descendants of David and so anyway lost, no need to missionary them.

tommy2bad · 21-03-2015 01:56PM

marienbad wrote: »

Do you believe the walking on water or the marriage feast or the loaves and fishes were actual historical events ?

Well I for one have no problem believing these events really happened. They are described as miracles, things outside the normal order of things.
Why not? The fact that they are not repeatable is the definition of miracle. I assume you are questioning these events because they are not reported on with the ententhusiasm we would expect, outside of believers theirs no reports, no second-hand reports or third hand. If someone fed an entire crowd, with just 5 loaves and a hand full of fish today it would be headline news!
Or would it? Would anyone believe it? Would anyone even consider it worth investigating? I doubt it, it would be dismissed, and the only report would be in blogs ( you know the ones, black background, red blue green print and some esoteric clipart)
It's not just the reports of these miracles in the gospels that leads to belife, it the nature of them, all the miracles mentioned in the gospels have symbolic meaning as well as their use as demonstrationdemonstration of super powers. That's their value.

marienbad · 21-03-2015 02:31PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well I for one have no problem believing these events really happened. They are described as miracles, things outside the normal order of things.
Why not? The fact that they are not repeatable is the definition of miracle. I assume you are questioning these events because they are not reported on with the ententhusiasm we would expect, outside of believers theirs no reports, no second-hand reports or third hand. If someone fed an entire crowd, with just 5 loaves and a hand full of fish today it would be headline news!
Or would it? Would anyone believe it? Would anyone even consider it worth investigating? I doubt it, it would be dismissed, and the only report would be in blogs ( you know the ones, black background, red blue green print and some esoteric clipart)
It's not just the reports of these miracles in the gospels that leads to belife, it the nature of them, all the miracles mentioned in the gospels have symbolic meaning as well as their use as demonstrationdemonstration of super powers. That's their value.

That would put you with these guys then https://youtu.be/JIN36NweL6I

Whereas I will go with this guy https://youtu.be/JIN36NweL6I

I have no problem with symbolism , it is when people start thinking they are real is the problem .:)

indioblack · 21-03-2015 03:24PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well I for one have no problem believing these events really happened. They are described as miracles, things outside the normal order of things.
Why not? The fact that they are not repeatable is the definition of miracle. I assume you are questioning these events because they are not reported on with the ententhusiasm we would expect, outside of believers theirs no reports, no second-hand reports or third hand. If someone fed an entire crowd, with just 5 loaves and a hand full of fish today it would be headline news!
Or would it? Would anyone believe it? Would anyone even consider it worth investigating? I doubt it, it would be dismissed, and the only report would be in blogs ( you know the ones, black background, red blue green print and some esoteric clipart)
It's not just the reports of these miracles in the gospels that leads to belife, it the nature of them, all the miracles mentioned in the gospels have symbolic meaning as well as their use as demonstrationdemonstration of super powers. That's their value.

Symbols of what, though?
That there are events outside our everyday experience?
If they are improvable what use are they - beyond wishful thinking?

marienbad · 21-03-2015 03:27PM

indioblack wrote: »

Symbols of what, though?
That there are events outside our everyday experience?
If they are improvable what use are they - beyond wishful thinking?

Life would be a very dull place without symbols and symbolism .

indioblack · 21-03-2015 03:47PM

marienbad wrote: »

Life would be a very dull place without symbols and symbolism .

That's true. I would say they have a value if they demonstrate a reality in us - in both our internal and external lives.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments