UFO's - Do you believe that Extraterrestrials have visited/are visiting this planet?

[DTES]

The problem with these discussions is that all religions/beliefs/faiths all get bundled together. The last time we had this I seemed to get included on the side of some guy who was spouting off about famines being the wrath of God etc and how abortions were wrong etc etc etc.

I half agree with this. Abortion, and any other "God says..." moral issues are indeed a completely different debate. However the debate around the existence of a god/higher power is still as valid before you try to identify which god you're talking about, so bundling all the gods together in terms of existence isn't entirely invalid.

 

[brunswick]

The thing is, I don't need to "prove these opinions to be wrong".

I'm pretty certain that if I claimed (or it was proven) that the universe itself was eternal, you'd still say an explanation was needed of why it exists or what/"who" created it. But it seems that this doesn't apply to your eternal "divine mind", that you've helpfully provided a drawing someone once did as evidence for. Why doesn't it, and how does it help to answer any of the questions?

And we do indeed know the chemical make up of the Sun. We also, however, know how & when it was created, and how & when it will "die" (as you say, for want of a better word). In addition, we also know that its the same as the other stars in the universe. So my point about humans once believing it was a god (and linking the points, that it was 'responsible' for us) is still entirely valid.

As for your last point, I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to prove by demonstrating that one person, approximately 200 years ago, agreed with you. It's a nice quote though. More recently, David Tennant starred in an episode of Doctor Who where a star had consciousness. That doesn't add anything either, but it's a more up-to-date example than yours so you might want to use it in future.

love the doctor who line, i nearly spilled my tea laughing.

just because from our human perspective we can measure and name molecules, and trace patterns of what happens to matter when a sun is "forming," in no way does this mean we know fully how it was created."

 

[The Optimist]

What the ?

For example if you had a near death experience where you saw light at the end of a tunnel I wouldn't say that you were making it up but if you concluded that it was a reason to believe in God then I'd disagree with you.

 

[One Love]

For example if you had a near death experience where you saw light at the end of a tunnel I wouldn't say that you were making it up but if you concluded that it was a reason to believe in God then I'd disagree with you.

You might disagree with me but you wouldn't have any right to invalidate my personal beliefs after it.

 

[One Love]

Can I interject here as this has come up?

Have any of the "science is all there is" camp ever had any personal experience with meditation?

 

[DTES]

love the doctor who line, i nearly spilled my tea laughing.

just because from our human perspective we can measure and name molecules, and trace patterns of what happens to matter when a sun is "forming," in no way does this mean we know fully how it was created."

It's not about tracing patterns, or is only in part. It's also about predicting future observations. If the explanation we have not only explains the past, but also allows us to predict details of other start - and these predictions are later verified by observation - then I really see absolutely no reason to claim there's anything "mystical" about it at all.

Again, using the Sun as an analogy (can you tell it's a favourite of mine?), it's like claiming we don't truly understand why the Sun rises and sets in a regular pattern, and that there must be something supernatural causing that. It's not just about tracing patterns - it's because we now know about the rotation of the Earth.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

I'm just pointing out that some posters on here as soon as they get a sniff of religion/God/etc on here (and presumably every other internet forum they are members of) immediately it seems to raise their hackles and they have to fight it with all of their might.

Just wondered why it seems to invoke such an emotional reaction, that's all.

Any ideas?

I wouldn’t necessarily agree. I think the majority of responses have been fairly calm and measured.

What has happened is that skeptics/ non-believers/ atheists/ agnostics etc used to be quite happy getting on with their lives and more or less keeping their views to themselves. Now there seems to be a huge rise in religious fundamentalism, especially in the USA. It was quite scary watching the candidates for the Republican leader reading out their manifestos. It gets to the stage when you can’t just sit back and hope it will go away.

As a result they have become more vocal and organized and it seems that some believers have been surprised (and angry) that anyone dares to challenge their views.

 

[The Optimist]

You might disagree with me but you wouldn't have any right to invalidate my personal beliefs after it.

No I wouldn't. But if you used it as an argument for the existence of God in a discussion with anyone else then I think I would be within my rights to explain why I thought your reasoning was flawed.

 

[Silk]

Can I interject here as this has come up?

Have any of the "science is all there is" camp ever had any personal experience with meditation?

It's not about "science is all there is"..more about "stuff with evidence to support it is more believable than stuff with no evidence to support it".

 

[The Optimist]

Can I interject here as this has come up?

Have any of the "science is all there is" camp ever had any personal experience with meditation?

No, why?

 

[brunswick]

No, why?

because what often happens with regular meditation is that certain inner doorways open up that cannot be measured or rationalised.......and this can freak out the odd "science is all there is" type person.

 

[Silk]

When crop circles first started to appear, they were quickly revealed as a hoax perpetrated by a couple of old geezers. So this gives us two options:

1. Other humans were inspired by this example to create circles with ever more intricate patterns.
2. Alien races were inspired by this example to use this means to communicate information to us that they could - if they existed - easily communicate to us in a much more straightforward and less ambiguous way.

Surely this is a no-brainer?

Actually the more I look at these images the more I think Photoshop.

 

[The Optimist]

because what often happens with regular meditation is that certain inner doorways open up that cannot be measured or rationalised.......and this can freak out the odd "science is all there is" type person.

Something that I couldn't rationalise or measure wouldn't freak me out but I wouldn't feel the need to invent some idea about God, or a mystical power to fill the void in my understanding. I'm quite happy to except that certain things can't be explained yet, or possibly ever, but I don't see that as a good reason to invent God or anything else.

 

[dingodan]

All night!!??

Some of these can be done in a couple of hours....

http://www.slideshare.net/msincome/photoshop-fake-crop-circles



The level of detail in the images is consistent with most crop circle pictures i.e. conveniently poor. And bizarrely, there is rarely any decent video footage either, most video is just panning over or zooming into a still image...amazing, you'd think someone would go up and film these things in HD...

Saying that crop circles which are on the ground are hoaxed, is not totally unreasonable.

Saying that crop circles don't actually appear on the ground at all, is denying reality.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Saying that crop circles which are on the ground are hoaxed, is not totally unreasonable.

Saying that crop circles don't actually appear on the ground at all, is denying reality.

And saying aliens made them is firmly grounded in reality! On a scale of probability are a mix of hoaxes/photoshopping more or less likely an explanation than aliens?

 

[dingodan]

Is your entire worldview predicated on out of context one line quotes from people whose intellectual heft you think is added to yours by said quotes?

Actually the point I was making was that Francis Bacon, through his "William Shake-spear" sometimes expressed scientific viewpoints (which at the time were largely considered occult/mystery school teachings) in his plays.

Never mind, it wasn't that relevant to the discussion I know.

 

[brunswick]

Actually the point I was making was that Francis Bacon, through his "William Shake-spear" sometimes expressed scientific viewpoints (which at the time were largely considered occult/mystery school teachings) in his plays.

This is pretty much fact.....the best source for this is arguably Manly P Hall's, The Secret Teaching of All Ages.

 

[Nibble]

Actually the point I was making was that Francis Bacon, through his "William Shake-spear" sometimes expressed scientific viewpoints (which at the time were largely considered occult/mystery school teachings) in his plays.

Never mind, it wasn't that relevant to the discussion I know.

You into the whole Shakespeare was somene else theory too? Is there any of these theories you do not subscribe to?

 

[dingodan]

So hold on, in stead of being cool about what other people believe, you're all insulting each other. It shall come back and nip you on the bum.

Its a shame. There is a trend too, if you pay attention.

People with facts and evidence present them. People without facts and evidence resort to name calling and abuse.

 

[brunswick]

You into the whole Shakespeare was somene else theory too? Is there any of these theories you do not subscribe to?

All the known autographs of the Stratford actor read "William Shakspere" not "William Shakespeare"

There is no record that Shakspere ever owned a library. (It is argued that even a small library wouldn't be enough for an author who demonstrate the kind of literary knowledge that span the ages like Shakespeare's work do.)

There is no mention of any books in his will.

His parents were illiterate.

Shakspere's daughter Judith was an illiterate. (It is argued that Shakspere wouldn't permit his own daughter to reach the age of twenty-seven and marry without being able to read one line of the writings that made her father wealthy and locally famous)

From where did William Shakspere secure his knowledge of modern French, Italian, Spanish, and Danish? Not to mention classical Latin and Greek? (Ben Jonson, who knew Shakspere intimately, stated that the Stratford actor understood "small Latin and less Greek")

No record exists of William Shakspere as having ever played a leading role in the famous dramas he is supposed to have written or in others produced by the company of which he was a member.

None of his heirs were involved in the printing of the First Folio after his death, nor did they benefit financially from it.

Shakspere's manuscripts and unpublished plays would have been his most valued possessions, yet his will mentions no literary productions whatsoever. (It does however mention his second-best bed and his "broad silver gilt bowl")

Manly P Hall writes: "There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered"

*
yep, crazy CT's again i guess.