Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life? (1 Viewer)

[Adam Caramon]

Because that is how great things and/or very big money is made.

That's true, with big risk can come big reward.

As a total group, I agree 100% with you that people with high education tend to atheism and if not atheism some will be deists.

It appears we are at a conclusion then. Its been enjoyable debating with you.

 

[Mike375]

That's true, with big risk can come big reward.



It appears we are at a conclusion then. Its been enjoyable debating with you.

Yes got there

Actually your line in fact sums up the basis issue of the two sides

Why take an important action when you're not sure what will happen?

We come at things from opposide sides and so travel on different journeys and those different routes we travel produce different experiences. The two sides also buy products/services in a different way. Thus my interest in atheist and religious/spiritual extends to my pocket and thus I need more than anecdotal evidence

 

[Rich]

Yes got there

Actually your line in fact sums up the basis issue of the two sides



We come at things from opposide sides and so travel on different journeys and those different routes we travel produce different experiences. The two sides also buy products/services in a different way. Thus my interest in atheist and religious/spiritual extends to my pocket and thus I need more than anecdotal evidence

Even more claptrap

 

[Mike375]

Even more claptrap

Why do you continue to persist reading what you don't like? It must be very difficult not only reading what you think is a load of shit but then having to post about it.

 

[Kryst51]

Example: I'm non religious. But if some larger than life guy floated down from the clouds, cured the sick, rose the dead, and declared he was the Christian God, I would believe him. It would be illogical to do other wise.

Here's what I don't get, Christ did that, though the opposite direction, he cured the sick, declared he was God, rose from the dead and then went up into the clouds.... You don't believe Him, so why would you believe it the other way around (And all this was witnessed by many people).

But..... given time, you might get to see Him descend from the clouds in His second coming....

 

[ChipperT]

Here's what I don't get, Christ did that, though the opposite direction, he cured the sick, declared he was God, rose from the dead and then went up into the clouds.... You don't believe Him, so why would you believe it the other way around (And all this was witnessed by many people).

But..... given time, you might get to see Him descend from the clouds in His second coming....

Ummm.... it is mentioned in ONE book so how can you say it was witnessed by many people. If I write here "the moon turned green with yellow stripes last night and it was witnessed by many people." that does not make it a fact. All writings about the origins of Christianity date from the second century or later. That makes them not much more than hearsay. Show me proof that is contemporary with the event, not a decade, not a hundred years later.

 

[Kryst51]

Ummm.... it is mentioned in ONE book so how can you say it was witnessed by many people. If I write here "the moon turned green with yellow stripes last night and it was witnessed by many people." that does not make it a fact. All writings about the origins of Christianity date from the second century or later. That makes them not much more than hearsay. Show me proof that is contemporary with the event, not a decade, not a hundred years later.

Ummmm - It is mentioned in SEVERAL historical documents/letters which were COMPILED into one book..... And as you already know, I can't PROVE anything to you, as others have mentioned, belief is by faith.... And the books were written by the witnesses themselves (The apostles), and Paul who was struck blind by God Himself and made to turn 180 degrees from persecuting Christians to being one of the biggest contributors (by the way of letters to the various churches). They were all contemporaries. But in order to trust Paul you would have to believe his conversion story, which again would require faith. I don't think that if Christ had come even 100 years ago where there were people still living who had witnessed it, if you hadn't seen it with your own eyes you would not have believed, you would have come up with some other excuse just like people did in Christ's day. Come up with any excuse you want, my point was merely to point out that Adam probably wouldn't believe it regardless. I agree with what everyone says here about Christianity in that it requires faith to believe, in this case seeing is not believing. I disagree with the conversations here in that to call us close-minded, and not willing to learn or research science and come to accurate conclusions because of our religious predispositions is just plain incorrect.

 

[ChipperT]

Ummmm - It is mentioned in SEVERAL historical documents/letters which were COMPILED into one book..... And as you already know, I can't PROVE anything to you, as others have mentioned, belief is by faith.... And the books were written by the witnesses themselves (The apostles), and Paul who was struck blind by God Himself and made to turn 180 degrees from persecuting Christians to being one of the biggest contributors (by the way of letters to the various churches). They were all contemporaries. But in order to trust Paul you would have to believe his conversion story, which again would require faith. I don't think that if Christ had come even 100 years ago where there were people still living who had witnessed it, if you hadn't seen it with your own eyes you would not have believed, you would have come up with some other excuse just like people did in Christ's day. Come up with any excuse you want, my point was merely to point out that Adam probably wouldn't believe it regardless. I agree with what everyone says here about Christianity in that it requires faith to believe, in this case seeing is not believing. I disagree with the conversations here in that to call us close-minded, and not willing to learn or research science and come to accurate conclusions because of our religious predispositions is just plain incorrect.

Nope. The New Testament is attributed to those authors. The earliest known manuscript are fragments of John's writings, called the the John Ryland's manuscript, was written circa 125 AD. Most of the known manuscripts of the New Testament date from about the 10th Century. Hardly eye witness accounts.

I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian and believed that the Bible was the infallible Word of God. But after much research, I realized that there are just way too many inconsistencies (including in those very "eye-witness" accounts you tout so highly) to lend any credence to the infallibility of the Bible. Much more research and application of sound logic and critical thinking have left me agnostic with athiestic leanings.

Far me it from me to tell you that you should believe as I do. But then, I reserve the right to my own beliefs without proselytes condemning me and loudly proclaiming my doom.

 

[Kryst51]

Nope. The New Testament is attributed to those authors. The earliest known manuscript are fragments of John's writings, called the the John Ryland's manuscript, was written circa 125 AD. Most of the known manuscripts of the New Testament date from about the 10th Century. Hardly eye witness accounts.

I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian and believed that the Bible was the infallible Word of God. But after much research, I realized that there are just way too many inconsistencies (including in those very "eye-witness" accounts you tout so highly) to lend any credence to the infallibility of the Bible. Much more research and application of sound logic and critical thinking have left me agnostic with athiestic leanings.

Far me it from me to tell you that you should believe as I do. But then, I reserve the right to my own beliefs without proselytes condemning me and loudly proclaiming my doom.

I wasn't condmning you. I have already said that it was by faith that belief comes, as well you know. And I do believe they were eye-witness accounts. There are a lot of books that I will never see the originals of that I trust are written by the authors that everyone claims they are written by. But these things are neither here nor there, I am not trying to convince you to believe, you have heard the claims and it is your own decision to believe them or not, which you have done, it is not my job to convert you or anyone else.

But, if you are interested, or anyone else for that matter, I found this link that has some interesting information in it. I also looked at your link, and I certainly don't dispute the information it contains, I believe it agrees with the link I've posted, and with the things I have been taught about it at church. I am not sure what the purpose of this particular conversation is? If it is to say that they "have been attributed" as opposed to "written by" OK, point made. This leads you to say the Bible isn't true, OK. This leads you to not believe in God, OK.... What does that have to do with what I orignally said to Adam? I wasn't trying to prove anything to him or to you for that matter. I found Adam's statement interesting in light of what is actually claimed about Christ, believed by people to be true or not.

 

[Mike375]

Ummm.... it is mentioned in ONE book so how can you say it was witnessed by many people. If I write here "the moon turned green with yellow stripes last night and it was witnessed by many people." that does not make it a fact. All writings about the origins of Christianity date from the second century or later. That makes them not much more than hearsay. Show me proof that is contemporary with the event, not a decade, not a hundred years later.

In my opinion there are two ways to look at that situation.

1) What was written was all bullshit and just an attempt to get a movement going. However, if that was the case then why was the Jesus bloke picked to be the centre of it all.

Or

2) Must have been some big stuff happened for someone to start writing about it a couple of hundred years later.

And if it was hearsay that does not mean the basic story is wrong.

Critics of the Bible often say that the people of those times would have been impressed if someone struck match. That is true. But that begs the question of why through all those Old Testament years has the basic story been the one that kept going.

I think the Bible at the very least is true to the extent that there was some heavy horsepower about the place, big enough horsepower for the story to keep going. Since people of those times were so easy to impress then one would expect the Bible to be just one of hundreds of such books.

Consider books today on something like diet/health. There are 100s of them. However if one had it right then 100s would not be heard of.

Like any history the inaccuracies would be high and the sory would be shaped. Until recent years The Little Big Horn was Custer' Last Stand and it has often been said his wife promoted that theme. Then when artifacts were uncovered it appears Custer and his men either froze on the spot or ran for their lives. However, the basis story is unchaned, that is, Custer and his men were masscred by a big collection of Indians.

I followed dinosaurs with geat interest all my life and that stuff is very fluid. We have gone from them being just like reptiles of today to being birds and now they are not birds but both from a common ancestor. But like Custer and The Little Big Horn, the basis are unchanged, that is. if you travel back a 100 million years the animals on average size would be much bigger thand today and very reptile like to look at.

Personally I find it impossible to believe a fairy tale can be supported by so many, all the Christians and Islamers and the Jews and for thousands of years. And the support is not limited to the totally uneducated, just the opposite.

Lastly, if the Bible was all fairy tales one would expect a counter Bible to have a come along for the ride.

 

[Alc]

And the support is not limited to the totally uneducated, just the opposite.

The opposite would be that support was limited totally to the educated. This is even farther from the truth.

 

[Mike375]

The opposite would be that support was limited totally to the educated. This is even farther from the truth.

Is there anything you can think of where support is limited to the educated.

 

[Alc]

Is there anything you can think of where support is limited to the educated.

No, but that wasn't my reason for posting.

Nice try Mike, but I'm not getting back into the whole circular argument again. I stayed out of it pretty well this time round

If it'll help things to chug along, let's pretend I said 'atheism'.

 

[Mike375]

If it'll help things to chug along, let's pretend I said 'atheism'.

No good. I could put you on the Australian guns/hunting forum with some atheists but the best ones are on the Australian Atheist Foundation forum. Apart from low brain power (not all of them of course) they are also into the moon landing being a hoax

One day I asked one of them if he didn't think it was strange if the moon landing was a hoax that they would stretch things a bit by following with Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as opposed to calling it quits at Apollo 11.

But I will grant you the average IQ on the atheist side is much higher but the low and high number are the same on either side.

 

[Rich]

Why do you continue to persist reading what you don't like? It must be very difficult not only reading what you think is a load of shit but then having to post about it.

The same reason you continue to post it

 

[Alc]

One day I asked one of them if he didn't think it was strange if the moon landing was a hoax that they would stretch things a bit by following with Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as opposed to calling it quits at Apollo 11.

That's an easy one - they were cheap to fake and companies generally milk a sequel idea until they run it into the ground.

They did one and it was popular. This means they already have the sets, props, etc. stored in the warehouse and re-useable. Doctor the faked footage of the spaceship taking off, to show varying weather, etc. and Bob's your uncle.

You can then divert the funds that were supposedly spent on 12 - 17 into investigating those dead aliens they've got stored up.

It's all about finance.

Edit: Why did the word 'companies' turned into an ad link after I typed it?

 

[dan-cat]

Critics of the Bible often say that the people of those times would have been impressed if someone struck match. That is true. But that begs the question of why through all those Old Testament years has the basic story been the one that kept going.

The bible survives as "credible" because of the clever use of "The New Covenant". Now God is no longer solely for the Israelites but for all and you don't have to be pious to receive the benefits just sign on the dotted line that you believe in the figurehead.

The New Covenant borrows from ancient religions, (sacrifice, returning deities in human form etc etc) and polishes them up for modern times. There are numerous events that are cleverly echoed between the two testaments

The bible persists because of a single human desire. Instant gratification. All you have to do is ignore the inconsistency between God's outlook between the two testaments. Old = Striking down all enemies of God's people to the extent that He sent a curse to kill Egyptian children, New = King Herod (Man) attempting to strike down God and matching the same imagery in his attempt to do so. Man has taken on God's wrath now and it's condemned.

There wasn't the technology to make a burning bush talk, so the solution was to just make God's mouthpiece a human. Combine that with all gentiles now invited to the party with the promise of instant gratification and clever poetic imagery that echoed the old religions but adapted to modern times (no child sacrifice required), you have the necessary ingredients for a "movement".

Remember this all sprung from a highly charged political context. Romans oppressing the Jews, the Jews looking for prophecies to be fulfilled. Even Jesus' birth is written in the context of a Roman census process. All quite deliberate to evoke anger against the current authority.

My apologies to all Christians, no disrespect intended. It's just that it's all too poetic to be real.

 

[ChipperT]

No good. I could put you on the Australian guns/hunting forum with some atheists but the best ones are on the Australian Atheist Foundation forum. Apart from low brain power (not all of them of course) they are also into the moon landing being a hoax

One day I asked one of them if he didn't think it was strange if the moon landing was a hoax that they would stretch things a bit by following with Apollo 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as opposed to calling it quits at Apollo 11.

But I will grant you the average IQ on the atheist side is much higher but the low and high number are the same on either side.

Of course the moon landing was a hoax! Everyone knows the moon is made of green cheese and all they supposedly brought back was rocks.

 

[Alc]

My apologies to all Christians, no disrespect intended. It's just that it's all too poetic to be real.

Awwwww, somebody's getting smited

Just don't stand too close to me when the lightning hits you.

 

[Pauldohert]

Once again, I'd disagree, and the research I see points to the opposite. Here are few links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx


I found these with 5 minutes of research. If you could supply some sources that indicate otherwise, I would be genuinely interested in reading them. Otherwise, I have to assume you're just using anecdotal evidence to come to your conclusions.

Since Mike is in Oz

http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=141


On the original 3 stats - I dont think there any surprise that as someone is exposed to science that an anti science belief in God diminishes.

Just like someones exposure to religion, reduces their belief in science to answer all questions.

Almost by definition science can't answer religious questions, nor religion scientific ones.


Does one of the stats bascially say Americans are more stupid than the average?
As tempting as that is to believe, I think the truth is somewhat more complicated.