Vatican: It's ok to believe in aliens

[Tycoon101]

God existed before Earth. Therefore God is, by definition, and alien.

 

[Great Librarian]

How come this isn't just "hedging your bets"? I mean, by allowing the prediction, you're never proven wrong.

Isn't that the trademark of the Catholic church? The church doesn't even acknowledge many miracles anymore. I believe their official stance on the vast majority is to neither deny nor acknowledge them, but rather to say that miracles do happen. This certain saves their asses when these miracles are proved to be anything but. Aliens are like miracles and they're also like the Vatican's god.

 

[Kozmos]

I cant wait till aliens come and start blowing us up.

 

[Leonel]

The aliens are likely to have religions of their own.. They're going to be attempting to convert us.

Well look at it this way. In 300 years, we'll have human casinos the aliens will visit in our tax exempt lands.

 

[DNK]

I don't think you're getting the picture at all.

Then explain it to me, since you seem to think you know what I do and do not understand.

 

[DNK]

Well look at it this way. In 300 years, we'll have human casinos the aliens will visit in our tax exempt lands.

I wonder what alien gambling games are like...

I also hope they don't confuse Russian Roulette for its non-lethal counterpart.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Now with real Russians!"

 

[Sidhe]

It isn't a matter of whether the Vatican is trying to prohibit you, though. They are just pointing out that there is nothing in their doctrine that contradicts the idea. I am not really sure there are too many religions where it does, anyways. (Jack Chick might, just on principle.)

Precisely, there never has been a conflict on alien life in The Bible. It's just stating the obvious.

 

[Great Librarian]

Then explain it to me, since you seem to think you know what I do and do not understand.

I had thought I did. I can't speak for Alpine Trooper, in truth, so we'll wait to see whether he agrees or not.

 

[aelf]

I don't think you're getting the picture at all.

It's about time the Vatican stopped and closed its hypocritical and backward mouth. That the Vatican has any credibility is laughable considering, alone, the things that the Pontiff has said (or written) over the last hundred years. I am very much tired of the joke and very much tired of people and governments taking these superstitious and self-appeasing . .. .. .. .. . seriously.

It's okay to believe in aliens? It's okay to believe in god too, according to the pontiff. I sense a pattern.

Right, seeing that you are so vehement, do you still believe that you have no belief?

 

[DNK]

I had thought I did. I can't speak for Alpine Trooper, in truth, so we'll wait to see whether he agrees or not.

So apparently I believe everything the Vatican says or something? Is that what I'm to infer from your post?

You aren't explaining what I believe to me, which is understandable since you have no clue what I actually believe, save the fact that sh-tting on Catholics and Christians because they're such is an asinine thing to do. That is, unless you've been paying very close attention to previous posts of mine, which I doubt (but wait to be proven wrong - oh how special I'll feel ).

So if you don't know what I believe outside of that, how can you tell me I'm not getting the picture with such surety?

 

[Great Librarian]

So apparently I believe everything the Vatican says or something? Is that what I'm to infer from your post?

You aren't explaining what I believe to me, which is understandable since you have no clue what I actually believe, save the fact that sh-tting on Catholics and Christians because they're such is an asinine thing to do. That is, unless you've been paying very close attention to previous posts of mine, which I doubt (but wait to be proven wrong - oh how special I'll feel ).

So if you don't know what I believe outside of that, how can you tell me I'm not getting the picture with such surety?

I don't know where this is going or where it's coming from. I only wrote, 'I don't think you're getting the picture at all.' because I don't think you are getting a 'picture' of Alpine Trooper at all. I was only expanding upon what I believe his beliefs to be regarding the Vatican, they are mine. As I said, we'll see if he agrees. In all honesty, I hadn't read another post of yours, but that really has nothing to do with it as I was only responding to your comment about 'getting the picture'. I don't think Alpine Trooper was being an ass. I don't know how you'll prove me wrong, but I can't wait to find out because it's bound to be completely irrelevant and I sometimes like surprises. Of course, I bet I can spoil it by reading what you wrote prior to what I had read!

 

[Great Librarian]

Right, seeing that you are so vehement, do you still believe that you have no belief?

What an interesting segue into a discussion that I had abandoned. I fail to see how my disapproval of the Vatican and its actions and the reverence it has world wide has led you to bring that up, but I'm not about to enter into an argument with you. That is what it would be, right? Because you won't bend even a little bit to the possibility that you're simply misinformed and incorrect. You won't admit that you lack an understanding of what it is to believe in something and what it is not to believe in something. Your semantic game of calling disbelief or non-belief a belief is dishonest, unconvincing and should be utterly transparent to everyone. For the sake of answering your question one last time, read below because it's as good as your going to get, you dishonest charlatan.

Spoiler :

Disbelief is not a belief, look the bloody word up.

I disbelieve in god(s).
I have a non-belief in god(s).
I don't believe in god(s).
I believe there is no god(s).

These sentences all say the same thing. They mean that the person does not believe. Does this person believe that he doesn't believe? Presumably, or else his position would be untenable. Does a believer believe that he believes? Yes, and for the same reasons. What are the differences between someone who does not believe and someone who does? The belief, in god. Very simply on has a belief in god and the other person doesn't.

What you would propose is that any position a person has on something whether active or not is a belief. It would not be possible for a person to keep track of every belief they had if belief were so defined. It isn't and it isn't treated that way. You do not actively count your disbelief in the tooth fairy as a belief that you must remind yourself of and it isn't something that's temporarily suspended until the next time you think of it; it just isn't there, you just don't believe. And before you try it, don't equate belief with faith. A belief doesn't have to be analogous with faith and faith is not always analogous with belief. What the religious person really has might be better described as faith rather than belief and that's where the terms' meanings cross over. The Atheist doesn't have faith, the Atheist disbelieves because of the nature of faith. Faith is literally belief without evidence and people who believe in god have no evidence worthy of the name and no evidence that could convince me, anymore than a Muslim can convince a Christian of the existence of their god and last prophet than can a Christian convince a Muslim of the existence of their god and saviour, that their god does exist. They simply don't have evidence. And without evidence there is no good reason to believe in something, hence disbelief.

And before an 'agnostic' comes here and tries to redefine that word agnostic means:

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

It is a position of knowledge and not a position of belief. Very clearly a theist can claim to believe in god, to have faith and still claim to be agnostic about god, or to say that god is unknowable.

An Atheist can likewise be agnostic claiming that knowledge of god cannot be had.

Either of the two could claim to be gnostic, or to have knowledge. I propose that supernatural gods cannot exist. I know this because of the very nature of the word supernatural. Some theists claim to know god, to be intimate with god and thus believe. Their anecdotal evidence does not stand up to scientific enquiry, it is not permissible.

'Agnostics' usually say, "But I don't disbelieve, I just don't believe!" If you literally "don't disbelieve" - then you would believe. Even if the jury is out on whether god is real or not you are either living your life as if god is or as if god isn't and if you are truly agnostic, then the answer can't be had. Not disbelieving is believing and belief and disbelief are binary concepts. If you do not believe it necessarily follows that you do not believe. You cannot not disbelieve and disbelieve at the same time, it is the same as believing and not believing simultaneously (both statements are expressed in sentential logic as (~~P&~P)|(P&~P) which is just gibberish as the negation of something and that something cannot both be true) which is simply not possible on matters of belief, even if the truth or untruth of that belief cannot be known.

Edit, I added this on: While I'm at it: for those who think they've proved that Atheism is a religion. It's not. Sharwood, specifically wrote this steaming pile:

Spoiler :

Religion: a system of thought, feeling and action that is shared by a group and gives the members of that group an object of devotion; a code of behaviour by which an individual may judge the personal and social consequences of his actions; and a frame of reference by which an individual may relate himself to his group and his universe.

Atheism: the denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence.

Notice that nowhere in the definition of religion is it mentioned that there must be a god or gods. If religion is a system of thought that gives one an object of devotion, then atheism is in a grey area, since there isn't any object of devotion involved - unless one considers science and modernism as objects of devotion, which in my experience many atheists do. I'm not saying you do, merely making a point there. But the final definition of religion, that of a frame of reference through which individuals relate themselves to a group and the universe, squarely places atheism, and my belief system, agnosticism, squarely in the realm of religion, whether we wish to admit it or not. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief in a god or gods, not religion.

You say that agnosticism is dodging the question. I look at it more from a more scientific point of view. Until there is a way of proving whether or not there is a god, both the belief in and disbelief in gods are theories, and as such one should keep an open mind and not subscribe to either of these beliefs. Or perhaps it's better to look at it as a courtcase. At the moment, there is only circumstantial evidence in favour of the defendant having committed or not committed the crime. Therefore you can't find himm guilty, but you're also not sure he's innocent. So the best course of action is to state that you cannot reach a verdict.

If people do choose to subscribe to one of these beliefs, either theism or atheism, that's their decision, and unless it is dangerous to oneself or others, such as Anti-Semitism, people should be free to practice these beliefs as they wish. There is nothing wrong with debating these things, after all, from the standpoint of every religion, including mine and yours, the more converts the better, as it improves our chances of survival, reproduction, power, etc.. But merely stating that one belief system is wrong, and yours is right, is not a debate. Stating that "theism should be confined humiliated secrecy" reeks of a pogrom.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the use of the word tolerance. Tolerance is something I built up to being slammed on my back repeatedly in my wrestling days. Tolerance is not something that you have for people of other beliefs or skin colours. You accept them where they are no threat, and do not accept them where they are. An example of both would be having no problem with a group of black teenagers during the day in the Solomon Islands, yet having reason to fear from a group of black teenagers at night in Southern Los Angeles. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the location of street gangs like the Crips and the Bloods, and therefore one would be perfectly within their rights to be frightened at the sight of a group of black teenagers walking towards them in that place and time, whether there is actually any chance of something bad happening to them or not.

You're right, many of the phrases and thoughts that are tossed around on a daily basis are total bs. I don't believe I ever said otherwise. I said it was wrong to ridicule the beliefs of others, which is what you were doing. Notice, I never said you were wrong, because atheism is no more wrong than theism is. It's simply a matter of faith.

If you bothered to read that, Sharwood thinks Atheism is a religion. Sharwood also incorrectly defines Atheism and incorrectly defines religion.

Religion is this:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Even by Sharwood's definition Atheism is not a religion because no one can claim that Atheism is this, '...an object of devotion; a code of behaviour by which an individual may judge the personal and social consequences of his actions...'. It is not. It is simply disbelief in god. Atheism is not something that gets devotion, do you give devotion to your disbelief in santa clause? It describes no code of behaviour, only disbelief. There is no way that the disbelief in god can allow someone to judge the personal and social consequences of their actions. Atheism does not prescribe a morality or a code of behaviour and it isn't an object of devotion. Sharwood, you are stupid if you think that Atheism fits into even your definition of religion. In the case of your definition if Atheism is a religion so is Humanitarianism, Secularism, in fact anything could be a religion is we ignore that they aren't objects of devotion, that they don't necessarily prescribe a code of behaviour or a morality. Your so-called 'proof' is laughable. The only thing necessary to be Atheist is a disbelief in gods. It does not mean a disbelief in the supernatural. It does not mean that a person must be rational or logical. It does not mean that the person must be secular. It does not mean that the person needs to be pacifist. It means nothing except disbelief in god.

Sharwood also writes that agnosticism is not dodging the question, it's not, it's a totally different thing than the matter of belief in god. Sharwood suggests that to look at it from a scientific point of view would be helpful okay. Sharwood then relates it to court, which is definitely not scientific. Sharwood essentially says that, like a court case because the believers have no evidence and the Atheists can't prove them wrong because there's no evidence, the jury should be out. Well, court cases don't work like that and incidentally neither does science. People are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Until evidence comes around that supports the god hypothesis, then the jury isn't out, it's not there, because the default position is innocence, or in this case, disbelief. As with science, when something can't be proved, it is disbelieved.

The rest of Shawrwood's post is inane and unrelated.

You, aelf, have been dishonest. You are a complete fool and you are annoying. Sharwood and a_propagandist, you're just plain wrong and you're also annoying.

I frankly don't care about how dishonest you want to be, but please, don't try to drag me into an argument with you, because I have neither the time nor the desire and if what I've written here doesn't convince you of your error, I'm afraid that no amount of reasoning can.

 

[DNK]

I don't know where this is going or where it's coming from. I only wrote, 'I don't think you're getting the picture at all.' because I don't think you are getting a 'picture' of Alpine Trooper at all. I was only expanding upon what I believe his beliefs to be regarding the Vatican, they are mine. As I said, we'll see if he agrees. In all honesty, I hadn't read another post of yours, but that really has nothing to do with it as I was only responding to your comment about 'getting the picture'. I don't think Alpine Trooper was being an ass. I don't know how you'll prove me wrong, but I can't wait to find out because it's bound to be completely irrelevant and I sometimes like surprises. Of course, I bet I can spoil it by reading what you wrote prior to what I had read!

This whole thread is pretty irrelevant, so it would be quite on topic, no?

Fine, this getting the picture thing has been a communication failure. Time to end that dialog.

I'll wait for Alpine's response before making any further comments.

 

[aelf]

What an interesting segue into a discussion that I had abandoned. I fail to see how my disapproval of the Vatican and its actions and the reverence it has world wide has led you to bring that up, but I'm not about to enter into an argument with you. That is what it would be, right? Because you won't bend even a little bit to the possibility that you're simply misinformed and incorrect. You won't admit that you lack an understanding of what it is to believe in something and what it is not to believe in something. Your semantic game of calling disbelief or non-belief a belief is dishonest, unconvincing and should be utterly transparent to everyone. For the sake of answering your question one last time, read below because it's as good as your going to get, you dishonest charlatan.

Spoiler :

Disbelief is not a belief, look the bloody word up.

I disbelieve in god(s).
I have a non-belief in god(s).
I don't believe in god(s).
I believe there is no god(s).

These sentences all say the same thing. They mean that the person does not believe. Does this person believe that he doesn't believe? Presumably, or else his position would be untenable. Does a believer believe that he believes? Yes, and for the same reasons. What are the differences between someone who does not believe and someone who does? The belief, in god. Very simply on has a belief in god and the other person doesn't.

What you would propose is that any position a person has on something whether active or not is a belief. It would not be possible for a person to keep track of every belief they had if belief were so defined. It isn't and it isn't treated that way. You do not actively count your disbelief in the tooth fairy as a belief that you must remind yourself of and it isn't something that's temporarily suspended until the next time you think of it; it just isn't there, you just don't believe. And before you try it, don't equate belief with faith. A belief doesn't have to be analogous with faith and faith is not always analogous with belief. What the religious person really has might be better described as faith rather than belief and that's where the terms' meanings cross over. The Atheist doesn't have faith, the Atheist disbelieves because of the nature of faith. Faith is literally belief without evidence and people who believe in god have no evidence worthy of the name and no evidence that could convince me, anymore than a Muslim can convince a Christian of the existence of their god and last prophet than can a Christian convince a Muslim of the existence of their god and saviour, that their god does exist. They simply don't have evidence. And without evidence there is no good reason to believe in something, hence disbelief.

And before an 'agnostic' comes here and tries to redefine that word agnostic means:

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

It is a position of knowledge and not a position of belief. Very clearly a theist can claim to believe in god, to have faith and still claim to be agnostic about god, or to say that god is unknowable.

An Atheist can likewise be agnostic claiming that knowledge of god cannot be had.

Either of the two could claim to be gnostic, or to have knowledge. I propose that supernatural gods cannot exist. I know this because of the very nature of the word supernatural. Some theists claim to know god, to be intimate with god and thus believe. Their anecdotal evidence does not stand up to scientific enquiry, it is not permissible.

'Agnostics' usually say, "But I don't disbelieve, I just don't believe!" If you literally "don't disbelieve" - then you would believe. Even if the jury is out on whether god is real or not you are either living your life as if god is or as if god isn't and if you are truly agnostic, then the answer can't be had. Not disbelieving is believing and belief and disbelief are binary concepts. If you do not believe it necessarily follows that you do not believe. You cannot not disbelieve and disbelieve at the same time, it is the same as believing and not believing simultaneously (both statements are expressed in sentential logic as (~~P&~P)|(P&~P) which is just gibberish as the negation of something and that something cannot both be true) which is simply not possible on matters of belief, even if the truth or untruth of that belief cannot be known.

Edit, I added this on: While I'm at it: for those who think they've proved that Atheism is a religion. It's not. Sharwood, specifically wrote this steaming pile:

Spoiler :

Religion: a system of thought, feeling and action that is shared by a group and gives the members of that group an object of devotion; a code of behaviour by which an individual may judge the personal and social consequences of his actions; and a frame of reference by which an individual may relate himself to his group and his universe.

Atheism: the denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence.

Notice that nowhere in the definition of religion is it mentioned that there must be a god or gods. If religion is a system of thought that gives one an object of devotion, then atheism is in a grey area, since there isn't any object of devotion involved - unless one considers science and modernism as objects of devotion, which in my experience many atheists do. I'm not saying you do, merely making a point there. But the final definition of religion, that of a frame of reference through which individuals relate themselves to a group and the universe, squarely places atheism, and my belief system, agnosticism, squarely in the realm of religion, whether we wish to admit it or not. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief in a god or gods, not religion.

You say that agnosticism is dodging the question. I look at it more from a more scientific point of view. Until there is a way of proving whether or not there is a god, both the belief in and disbelief in gods are theories, and as such one should keep an open mind and not subscribe to either of these beliefs. Or perhaps it's better to look at it as a courtcase. At the moment, there is only circumstantial evidence in favour of the defendant having committed or not committed the crime. Therefore you can't find himm guilty, but you're also not sure he's innocent. So the best course of action is to state that you cannot reach a verdict.

If people do choose to subscribe to one of these beliefs, either theism or atheism, that's their decision, and unless it is dangerous to oneself or others, such as Anti-Semitism, people should be free to practice these beliefs as they wish. There is nothing wrong with debating these things, after all, from the standpoint of every religion, including mine and yours, the more converts the better, as it improves our chances of survival, reproduction, power, etc.. But merely stating that one belief system is wrong, and yours is right, is not a debate. Stating that "theism should be confined humiliated secrecy" reeks of a pogrom.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the use of the word tolerance. Tolerance is something I built up to being slammed on my back repeatedly in my wrestling days. Tolerance is not something that you have for people of other beliefs or skin colours. You accept them where they are no threat, and do not accept them where they are. An example of both would be having no problem with a group of black teenagers during the day in the Solomon Islands, yet having reason to fear from a group of black teenagers at night in Southern Los Angeles. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the location of street gangs like the Crips and the Bloods, and therefore one would be perfectly within their rights to be frightened at the sight of a group of black teenagers walking towards them in that place and time, whether there is actually any chance of something bad happening to them or not.

You're right, many of the phrases and thoughts that are tossed around on a daily basis are total bs. I don't believe I ever said otherwise. I said it was wrong to ridicule the beliefs of others, which is what you were doing. Notice, I never said you were wrong, because atheism is no more wrong than theism is. It's simply a matter of faith.

If you bothered to read that, Sharwood thinks Atheism is a religion. Sharwood also incorrectly defines Atheism and incorrectly defines religion.

Religion is this:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Even by Sharwood's definition Atheism is not a religion because no one can claim that Atheism is this, '...an object of devotion; a code of behaviour by which an individual may judge the personal and social consequences of his actions...'. It is not. It is simply disbelief in god. Atheism is not something that gets devotion, do you give devotion to your disbelief in santa clause? It describes no code of behaviour, only disbelief. There is no way that the disbelief in god can allow someone to judge the personal and social consequences of their actions. Atheism does not prescribe a morality or a code of behaviour and it isn't an object of devotion. Sharwood, you are stupid if you think that Atheism fits into even your definition of religion. In the case of your definition if Atheism is a religion so is Humanitarianism, Secularism, in fact anything could be a religion is we ignore that they aren't objects of devotion, that they don't necessarily prescribe a code of behaviour or a morality. Your so-called 'proof' is laughable. The only thing necessary to be Atheist is a disbelief in gods. It does not mean a disbelief in the supernatural. It does not mean that a person must be rational or logical. It does not mean that the person must be secular. It does not mean that the person needs to be pacifist. It means nothing except disbelief in god.

Sharwood also writes that agnosticism is not dodging the question, it's not, it's a totally different thing than the matter of belief in god. Sharwood suggests that to look at it from a scientific point of view would be helpful okay. Sharwood then relates it to court, which is definitely not scientific. Sharwood essentially says that, like a court case because the believers have no evidence and the Atheists can't prove them wrong because there's no evidence, the jury should be out. Well, court cases don't work like that and incidentally neither does science. People are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Until evidence comes around that supports the god hypothesis, then the jury isn't out, it's not there, because the default position is innocence, or in this case, disbelief. As with science, when something can't be proved, it is disbelieved.

The rest of Shawrwood's post is inane and unrelated.

You, aelf, have been dishonest. You are a complete fool and you are annoying. Sharwood and a_propagandist, you're just plain wrong and you're also annoying.

I frankly don't care about how dishonest you want to be, but please, don't try to drag me into an argument with you, because I have neither the time nor the desire and if what I've written here doesn't convince you of your error, I'm afraid that no amount of reasoning can.

I love how you call your opponents 'dishonest charlatans' and 'annoying fools'. It's not often that one gets such plain display of bluntness in the adult world. I really do think it's quite funny and reminiscent of childhood days

Anyway, seeing that you were told in no uncertain terms that you were wrong by a number of people who have read more than you, and that you subsequently left that discussion with tail between legs after some customary barking, I can only admire your persistence and ability to delude yourself. I need only to pronounce a few sentences before you again have to suffer the same ignominious fate: Disbelief in god and believing that there is no god, what is the difference? If you believe there is no god, do you not then hold a belief? How do you believe that you have no belief?

You can write a lengthy essay, but if you fail to wrap your mind around simple stuff, what is the use?

 

[DNK]

God existed before Earth. Therefore God is, by definition, and alien.

But, God also IS Earth. Therefore, God is, by definition, terrestrial.

This brings up the very important question of whether God can create a planet that he is alien to

Theology!



Edit:
Okay, so what's this other thread about... or do I just not want to know?

Edit, edit: after seeing the length of the above posts... I probably don't want to know

 

[J-man]

Seems like the Vatican is hitting the renaissance , bit late. But better late then never.

 

[Stylesjl]

I think its hilarious that he speculates that they might be free from original sin. What an arrogant statement to make, to presume that these aliens will have anything to do with petty human superstitions

 

[The Last Conformist]

Last I heard, the Vatican Observatory wasn't an authoritative body on Catholic doctrine. If this was actually meant as a statement on what is "ok to believe" it would've been the Pope making it.

 

[Great Librarian]

I love how you call your opponents 'dishonest charlatans' and 'annoying fools'. It's not often that one gets such plain display of bluntness in the adult world. I really do think it's quite funny and reminiscent of childhood days

I hope your not discounting my arguments because of my apparent ad hominems? That would be a logical fallacy and I happen not to count my remarks as ad hominems because you have presented yourself as dishonest and as a charlatan and you do annoy me. I don't see how that is childish, but take it as you will.

Anyway, seeing that you were told in no uncertain terms that you were wrong by a number of people who have read more than you

The number of people who have told me I am wrong does not change the veracity of what I've written. do you want to actually address any of my arguments with counter arguments instead of repeating the same lie?

and that you subsequently left that discussion with tail between legs after some customary barking

I did not run away and your imagery is not accurate. I stopped responding in that thread. I explained that I would stop responding. I was getting tired of repeating myself.

, I can only admire your persistence and ability to delude yourself.

Really, I don't admire self delusion in anyone and I'm not the persistent one, you pursued me. I had given up.

I need only to pronounce a few sentences before you again have to suffer the same ignominious fate: Disbelief in god and believing that there is no god, what is the difference? If you believe there is no god, do you not then hold a belief? How do you believe that you have no belief?

And here you spout the same semantic garbage. You can't tell the difference between a negative position and a positive position and you thus can't tell the difference between disbelief and belief. Did you even read what I wrote? I think not. Respond to my arguments or stop pestering me.

You can write a lengthy essay, but if you fail to wrap your mind around simple stuff, what is the use?

I didn't write an essay and apparently there was no use in writing out my counterarguments because you've ignored what I've written and sprung up the same strawman response. It really is ironic that you suggest I can't wrap my mind around 'simple stuff'.

I've had enough. Don't bother asking me again, because I'm not giving you whatever satisfaction you get from pursuing your obsession.