Vatican: It's ok to believe in aliens

[Leonel]

I wonder what alien gambling games are like...

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

Probably laser roulette or space blackjack! Don't really matter as long as we can milk the alien authorities on Earth for everything they're work from guilt tripping them with tales of how millions of humans died from drinking too much space firewater and living in the Detroit reservation.

 

[holy king]

Don't really matter as long as we can milk the alien authorities on Earth for everything they're work from guilt tripping them with tales of how millions of humans died from drinking too much space firewater and living in the Detroit reservation.

if i said that about jews wanting reparations and their articles of virtu back...

 

[El_Machinae]

What if the message is 2011 years old and consists of "Don't fall for it, it's a trick!"

 

[classical_hero]

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

This statement clearly show that they have rejected the Biblical basis of Christianity. The Bible is clear that the whole of creation is under the curse.

Romans 8:19-23 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Unless of course the New testament has nothing to do with Christianity as apparently does the Old Testament.

 

[Masquerouge]

This statement clearly show that they have rejected the Biblical basis of Christianity. The Bible is clear that the whole of creation is under the curse.

Romans 8:19-23 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Unless of course the New testament has nothing to do with Christianity as apparently does the Old Testament.

Mmmh... does your view imply that no sentient life could have existed before the fall of Man?

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe: or just that it necessarily fell too.

 

[Sidhe]

Maybe: or just that it necessarily fell too.

Since the likelihood that we were the first sentient life in the Universe, seems numerically at least somewhat remote. It would have to be the latter.

The good thing about meeting aliens is, that if we met say 40 species, and all of them believed in a monotheistic God with similar attributes, then that would pretty much be hard to discount as evidence that God exists. If on the other hand there was no real similarity, then that would also be hard to discount as counter evidence.

 

[warpus]

Disbelief in god and believing that there is no god, what is the difference?

I'm obviously stepping into the middle of some sort of a heated debate.. about nothing.

but..

"I do not believe in God" --> an acknowledgement that God may exist
"I believe God doesn't exist" --> no such acknowledgement

 

[aelf]

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.

No, certainly not. It's amusing. You can keep it up.

However, I must say you fail to annoy me because you make no sense whatever

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?

Well, the key descriptive is people who have read more than you. It seems pretty clear from the arguments offered.

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.

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

Given up trying to answer relevant questions and resorting to a similar brand of amusing name-calling before exiting? Sounds like that was a pretty accurate imagery.

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.

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.

Semantics? These are very legitimate questions. If they are semantics and they are not relevant, why don't you give me some answers that would dismiss them with superior knowledge or logic? It seems to me that you still can't answer them.

 

[aelf]

I'm obviously stepping into the middle of some sort of a heated debate.. about nothing.

but..

"I do not believe in God" --> an acknowledgement that God may exist
"I believe God doesn't exist" --> no such acknowledgement

No acknowledgement that god exists is not an acknowledgement that god does not exist?

 

[warpus]

No acknowledgement that god exists is not an acknowledgement that god does not exist?

It's not.. that's what I'm saying.

When I say "I do not believe that God exists" I am not saying "I believe that God does not exist"

That would mean something else.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

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

I don't think it is "hilarious"; on the contrary, if someone believes something, superstition or no, they will generally take that belief into account whenever it has other implications. You might as well mock them for saying that the aliens are created by God. They are Catholic. They believe in Original Sin. Nothing arrogant in believing in something you believe in.

 

[Masquerouge]

Maybe: or just that it necessarily fell too.

Fair enough. But I was under the impression CH was thinking that the Fall as depicted in Genesis (with Adam and Eve and humans) corrupted all creation, other aliens included.

 

[Leonel]

This statement clearly show that they have rejected the Biblical basis of Christianity. The Bible is clear that the whole of creation is under the curse.

Romans 8:19-23 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Unless of course the New testament has nothing to do with Christianity as apparently does the Old Testament.

I don't see anything in there saying that Earth is the only world with life.

 

[Sidhe]

I don't see anything in there saying that Earth is the only world with life.

Not really surprising when the people at the time had no idea they were so mind numbingly insignificant in the Universe that the very idea that a God would cater just for one of the massive amounts of possible lifeforms was just ignorant. Why would you mention other life, when as far as you knew stars were holes in the sky through which heaven shined its light or whatever. Suffice to say more by luck than judgement it seems The Bible was written at times when we were so "backward" that considering life existing in a mass of stars was unlikely to say the least. If they had I have no doubt they would have written stuff in to make sure they counted such planets into the matrix. Of course if God existed you would of expected him to mention that we were a part of a massive whole, where life had existed for aeons, but weirdly enough he remained silent on the matter, go figure?

 

[Holycannoli]

Of course if God existed you would of expected him to mention that we were a part of a massive whole, where life had existed for aeons, but weirdly enough he remained silent on the matter, go figure?

Why's that? Why does he have to mention anything? Don't take that as some sort of support that he doesn't exist, just because aliens weren't mentioned. I don't remember dinosaurs being mentioned either.

 

[Sidhe]

Why's that? Why does he have to mention anything? Don't take that as some sort of support that he doesn't exist, just because aliens weren't mentioned. I don't remember dinosaurs being mentioned either.

Conveniently God never mentions anything outside of human experience of the time. It's one of those issues that makes the whole thing somewhat open to question. No he doesn't have to mention anything, but it would of created a hell of a lot more believers if anyone ever did in The Bible. Seems he was trying to make people unbelievers, by not giving anyone the means to make up their mind. I tell you what killed or fatally wounded religion, it wasn't science it was philosophy, the rise of reason over faith. The very fact that the world has never been given enough to hold one faith, or even keep it.

 

[aelf]

It's not.. that's what I'm saying.

When I say "I do not believe that God exists" I am not saying "I believe that God does not exist"

That would mean something else.

How so? Please explain. And, pray tell, which statement is atheism making?

I want to see how you get out of this.

 

[Great Librarian]

I'm obviously stepping into the middle of some sort of a heated debate.. about nothing.

but..

"I do not believe in God" --> an acknowledgement that God may exist
"I believe God doesn't exist" --> no such acknowledgement

You are stepping into some sort of heated debate. For me, it's over. Please, try to carry on, but you'll realize soon that your interlocutor in this does not respond to reason. Take the time to read aelf's responses, they're a triumph of something I cant' say or I'll be moderated for 'flaming' and of something else I can't say or I'll be moderated for 'flaming'. If you want to know, I believe I refer to your interlocutor using those words in my response to him. He also seems to think that other people who were a part of that discussion have read more than me and that this nullifies any argument I might make. I don't know how he supports that claim, but I think he's either taking them at their word or making it up and he's certainly not correct about my arguments being invalid, which he is suggesting by making use of the fallacy he has. This is the kind of person you're dealing with.

As to you what you point out, you're correct. 'I do not believe in god' would tend to validate the believer's claim. However, in order to be totally honest, any Atheist would have to do this for a certain variety of god concepts (deist, pantheist). That is, the Atheist would have to be agnostic.

However, contingent upon denying belief in a god ('I do not believe in god'), any Atheist must also believe that the god does not exist exactly due to the lack of evidence for the positive assertion, the assertion of faith. Whether or not knowledge could ever be had about the god in question, there is not good reason to believe (there is no evidence) until evidence affirming the existence comes about. I hope the implications of a world where people believed things without evidence are clear because I won't take the time to explain them if they are.

It seems that there is a fundamental problem with your interlocutor's understanding of the word belief and what it is to believe and the word disbelief and what it is to disbelieve, as well as a problem understanding the word faith and where faith and belief cross over as concepts. He also has a fundamental problem understanding the nature of evidence, as we'll see.

I pulled this handy explanation from a fellow poster at another forum which I suggested aelf visit. He hasn't taken me up on that suggestion that I know, which clearly shows just how willing aelf is to expand upon his knowledge or at least to read some stuff and, perhaps, affirm how correct he is.

Why is belief an issue at all? The word no more implies being religious or irreligious than it does being a human being, something else we all here believe ourselves to be (albeit based on more evidence than the god-believers can produce).

The religious person in fact has an unsupported belief - and thinks that maintaining this belief is a virtue. But he doesn't own the word and merely demonstrates a form of dishonesty when he habitually forgets to place the "blind" bit before the term when talking about himself. Nor does he say anything meaningful when he accuses an atheist of "believing that there is no god" except to demonstrate that he misunderstands the crucial difference between belief based on evidence and belief for the sake of it.

But then "evidence" is another term he has a problem with too. To an atheist, and indeed to any rational person, if a claim is unsupported by evidence then it is a false or dubious claim. In fact the absence of any credible evidence supporting the claimant's hypotheis is evidence in its own right that his claim is unfounded. To the religious person however, whose need to believe in an unsupported claim outweighs his respect for reality or language, the absence of evidence is no obstacle whatsoever since his aim is not to produce any anyway. And so we get the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" assertion, failing to appreciate that the atheist is in fact using quite credible and sturdy evidence to support his own contra-assertion.

His dishonesty is required to hide a basic flaw in his thinking, and one moreover that he knows well exists since he cannot use the same rationale in any other area of his life without risking being dead. The truth he avoids - intentionally - is self-evident in itself. Since a complete absence of evidence must rationally mean a huge probability that any claim is false then it is the claimant's responsibility to produce some - or as with any other false theory it must be regarded as a hindrance to understanding rather than an aid. In every other field and in every other application of the concept such is the role of evidence and the process of which it is a crucial part, and for the religious person to choose otherwise is to admit that understanding and knowledge mean nothing to him. Either he gets busy producing some evidence to support his tenet or he admits his apparent gullibility, irrationality and wilful ignorance.

Based on this we could call the Atheist disbelief a belief, but the disbelief is not a belief in itself, that would defy logic. The disbelief is rather based on some substantial evidence, the very lack of evidence that supports all god claims and it is in that way that disbelief is often regarded as belief. No one will argue (hopefully) that our mutual disbelief in any other thing which does not exist (santa clause) is a belief because the apparent nonexistence is itself a form of evidence. Why is it necessary to pursue the idea that disbelief in god is somehow a belief unlike all other disbeliefs? It would not prove anything about the Atheist's position, nor would it detract from it. This pursuit is based on something else entirely, I think it's based on the believer's vehemence for his belief and the fact that he cannot imagine or fails to grasp what it is to disbelieve in something; for there to be no belief in place of a belief he thinks is vital. That said, Atheists, like absolutely everyone, believe in all sorts of things and I don't see how this presents itself as a problem.

 

[warpus]

How so? Please explain. And, pray tell, which statement is atheism making?

Both, actually. Strong atheism makes the stronger claim, weak atheism makes the weaker claim.

It's obvious to me that one of the statements makes a logically stronger (more constrained) claim than the other. It's so obvious to me that I'm gonna have to think a bit about how to present this to someone who doesn't comprehend it.

I want to see how you get out of this.

Get out of what? You make it sound like I'm some sort of craazy claim.

"I do not believe that God exists" --> If you made a list of all the things I believe, "I believe that God exists" would not be one of them. The statement makes no claim on the existence of "I believe that God does not exist" on this list of things that I do believe. It might be there, but it also might not.

This is the weaker of the two statements, since it is not as constrained.

Things you might find on my list: "I believe that I was born in Poland", "I believe that 2+2 is 4", and so on.

"I believe that God does not exist" --> makes the claim that "I believe that God does not exist" is on the list of things that I believe... for sure. If I had to produce such a list, I would include "I believe that God does not exist".

Now, you, as a believer, might have a hard time understanding the difference between the two. To you, you either believe that God exists, or you don't. I understand that..

But the difference is essentially what differentiates Strong atheism vs weak atheism and to a lesser degree atheism vs agnosticism.

Agnostics do not believe that God exists.. They make no positive claim that God exists, therefore they do not believe that God exists.

However, an agnostic also does not believe the opposite.. Thus, to say that an agnostic "believes that God does not exist" would be incorrect.

I jumped on this because in order to really understand my opinion on the question of God, you sort of have to understand this important distinction. So many people out there try to lump people into two camps.. "YOu either believe or you don't!".. but that's just not how it works, and if you do that, you will never understand my stance on the subject. Since the purpose of these forums is an exchange of ideas, and since God comes up fairly frequently in our discussions, you should make a point of understanding this distinction.. saving you the embarassment of fighting strawmen in the future (ie. making claims about my beliefs or lack thereof that are just incorrect)

You are stepping into some sort of heated debate.For me, it's over. Please, try to carry on, but you'll realize soon that your interlocutor in this does not respond to reason. Take the time to read aelf's responses, they're a triumph of something I cant' say or I'll be moderated for 'flaming' and of something else I can't say or I'll be moderated for 'flaming'

If you are unable to address my points without flaming, then perhaps you do not belong in this (heated??) debate.