God versus ET

[wynn]

But philosophy has refuted the concept of God -quite audaciously- without needing to sneer at Him first—or even afterwards; whilst science negates the idea of visiting ETs effectively by sneering from the outset, thereby terminating any discussion or conjecture at its roots.

How and where has philosophy "refuted the concept of God"??

 

[Balerion]

@aaqucnaona --

As I like to say, anything which can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence(thank you Hitchens, you will be missed).

Ditto.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

How and where has philosophy "refuted the concept of God"??

It hasn't refuted a deistic god yet(one who set the universe/s in motion and then just left it alone), but a deistic god is irrelevant to our lives(that's what happens with unfalsifiable claims). However most theistic definitions of god are either internally inconsistent(an omnipotent god for example) or inconsistent with observation(a benevolent creator for example). These definitions can be safely dismissed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You use the term "based on real events" loosely. I have no doubt some yokels saw some lights and didn't know what to make of it, but it wasn't an alien craft they were chasing.

I didn't say anything about aliens, did I? I said they chased a UFO. The inferrence of "alien" is another matter altogether. My point in this regard is that most objections to claims of evidence are based in faith and ignorance, not facts. This in itself speaks to the bias in this regard. It is almost a religion in its own right, as is "believing".

Note how quickly you interpreted my statements to mean something I didn't say. Have you ever considered that if none of this is about ET and we all accepted that as a premise, the subject of UFOS might be interesting? But it is treated with ridicule BECAUSE the impliciation of ET exists and is claimed. Were this not the case, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be treated with greater academic interest. I can say with absolute certainty that it [UFOs] is a fascinating subject. The atttudes that one encounters, however, are generally religious; either pro, or con.

Do you really know they were " yokels" or is that a faith statement conjured from the aether?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah I wasn't specifically worried about the term flying saucer. I was addressing the cultural aspect, that notions of alien visitors, popularized by folks like the early sci fi writers (before we had an Air Force) planted this idea into the public psyche. You are certainly right, the military added a sense of urgency to the fear of aliens, as we were now also subject to the alien threat of the USSR, so no doubt this is why alien movies were so popular in the early Cold War era.

Asimov may not have be THE first, but he was certainly one of the very first Sci Fi writers to capture the public attention. He and Orson Wells would seem to have given a few Bible publishers a run for their money.

In case you didn't notice, I was firmly assenting with your OP. My point that I put forward in support, is that both the notions of God and ET are entirely based on lore. In both cases there is a primordial fear of a threat, against the entire race of humans, by God or an ET.

And here I would even add that Revelations vaguely resembles an alien invasion.

One idea that I think you are missing here is that you are describing an awakening. Just as surely as we once thought we were the center of a very small universe, we also thought we were alone as the pinacle of Gods creation. Science fiction writers were merely raising our conciousness by recognizing the possibilities. We began to understand our place in the cosmos and began to realize that we may not be so special. So I think you have your chicken and egg reversed.

Over time, what has happened, in fact, is that ET has becomes a near certainty, and the question of a God, at least in the sense once belileved, ever more dubious. Visiting ETs are of course another matter. But we have indeed learned that we are almost certainly not alone. Most scientists would probably argue that the odds against our existence as technological creatures being absolutely unique in the cosmos, is somewhere between very small, and infintesimal.

 

[aaqucnaona]

First of all, nobody has even proven aliens exists with direct data. This is not to say they do not follow logically from inference. But still there is no hard data. This is modern mythology, which is a natural aspect of the human mind. This is more PC correct than God. People wish to believe in something bigger than themselves but not too big or it is not fair.

No. Actually the reason for this belief is simple. Even if 1 of billion planets is habitable, one of a billlion of those has organic and chemical conditions and one of a billion of them has simple life - even then there would be at least a 100,000 advanced civilization in the universe.

 

[aaqucnaona]

@aaqucnaona --

As I like to say, anything which can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence(thank you Hitchens, you will be missed).

Agreed!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I may have mistakenly assumed you were taking comment on the silliness of believing in God or ETs. For what it's worth, I didn't snap to your religious view until now.

Now I'm pondering the above statement you made. If an atheist knows "deep down" "the truth of his presence", then we don't refer to that person as an atheist. So what gives?

First, please understand that I am only making logical arguments that I think apply. I am not arguing about my personal beliefs here. But I do have good familiarity with a variety of religious perspectives. I have also studied the subject of UFOs informally for decades now, and I can tell you everything I have learned after almost 30 years - I don't know what the hell to think! But it isn't all nonsense. And I do understand why people jump to beliefs. Also, obvoiusly, if I saw what others claim to have seen, I'd believe in ET as well.

I do see a lot of religion in the treatment of the subject in many ways, not the least of which is to relate the alleged ETs to everything from God, to angels, to devils. And I must admit, some stories from the Bible are curious if read with the context of this thread in mind.

In answer to your question: There is a difference between knowing the truth, and accepting it. We ALL make a choice, right?

 

[Ripley]

How and where has philosophy "refuted the concept of God"??

I wasn't referring to any particular philosophy but to philosophy as an introverted engagement, a language, a conversation with one's self—philosophy as a certain discipline of being. Of course people can engage in discussing things philosophically, and it could all become a lively affair—but not all live philosophically. And it is to these brave species of philosophers—whether or not they write books—that "God", "Satan", "Antichrist", "Society", etc., become mere symbols and concepts whose iconic allures must first be disrobed and then refuted before any genuine and fruitful buzz can be had—philosophical conversations that may be unending perhaps, or insane at times, but at least one has managed to step out of…

The reason there is not much discussion is because we have no data on ETs.

…the box.
 
 
 
Okay, perhaps I shouldn't have said "sneer", but I couldn't help overlooking what Phlogistician recently said to me in a UFO thread of all places: "Ok, so you are an unscientific woo woo. There's no point talking to you, really, it's going to be a waste of my time."

And why should I care about his petty time when time itself is so majestic to me? Really. But that's the whole point, isn't it, that the scientifically minded assume themselves as being the final word on any topic worth their while? The new pontiffs for the moral majority… Bah. I prefer the philosophical beast—at least he can fixedly eye any monstrosity without feeling morally soiled.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Aliens ARE a big point of discussion in science. A fair part of astrobiology does that. The reason there is not much discussion is because we have no data on ETs. Visiting ETs would not be sneered upon had their spacecrapts been large enough to travel the distances they must have and therefore detected many hundred million miles out to space. Then, it is not stupid to say aliens came. Of course, alien tech might be able to circumnavigate this, but then the UFOlogist must give evidence that this has happened. Then and only then does the claim become respectably reasonable. Until then, anyone who isn't intrested in just speculation would indeed terminate the discussion.

Well, not entirely.

INFLATION-THEORY IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION
J. Deardorff, B. Haisch, B. Maccabee and H.E. Puthoff
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol 58, pp. 43-50, 2005.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

 

[Balerion]

I didn't say anything about aliens, did I? I said they chased a UFO.

The title of this thread is "God versus ET." The police "chase" in question was used as fodder for a movie about alien visitation. This thread isn't about Russian spy planes mistaken for alien spacecraft, it's about alien spacecraft. How else is someone supposed to take that kind of comment?

The inferrence of "alien" is another matter altogether.

"Alien" is an inference made in the very title of the thread. And if we're not talking about aliens, then what the hell are we talking about?

My point in this regard is that most objections to claims of evidence are based in faith and ignorance, not facts. This in itself speaks to the bias in this regard. It is almost a religion in its own right, as is "believing".

Oh please. The reason people are skeptical is because after all of these claims, no one has provided even one piece of credible evidence for alien visitation. Strange lights in the sky could be anything from natural phenomena to airplanes to top-secret military fighter jets, and nothing about their presence mandates alien technology.

What evidence moved you to believe? Please share. EDIT: Okay, I see here that you supposedly "don't know what to think" about visiting aliens. That position does not speak well of you. Please explain how you arrived at it.

Note how quickly you interpreted my statements to mean something I didn't say. Have you ever considered that if none of this is about ET and we all accepted that as a premise, the subject of UFOS might be interesting? But it is treated with ridicule BECAUSE the impliciation of ET exists and is claimed. Were this not the case, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be treated with greater academic interest. I can say with absolute certainty that it [UFOs] is a fascinating subject. The atttudes that one encounters, however, are generally religious; either pro, or con.

To quote the great Inigo Montoya: "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

As to the idea of non-alien UFOs being treated with skepticism, I give you Christopher Hitchens' famous quote, "Whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Do you really know they were " yokels" or is that a faith statement conjured from the aether?

Again, misuse of the word. You really need to stop doing that. Skepticism of this issue is not dogmatic, it is based on the fact that there is still no evidence for it despite it. And as for the "yokel" comment, it's just the image I get in my head. It seems any time a UFO documentary features first-hand accounts--especially from police--they tend to be droopy-lipped yokels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

With the Believer, I'd be concerned about their capacity to make rational decisions. The brand of gullible it takes to be a Believer in visiting UFOs is that of your ardent conspiracy theorist (in fact, I can't recall meeting even on Believer who wasn't also a believer in some other conspiracy, be it the Truth movement or some similar nonsense), and I'm not sure that kind of person could lead effectively.

So while the concerns are different, it amounts to the same thing: I'd want neither in office. If I encountered a situation in which those were my only two choices, I'd have to abstain from voting.

So true religious believers are acceptable as long as they're not nuts, but any real ET beleiver would be a concern?

Surely have have voted for President before and have accepted their religious beliefs?

A funny thing about UFO believers, and esp the real fringe, crackpot stuff: Lets say you had a close encounter or were abducted by aliens. How would you not sound nuts? That becomes a subjective measure given the context. How would you not be traumized and even unstable, and prone to fantastic beliefs?

Ezeckiel and his wheels, and his ride around the holy land sounds pretty nuts too, but presumably all of our Presidents have believed it happened.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The title of this thread is "God versus ET." The police "chase" in question was used as fodder for a movie about alien visitation. This thread isn't about Russian spy planes mistaken for alien spacecraft, it's about alien spacecraft. How else is someone supposed to take that kind of comment?

I was responding to specific statements about UFOs and the history, where false statements were made. The fact that people so casually make up facts, as you did with your yokel comment, shows the clear bias and religious element of this. There is a need to believe they are yokels, because the implications otherwise are apparently unacceptable - almost a fear reaction.

Calling them yokels was not skepticism. It was a faith statement.

I have never defended the ET argument as if to say it's true that they're here, but the beliefs are understandable. That is a non-religious statement.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ufology = Crap. Theology = crap.

One is the study of alleged unexplained phenommena, and the other is a study of ancient texts and philosophy from which beliefs are derived.

In regards to ufology, are you objecting to the effort fundmentally, or really just those whom you generally associate with the effort.

Astrobiology = not crap. But, religion = crap too.

Hence I said that the correlation doesn't apply, the point being that God is much more incredulous than ETs.

I said visiting ETs. I think wrt the question of ET in general, we would all agree. Surely life exists out there.

What are the odds that the SOL is an absolute limitation? I don't think one can answer this question, but it seems to be generally assumed that the odds arse quite high. People will often talk about how unlikely it is that we might ever be visited. Why? If there is a way around the sol barrier, then visitation could be a near certainty. Or, it may be an impossibility. And I don't see how we can say which is "more likely". Maybe after sorting out a TOE, and another several hundred years, we can have high confidence. But given the exotic theories floating around in physics, it seems to me that all bets are off right now. Given another million years of techonolgy and physics, who knows what might be the real limits.

For this reason, the dismissiveness of many scientists in this regard seems somewhat religious. And when specific statements about various claims are made, they are often wrong. I don't see how we can be so sure the proposition is so incredibly unlikely. To me, this is not logical.

 

[Balerion]

I was responding to specific statements about UFOs and the history, where false statements were made. The fact that people so casually make up facts, as you did with your yokel comment, shows the clear bias and religious element of this. There is a need to believe they are yokels, because the implications otherwise are apparently unacceptable - almost a fear reaction.

Calling them yokels was not skepticism. It was a faith statement.

You don't seem to understand the concepts of faith and religion, because you're not applying them correctly here. Faith, in the way you mean it, is a belief in something that cannot be proven. I made an assumption about the police chasing the purported UFO based on the way UFO-chasing police are often portrayed in the media. Do you really not see the difference there?

And Acqueous did not make up anything. He was mistaken about the origin of the term "flying saucer," but he was absolutely right about how the mainstream came to know it through science fiction movies, books, and comics. That is where the impetus for this mythology comes, not the supposed crash outside of Roswell.

And what does it say about you and your flimsy argument that you focus on one error so much? How was that all you took from his post? And, for that matter, how was the "yokel" bit all you took from mine?

This is trollish behavior, Ivan. Are you here to exchange ideas, or are you here to pretend you already know everything?

I have never defended the ET argument as if to say it's true that they're here, but the beliefs are understandable. That is a non-religious statement.

In other words, you're a believer. And yes, believing in UFOs is like believing in God. It requires you to lower your standards and retard your reasoning faculties--unless, of course, said standards were already low to begin with, and your reasoning...well, you get the idea.

The only analog faith has in this equation is UFO belief, because it requires a leap of faith to make it from "these lights are crazy!" to "This is an alien spaceship." Ironically, the believer puts unrealistic burdens of proof on the debunker, while rumor and hearsay are plenty so long as it supports their case.

 

[Balerion]

One is the study of alleged unexplained phenommena, and the other is a study of ancient texts and philosophy from which beliefs are derived.

No, one is a study of religious faith, practice and experience (thanks, Merriam-Webster!), and the other is the search for affirmation of the belief in extraterrestrial visitors. The phenomena have already been explained, believers simply dismiss those explanations.

People will often talk about how unlikely it is that we might ever be visited. Why?

The simple answer is that the distances between stars is too great to traverse. Even at the speed of light, it would take years to reach our closest neighbor. There are smarter people than me who could speak to the physics issues--one of which being traveling near enough to the speed of light to make such a journey plausible--but there are others, as well, such as how the energy requirements would almost certainly be prohibitive, even if such a thing were possible.

And we haven't even talked about the improbability of a spacefaring race being able to find out planet, let alone visit it.

If there is a way around the sol barrier, then visitation could be a near certainty. Or, it may be an impossibility. And I don't see how we can say which is "more likely". Maybe after sorting out a TOE, and another several hundred years, we can have high confidence. But given the exotic theories floating around in physics, it seems to me that all bets are off right now. Given another million years of techonolgy and physics, who knows what might be the real limits.

Now this is a statement of faith.

I don't know what a "sol barrier" is, but even if every prerequisite for practical interstellar travel were met by some (or many) alien civilizations, to say that their visitation of Earth is a "near-certainty" is an exercise in wish-thinking.

For this reason, the dismissiveness of many scientists in this regard seems somewhat religious. And when specific statements about various claims are made, they are often wrong. I don't see how we can be so sure the proposition is so incredibly unlikely. To me, this is not logical.

It only seems that way to you because you 1) don't seem to know what the word "religious" means, and 2) don't understand that you haven't given any reasons at all why this would be so. They dismiss the idea of aliens visiting earth for all the reasons I've stated above, but also because there simply is no evidence whatsoever for it. Why do you keep glossing over that?

 

[Adstar]

Sorry, but the evidence says otherwise.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/147887/Americans-Continue-Believe-God.aspx

Firstly you narrow in on the USA. I am in Australia and i know that most of the people do not believe in God. I also know that most Europenas don't believe in the God of Abraham. I am also suspicious of the results. Believing in some other dimension force can be called belief in God. It is all about the question these people where asked. If they where asked if they believed in a intelligent God who was all powerful all wise and all knowing who has always existed i am sure you would not get that results shown above.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/12/beliefs-in-god-ufos-prevail/

And note that asking if UFOs are real, is a silly poll. Of course "UFOs" are real. The question is, "Does ET fly any of them?". Unidentified doesn't automatically mean "alien". So if one asked if ET is visiting, the results for the second poll would probably go down.

Again it is all about the Question being asked. Pollsters are always playing that game. You want to get a lower result make your question pinpointed and narrow in definition. Want to make your results higher ask a vague open question without to many specifics.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

On a related note, this comedian chimes in with questions about the claim that God talks to Presidential candidates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2M5IeYt-JxA#t=757s

Now, replace "God" with "ET", and what would the media coverage look like? So in fact this illogical bias extends well into the mainstream media. This isn't just about believers.

I watched some of the video. It was strange that even the comedian did not mention Ron Paul. But i have since found out that most of the media in the USA does not mention Ron Paul because the elites in the USA don't want him as a candidate.

Aslo i was interested in the names of the presenters. I was wondering what where their families ethnic oragin? None of them had what i would call normal american names.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Balerion]

I watched some of the video. It was strange that even the comedian did not mention Ron Paul. But i have since found out that most of the media in the USA does not mention Ron Paul because the elites in the USA don't want him as a candidate.

Aslo i was interested in the names of the presenters. I was wondering what where their families ethnic oragin? None of them had what i would call normal american names.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Just as an aside, it isn't "the elites" (whoever the hell that's supposed to be) who don't want him as a candidate, it's the two main parties who don't want him stealing votes from their candidate, as Ross Perot did from George H.W. Bush in 1992, or as Ralph Nader did from Al Gore in 2000.

 

[Adstar]

Just as an aside, it isn't "the elites" (whoever the hell that's supposed to be) who don't want him as a candidate, it's the two main parties who don't want him stealing votes from their candidate, as Ross Perot did from George H.W. Bush in 1992, or as Ralph Nader did from Al Gore in 2000.

Wait wasn't ross perot an independent candidate? Am i mistaken? I don't think He ran for either partys nomination.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days