Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial life

[leroy]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

and why would that be a problem for God, or for my religion?

Another bizarre question that doesn't arise from anything I wrote.

What actually happened is that you said the discovery of alien life would be theologically neutral, and my point is that it wouldn't be in the slightest bit theologically neutral (assuming you know your own religion's theology) - I, of course, never suggested it would be a 'problem'.

I really do think I am quite clear in my written word, and I really don't see as you can ignore what I wrote in order to suggest the opposite. I did not say it was a problem, so I am not going to respond to a question asking me why I think it would be a problem. Unless, of course, we're practicing argumentation rather than honestly stating our own opinion?

I could, of course, argue that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would be a problem for Christianity if you want me to? Just let me know what position I can hold that's most convenient for what you want to argue.

the truth of Christianity (at least my view) depends on whether if Jesus resurrected or not, finding aliens is simply irrelevant,

Well, Jesus wasn't resurrected because resurrection is a magical fairy tale to convince the illiterate people of the Classical Age that humans were special. They believed it because they had no knowledge of how nature operates, operated under the presupposition that a tinkering overbeing was at work, and the consequent two thousand years have offered not a single jot of evidence of the existence of this alleged being who is everywhere and who tinkers with the laws of the universe.

In other words, I'd put my money on a horse that isn't 2000 years dead and which never had any legs in the first place.

I apologize if I misquoted or misinterpreted your words,

all I am saying is that the truth of Christianity is not dependent on whether if we find Aliens or not, this is why I said that the discovery of aliens would be a theologically neutral discovery.

is there anything along these lines that you disagree with?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

I apologize if I misquoted or misinterpreted your words,

No worries and fair play to you for acknowledging it!

all I am saying is that the truth of Christianity is not dependent on whether if we find Aliens or not, this is why I said that the discovery of aliens would be a theologically neutral discovery.

is there anything along these lines that you disagree with?

Well, as I mentioned before, I haven't discussed anything about this.

Instead, my point is that the discovery of any life elsewhere - intelligent or not - will necessarily have theological implications and therefore cannot be 'theologically neutral' as per the actual point I contested.

However, to address your new topic, I would also disagree.

Firstly, I disagree that there is any truth to Christianity. It is clearly a man-made religion, and there are ample historical documents to show how it occurred, plus the solitary 'holy text' is full of major factual errors, internal logical contradictions, and is a work that cheers barbaric nastiness - true is about the last adjective I'd use in concert with the idea of Christianity. While I would never say it's impossible that a class of beings we'd call gods exist, I can say with as much certainty as anything else in life that YHWH, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are complete fabricated works of prejudice pornography with not a shred of honesty or integrity about them.

Secondly, if one actually pays attention to the declarations made in the Bible, one can readily see how life on other planets will present a huge factual problem for the Abrahamic religions which will only be resolved by retrofitting apologetics, and the overwhelming cognitive dissonance already at play with those who subscribe to the dogma. Whether it be the implicitly held notion of the Bible about the Earth's centrality, or the supposed 'peak' of creation in humans, or the way Christians responded historically to those who posited the existence of life elsewhere.... the numerous ways in which this will impact Christianity are manifest.

However, there is one way in which I do agree with you - to most believers it won't matter because facts never matter to them, never have and never will, and certainly any facts which contradict the narrative are not facts at all, just lies by insert either evil people or magical nefarious overbeings which somehow manage to evade the power of the ultimate overbeing.

The problem is that your belief system is a virus. It's evolved to respond to threats in ways that control your (and other believers) behavior when encountering contradictory information. The most well known version of this is by ex-YEC Glenn Morton.

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.

Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one. This energy spent to collect information meant that the demon couldn't violate the 2nd law.

The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with sds@mp3.com who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: a3bv4t$v2m$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy—he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

The issue is that your central beliefs regarding the supposed existence of the god thing and all the baggage it represents is more emotionally important to you than the truth. You do not possess the tools to challenge that edifice, and you don't exhibit the will to do it either. The latter is the nature of your religion and how (and why) it's called an organized religion. The former is something that can be changed, even if you've never possessed the tools, a good educator can give you them.

Now wouldn't it just be amazing for you if there was someone who had spent decades refining his pedagogical skills, who teaches relevant topics like human evolution at a university level, and who has frankly and genuinely offered to help you stop making so many foolish mistakes in public by addressing the numerous erroneous ideas you have about biological science.

If only someone like that were to... I don't know.... start a new thread just for you to ask questions about evolution so you could learn.... wow, wouldn't that be an amazing thing to happen!

Sadly, some people are too attached to their pet demon that they can't even reach out for a hand desperately trying to pluck them from the mire of their own making.

 

[leroy]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

I apologize if I misquoted or misinterpreted your words,

No worries and fair play to you for acknowledging it!

all I am saying is that the truth of Christianity is not dependent on whether if we find Aliens or not, this is why I said that the discovery of aliens would be a theologically neutral discovery.

is there anything along these lines that you disagree with?

Well, as I mentioned before, I haven't discussed anything about this.

Instead, my point is that the discovery of any life elsewhere - intelligent or not - will necessarily have theological implications and therefore cannot be 'theologically neutral' as per the actual point I contested.

However, to address your new topic, I would also disagree.

Firstly, I disagree that there is any truth to Christianity. It is clearly a man-made religion, and there are ample historical documents to show how it occurred, plus the solitary 'holy text' is full of major factual errors, internal logical contradictions, and is a work that cheers barbaric nastiness - true is about the last adjective I'd use in concert with the idea of Christianity. While I would never say it's impossible that a class of beings we'd call gods exist, I can say with as much certainty as anything else in life that YHWH, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are complete fabricated works of prejudice pornography with not a shred of honesty or integrity about them.

Secondly, if one actually pays attention to the declarations made in the Bible, one can readily see how life on other planets will present a huge factual problem for the Abrahamic religions which will only be resolved by retrofitting apologetics, and the overwhelming cognitive dissonance already at play with those who subscribe to the dogma. Whether it be the implicitly held notion of the Bible about the Earth's centrality, or the supposed 'peak' of creation in humans, or the way Christians responded historically to those who posited the existence of life elsewhere.... the numerous ways in which this will impact Christianity are manifest.

However, there is one way in which I do agree with you - to most believers it won't matter because facts never matter to them, never have and never will, and certainly any facts which contradict the narrative are not facts at all, just lies by insert either evil people or magical nefarious overbeings which somehow manage to evade the power of the ultimate overbeing.

The problem is that your belief system is a virus. It's evolved to respond to threats in ways that control your (and other believers) behavior when encountering contradictory information. The most well known version of this is by ex-YEC Glenn Morton.

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.

Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one. This energy spent to collect information meant that the demon couldn't violate the 2nd law.

The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with sds@mp3.com who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long." Message-ID: a3bv4t$v2m$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net ) And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy—he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

The issue is that your central beliefs regarding the supposed existence of the god thing and all the baggage it represents is more emotionally important to you than the truth. You do not possess the tools to challenge that edifice, and you don't exhibit the will to do it either. The latter is the nature of your religion and how (and why) it's called an organized religion. The former is something that can be changed, even if you've never possessed the tools, a good educator can give you them.

Now wouldn't it just be amazing for you if there was someone who had spent decades refining his pedagogical skills, who teaches relevant topics like human evolution at a university level, and who has frankly and genuinely offered to help you stop making so many foolish mistakes in public by addressing the numerous erroneous ideas you have about biological science.

If only someone like that were to... I don't know.... start a new thread just for you to ask questions about evolution so you could learn.... wow, wouldn't that be an amazing thing to happen!

Sadly, some people are too attached to their pet demon that they can't even reach out for a hand desperately trying to pluck them from the mire of their own making.

well what can I say, I don't share the same opinion that you have, I personally don't think that Christianity "predicts" that aliens should not exist. finding aliens wont make Christianity (my view) more probably false than before the discovery, and finding aliens wont make atheism more probably true than before the discovery. This is what I meant with theologically neutral, please let me know if I used the incorrect term.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

well what can I say, I don't share the same opinion that you have,...

Personally, I would consider it a victory for us both that you have acknowledged that the thing you hold is an opinion. We both know very well that there's no form of arbitration here, so nothing can be conclusively said, only suggested based on our own experience and knowledge.

However, I am concerned you have again missed my point.

I was quite clear about making a distinction between Christians and Christianity. The existence of extra-terrestrial life is a problem for the latter, but given historical evidence, won't cause so much as a jot of concern for most Christians because most Christians didn't reason their way into their belief system in the first place, and consequently that belief isn't amenable to reason that rejects it.

I personally don't think that Christianity "predicts" that aliens should not exist.

I think it would beg an awful lot of questions regarding the implicit and long-held belief by Christians throughout history that the world is the center of creation, and that Yahweh's days were taken up crafting life on Earth - in all its illogical and counterfactual detail - but no mention is to be made of the existence of life on other planets and the labors carried out there.

If nothing else, you might be induced to wonder why god didn't bother telling the squishy pinnacle of his creation that there might be other types of intelligent organisms elsewhere in the cosmos, so hey maybe a little humility peons... given his concern about bashing in babies heads, taking virgins as prizes, allowing the ownership of other humans, and generally dictating what you can do on Tuesday and where you can't put your created dangly bits.... it's a bit odd to fail to mention this. One might even consider it as a failed opportunity to make a prediction. Imagine if the Bible had said all along that there was life on other planets.... in the event we find it, Christians might finally have found an actual 'prophecy' that actually came true.

But of course, there's no mention of it at all. Or indeed of other planets. It's almost as if the Bible reflects the exact knowledge and limitations of Bronze and Iron Age pastoralists.... never think of that? Kind of hard to explain the omission simply by mysterious ways fiat, dontcha think? Probably not, eh, or you wouldn't be a Christian.

finding aliens wont make Christianity (my view) more probably false than before the discovery, and finding aliens wont make atheism more probably true than before the discovery. This is what I meant with theologically neutral, please let me know if I used the incorrect term.

As usual, a terminally illogical utterance. Atheism is the non-acceptance of the God claim. The only thing that can have an affect on atheism is evidence for the existence of gods. As the existence of life on other planets is not intrinsically bound to any notion of gods or the existence of gods, then your claim makes no sense.

It's the typical attempt by a fundamentalist to liken their feverish mental subordination of their belief system to the rejection of said feverish mental subordination seen in atheism. Tired, canard, done so many times to death that it's a positive wonder to see it being trotted out again and again and again. Do you enjoy being a stormtrooper for doctrine?

However, Christianity makes ontological claims about the nature of the universe, and when new data shows those ontological claims wrong, then it is a problem for Christianity if we value truth, integrity, honesty etc. Of course, if our objective is simply to protect our belief system from any form of empirical evidence to the contrary, then it doesn't matter what we find because such people are never going to be open to changing their minds based on reality.

 

[leroy]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

I was quite clear about making a distinction between Christians and Christianity. The existence of extra-terrestrial life is a problem for the latter......

but no mention is to be made of the existence of life on other planets and the labors carried out there.

So what? if we ever find Aliens, the interpretation would be that the existence of aliens was not relevant for whatever purposes God had, when he wrote the bible.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

You must have misread my post. I unarguably said that there needed to be quintillions of Jesus dying for sins, not that the bogus, hokum, con-of-the-milennia magical story of 1st century ignorance is a myth that never happened. Which, incidentally, it actually is.

and why would that be a problem for God, or for my religion? sure God could have send an other "Jesus" to save aliens, or he could have provided some other path of salvation, or maybe the aliens don't need to be saved.



the truth of Christianity (at least my view) depends on whether if Jesus resurrected or not, finding aliens is simply irrelevant,

While I pretty much agree with that, I must say that you're one of the few Christians I've seen that don't consider this a problem.

It appears to me that majority of Christians' theology would have a problem with aliens.

But I'm not sure of the statistic.

However, I have a feeling that as the years go on, fewer and fewer Christians will find it problematic.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

So what? if we ever find Aliens, the interpretation would be that the existence of aliens was not relevant for whatever purposes God had, when he wrote the bible.

Sycophancy.

What else 'was not relevant' and therefore not included in your Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Maybe a note at the beginning stating it's a work of fiction?

But yeah... that's what I was saying - Christians' cognitive biases will work overtime to smooth over any apparent contradiction or complexity. Religion is, after all, mass Stockholm Syndrome and gets you to expend all the effort protecting it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

Back to the OP, I think it's all too typically indicative of the agenda over critical thinking approach which is becoming ever more common in credulist circles, whether those circles are fundie whackjobs or white supremacists. To suggest that atheism wouldn't 'survive' the discovery of extraterrestrial life is to spell out in no uncertain terms that you haven't got a damn clue what you are talking about. (This comment hopefully obviously pointed at Kurk Durston's vacuous waffle) and if anyone sufficiently intelligent to process half-baked wankery were to read it, the result would only serve to cement Kirk's status as a woolly wanna-be thinker.

Of course, atheism isn't contingent on the non-existence of other species, never has been (and I mean 'never' in the sense of 4000 year old historical documents about atheistic belief) and never will be. This is because atheism is a position solely concerned with the purported existence of gods and makes no suggestions whatsoever about the content of other beliefs the atheist might possess.

This is, of course, the latest zombie resurrection of that battered and broken canard concerning the attempt to paint atheism as a religion, and therefore exactly equivalent to their preferred fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and as they're equal and all Christians know that they possess the right belief system, then atheism the religion is obviously a poor man's worldview that can be defeated by scattered poo slinging attempting to muddy the waters by pretending that atheism has tenets other than that there are (probably) no gods whatsoever.

I want to get one of these guys on film so I can make him squirm as I point out that the discursive strategy is amusing not least because of its total ignorance and transparent idiocy, but also because the religionist is so desperate to paint atheism as being on par with their religious views that they even use the notion of atheism as a religion being a criticism - rather a self-defeating argument, one would have to admit had one ever given it a moment's thought, which that particular one clearly never has!

 

[leroy]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

So what? if we ever find Aliens, the interpretation would be that the existence of aliens was not relevant for whatever purposes God had, when he wrote the bible.

Sycophancy.

What else 'was not relevant' and therefore not included in your Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Maybe a note at the beginning stating it's a work of fiction?

But yeah... that's what I was saying - Christians' cognitive biases will work overtime to smooth over any apparent contradiction or complexity. Religion is, after all, mass Stockholm Syndrome and gets you to expend all the effort protecting it.

there is no apparent contradiction. that is my point.


the bible doesn't mention Uranium ether but the discovery of Uranium and other elements from the periodic table where not interpreted as problematic for Christians. The same would apply if we find Aliens

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

there is no apparent contradiction. that is my point.

Err no, I think you'll find it's my point as in, I expressly predicted that Christians would do exactly what you are doing a dozen posts before you did it.

the bible doesn't mention Uranium ether....

Uranium ether?

Ohh either. :lol:

No it doesn't - nor does it mention the kangaroos that Noah would have needed to get on his magical malarkey boat, but you give that one a free pass too, right?

It's amazing just how full of holes your supposedly divinely dictated book actually is. And you want it both ways. When the Bible omits something that you recognize as an important implication, you patch it over - why Noah Kangaroos... because apologetic dreck, dreck, look over there, heathen! but no mention of the periodic table, of chemistry, of the existence of other planets and suns, no mention of the multitude of life in the galaxy we're proposing for your contrivance... and you just declare there's no reason it should be there. It doesn't matter what's wrong or missing from the Bible, you've got an explanation already loaded and ready to fire. You were taught to... I know because I was also taught to have those uncritically accepted explanations on the tip of my tongue ready to regurgitate the moment I heard the dangerous words.

Again, I wonder whether one would more honestly say that the content of the Bible reflects the knowledge expected of an eternal, all knowing, all powerful creator of everything, or whether it more closely reflects the knowledge expected of a late Bronze Age / early Iron Age tribal people living in the Middle East who were ignorant of other planets, uranium and kangaroos.

but the discovery of Uranium and other elements from the periodic table where not interpreted as problematic for Christians. The same would apply if we find Aliens

Of course they weren't because they have no bearing on the ontological metaphysics of the Christian narrative. Either you know that and this is a silly argument you're making, or you don't grasp this and it's time you stopped making declarations and started asking questions so you actually understand it.

Again, and with no serious need to express any degree of confidence here: the implications of discovering extra-terrestrial life would have a major impact on the content of the Christian dogma, but Christians will run around rubbing their Morton's Demons to keep their cherished notions safe from any source of potential criticism.

For an example, see all your posts in this thread.

 

[leroy]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

there is no apparent contradiction. that is my point.

Err no, I think you'll find it's my point as in, I expressly predicted that Christians would do exactly what you are doing a dozen posts before you did it.

the bible doesn't mention Uranium ether....

Uranium ether?

Ohh either. :lol:

No it doesn't - nor does it mention the kangaroos that Noah would have needed to get on his magical malarkey boat, but you give that one a free pass too, right?

It's amazing just how full of holes your supposedly divinely dictated book actually is. And you want it both ways. When the Bible omits something that you recognize as an important implication, you patch it over - why Noah Kangaroos... because apologetic dreck, dreck, look over there, heathen! but no mention of the periodic table, of chemistry, of the existence of other planets and suns, no mention of the multitude of life in the galaxy we're proposing for your contrivance... and you just declare there's no reason it should be there. It doesn't matter what's wrong or missing from the Bible, you've got an explanation already loaded and ready to fire. You were taught to... I know because I was also taught to have those uncritically accepted explanations on the tip of my tongue ready to regurgitate the moment I heard the dangerous words.

Again, I wonder whether one would more honestly say that the content of the Bible reflects the knowledge expected of an eternal, all knowing, all powerful creator of everything, or whether it more closely reflects the knowledge expected of a late Bronze Age / early Iron Age tribal people living in the Middle East who were ignorant of other planets, uranium and kangaroos.

but the discovery of Uranium and other elements from the periodic table where not interpreted as problematic for Christians. The same would apply if we find Aliens

Of course they weren't because they have no bearing on the ontological metaphysics of the Christian narrative. Either you know that and this is a silly argument you're making, or you don't grasp this and it's time you stopped making declarations and started asking questions so you actually understand it.

Again, and with no serious need to express any degree of confidence here: the implications of discovering extra-terrestrial life would have a major impact on the content of the Christian dogma, but Christians will run around rubbing their Morton's Demons to keep their cherished notions safe from any source of potential criticism.

For an example, see all your posts in this thread.

your argument seems to be

"the bible doesn't mention every single detail about the universe, every single animal, every single element, therefore the bible was not written by God

the implications of discovering extra-terrestrial life would have a major impact on the content of the Christian dogma,

again, what impact? ........at least I personally do follow any doctrine that depends on the idea that aliens don't exist.


I am currently skeptical on the divinity of the bible, I personally don't consider my self to be 100% sure that the bible is true, and even if it where 100%, true I would be that my own personal interpretation is not 100% accurate. however up to this point there is nothing at least in my own personal interpretation that implies nor denies the existence of aliens, that is my only point.

other Christians might have other interpretations and views and aliens may or may not be a problem for their world view.

 

[leroy]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

[

your argument seems to be

"the bible doesn't mention every single detail about the universe, every single animal, every single element, therefore the bible was not written by God

the implications of discovering extra-terrestrial life would have a major impact on the content of the Christian dogma,

again, what impact? ........at least I personally do follow any doctrine that depends on the idea that aliens don't exist.


I am currently skeptical on the divinity of the bible, I personally don't consider my self to be 100% sure that the bible is true, and even if it where 100%, true I would bet that my own personal interpretation is not 100% accurate. however up to this point there is nothing at least in my own personal interpretation that implies nor denies the existence of aliens, that is my only point.

other Christians might have other interpretations and views and aliens may or may not be a problem for their world view.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

[
your argument seems to be

"the bible doesn't mention every single detail about the universe, every single animal, every single element, therefore the bible was not written by God

Of course it does, but then you've got a track record of either failing to understand simple sentences, or intentionally ignoring the things people write... depending on how charitable the person feels towards you.

My charity is over.

No I didn't fucking say that. What actually happened is that I showed the inconsistency in your ad hoc apologetics. Of course, you are running on pure emotion tossing out one liners like Sean Spicer at a press conference, your only overarching objective is to defend your beloved belief system from the terrible meanies critiquing it.

Unfortunately, your weapons are not logic and reason, but barely coherent assertions and blanket dismissals for all the things its inconvenient for you to think about.

That's really why you keep telling me that you will ignore the bits you don't want to read - it's your Morton's Demon hard at work protecting your cognitive biases.

If you were under the impression I am obliged to fellate your Morton's Demon on command, or to blow smoke up its arse, you're in for a rude awakening.

So, your failure to refute my point is noted.

It is clear that there is no thing so stupid that a Creationist won't say it to defend against honest criticism.

 

[leroy]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

[
your argument seems to be

"the bible doesn't mention every single detail about the universe, every single animal, every single element, therefore the bible was not written by God

Of course it does, but then you've got a track record of either failing to understand simple sentences, or intentionally ignoring the things people write... depending on how charitable the person feels towards you.

My charity is over.

No I didn't fucking say that. What actually happened is that I showed the inconsistency in your ad hoc apologetics. Of course, you are running on pure emotion tossing out one liners like Sean Spicer at a press conference, your only overarching objective is to defend your beloved belief system from the terrible meanies critiquing it.

Unfortunately, your weapons are not logic and reason, but barely coherent assertions and blanket dismissals for all the things its inconvenient for you to think about.

That's really why you keep telling me that you will ignore the bits you don't want to read - it's your Morton's Demon hard at work protecting your cognitive biases.

If you were under the impression I am obliged to fellate your Morton's Demon on command, or to blow smoke up its arse, you're in for a rude awakening.

So, your failure to refute my point is noted.

It is clear that there is no thing so stupid that a Creationist won't say it to defend against honest criticism.

again, you haven't shown any inconsistency

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

Of course it does, but then you've got a track record of either failing to understand simple sentences, or intentionally ignoring the things people write... depending on how charitable the person feels towards you.

My charity is over.

No I didn't fucking say that. What actually happened is that I showed the inconsistency in your ad hoc apologetics. Of course, you are running on pure emotion tossing out one liners like Sean Spicer at a press conference, your only overarching objective is to defend your beloved belief system from the terrible meanies critiquing it.

Unfortunately, your weapons are not logic and reason, but barely coherent assertions and blanket dismissals for all the things its inconvenient for you to think about.

That's really why you keep telling me that you will ignore the bits you don't want to read - it's your Morton's Demon hard at work protecting your cognitive biases.

If you were under the impression I am obliged to fellate your Morton's Demon on command, or to blow smoke up its arse, you're in for a rude awakening.

So, your failure to refute my point is noted.

It is clear that there is no thing so stupid that a Creationist won't say it to defend against honest criticism.

again, you haven't shown any inconsistency

Again, you buggered a small child up the arse.

Why? Because I declared you did, and that is, apparently, the standard of discoursive competency at play with you.

You failed to address an argument, I posted a reply outlining your failure to address my argument, and you replied yet again failing both to address my argument and failing to address the post explaining how you'd failed to address my argument.

Are we all locked into this merry-go-round you keep pushing us onto? Or can we tell you to go take a hike, you dirty little kiddie-fiddler?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

Once again, LEROY declares that something didn't happen in a conversation that is still there written in the conversation.

Again, this reminds me of current affairs, where it appears a particular individual on the public stage who makes great pretense about their personal abilities and intelligence somehow seems unable to process simple English, especially when it's not written Twitter style restricted to 140 characters (or whatever it is).

If I were being charitable, LEROY, I would suggest that you don't read more than 5% of any post that isn't your own. That's why all the big song and dance about 'ignoring' posts - because you're doing it anyway, so better to justify yourself through blaming someone else.

Regardless, if you can't be arsed to read what people write, you have forgone the right to declare that something did or didn't happen, especially when the supposedly failed interlocutor is more than capable of copying and pasting and showing you talking bullshit:

It's amazing just how full of holes your supposedly divinely dictated book actually is. And you want it both ways. When the Bible omits something that you recognize as an important implication, you patch it over - why Noah Kangaroos... because apologetic dreck, dreck, look over there, heathen! but no mention of the periodic table, of chemistry, of the existence of other planets and suns, no mention of the multitude of life in the galaxy we're proposing for your contrivance... and you just declare there's no reason it should be there. It doesn't matter what's wrong or missing from the Bible, you've got an explanation already loaded and ready to fire. You were taught to... I know because I was also taught to have those uncritically accepted explanations on the tip of my tongue ready to regurgitate the moment I heard the dangerous words.

As anyone else reading that paragraph can see, I've not only identified an inconsistency, I've spelled it out with examples for you.

Perhaps you don't geddit? Is dat why you sed I din wroted it? :roll:

If that's the case, then do feel free to ask me to expand on what I wrote.... but don't pull this counter-factual bullshit and expect me to roll over and take it up the glitter.

 

[Visaki]

Re: Could atheism survive the discovery of extraterrestrial

Could Christianity, or any other specific sect, survive the discovery of extraterrestrial life? I'm sure it would because nothing is as good in ad hocing than a theist defending their faith, though the mental gymnastics and straight up... shall we say forgetfullness... when it comes to their previous statements and dogma will be worth getting some popcorn.