NationStates Jolt Archive

Who believes in both? interesting point - those who believe in both, that's fine.....those that believe in God and not in Aliens....how arogant are you????? ;)

I believe in both. But never at exactly the same time. :)

Believing in both is fine, but I mean, if you only believe in God.....how arogant can you get?? I mean, if god is all powerful as he claims, then course he created another inhabited world - and even if you don't believe in god....how arogant, we just want to believe we are superior and the best in the universe!!

If I were God and I made Earth, I'd want to try again too. :p

And if we're the finished product, I think God has a sick sense of humor. Which I greatly respect. :)

sick senses of humour or god?

sick senses of humour or god?

God's sick sense of humor. :)

true

I'm no Raelian, but I'd be more willing to believe that aliens were our God(s) (mistakenly taken as such by uncivilized barbarians by comparison)than a big guy in the sky. :p

Your all wrong! The aliens created Earth and God! :p

j/k

I don't believe in god. But I do believe in aliens. That raises a question...

I belive that both are possible but I have seen no real proof of either one.

I don't believe in god, but I do in Aliens....what's wrong with that?

Your all wrong! The aliens created Earth and God! :p

j/k

how did aliens create earth then?

He said he was joking, man...

Maybe, but I really agree with that comment - Aliens are in a better position to have created the Earth than any god, I mean - where is this god?

Maybe, but I really agree with that comment - Aliens are in a better position to have created the Earth than any god, I mean - where is this god?

That's easy. Think about it; If you were God, where would you be?

Disney World. :D

That's easy. Think about it; If you were God, where would you be?

Disney World. :D

Not disney world. that involves being in either america or paris, i'd hate both!! :mp5: :sniper:

I believe aliens exist but god doesn't. However my mom who is a Jehovah's Witness says there are no aliens and says that's the JW belief. Apparently we as a human race are so totally freaking awesome that god didn't want to put any sort of life on other planets?

I believe in God but have no opinion on aliens. I havent seen any evidence that aliens exist, but it isnt that much of a stretch to believe they do. So, they might exist or might not.

how did aliens create earth then?
Technology of course

I believe in God but have no opinion on aliens. I havent seen any evidence that aliens exist, but it isnt that much of a stretch to believe they do. So, they might exist or might not.

And you've seen proof that God exists????????????????????

Technology of course

Oh, okay

Question is what is an alien. Answer- A being/lifeform not originating from earth. I guess that would make all gods-ALIENS! Just a thought.

Question is what is an alien. Answer- A being/lifeform not originating from earth. I guess that would make all gods-ALIENS! Just a thought.

Any God that didn't originate on the same planet as me is most certainly not a God I'd give any credence to.

I've always wondered if life on earth is alien in origin, if we possibly came from mars or even venus, which have been proven to have much more habitable environments than those today.

I've always wondered if life on earth is alien in origin, if we possibly came from mars or even venus, which have been proven to have much more habitable environments than those today.


Well an arguement could be made that we are partial aliens. If you check some religious texts. Alot of them say that we were made. But who knows until we get out amongst the stars and start looking for evidence.

Where do monkeys and, more importantly, Superman fit into these grand schemes of things?

Where do monkeys and, more importantly, Superman fit into these grand schemes of things?

That is a mystery man shall never know (however, I'm pretty sure Superman III came from Hell)

An interesting link about life on mars:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050222_mars_ice.html

Any God that didn't originate on the same planet as me is most certainly not a God I'd give any credence to.

Then you are not religious in any way?

Then you are not religious in any way?


:confused: when did I say that? Just because I don't worship some alien God? I don't worship alien Gods for the same reason I don't worship the Judaec God of Christianity - because I believe He has no relevence to my existence.

Aliens? They don't exist.

The lights in the sky are Angelss. .Yes.. Angels.. They forgot to on their cloaking shield, or they were battling Demons in the sky, and their swords create the sparks..

Aliens? They don't exist.

The lights in the sky are Angelss. .Yes.. Angels.. They forgot to on their cloaking shield, or they were battling Demons in the sky, and their swords create the sparks..

Hmm, interesting.....really?

:confused: when did I say that? Just because I don't worship some alien God? I don't worship alien Gods for the same reason I don't worship the Judaec God of Christianity - because I believe He has no relevence to my existence.

So you don't believe your god created our planet then? You believe he/she/it simply rules over us? what?

There are loads of aliens everywhere, but they don't visit Earth as they find our Television shows to be rude...

So you don't believe your god created our planet then? You believe he/she/it simply rules over us? what?

My Gods did not create the planet - it may be more accurate to say that they are the planet. And they certainly do not rule over me - if anything, it is quite the reverse. :p

My Gods did not create the planet - it may be more accurate to say that they are the planet. And they certainly do not rule over me - if anything, it is quite the reverse. :p

So your Gods are like, the plants, trees and animals? I like that religion - "I worship you O flower, flower o' my dreams, dancing delicately on the river o' truth"

So your Gods are like, the plants, trees and animals?


ngehhh.... kinda.

I'm agnostic on both (aliens and God).

So your Gods are like, the plants, trees and animals? I like that religion - "I worship you O flower, flower o' my dreams, dancing delicately on the river o' truth"

Could also be one of the many life philosophies that say every living being carries a small bit of something greater inside them, and that all these bits together are God ;)

To answer the original question - as said before: if your God created the Earth, he was obviously not born on Earth - and thus an alien by definition.
I myself believe both can exist. I just do not see any reason to worship/live in permanent fear of invasion ;)

I never understood the fear of inavsion. After all, if the aliens have evolved intergalactic travel to get to earth, wouldn't they have already solved any problems with resource management so they could have t hat technology in the first place, and wouldn't their society be old enough to have long since evolved past conquest?

In Islam, aliens do in fact exist.

Contrary to popular belief, in Islam, we do believe that the universe is an ever-expanding thing. The Quran says that God is "steadily expanding the universe". In human reckoning, this is taking place over billions and billions of years.

On the formation of stars and planets, the Quran points to a "Big Bang" or disintegration theory. It says "the heavens and the Earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation) before God cloved it asunder".

"And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the living creatures He has scattered through them." (42.29)

"The seven heavens and the earth, and beings therein, declare his glory." (17:44)

According to Islam, man's role is a continuous fact-finding mission for progress. He can explore space and use it to his advantage, such as sending up satellites for communication purposes and space stations for exploration.Islam does not hinder progress as long as it is carried out without harming other human beings and creation.

The Quran says: "If you can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass you."

I don't know what to belief since there's no proof of both.

But how about, god is an alien and with his power he greated earth and all lifeforms on earth once were created in a testtube. And were being observed at the very moment by a hugh telescoop.

And if that's true then the roswell alien affair is just one of gods scientist who crast on a research flight.

But like i said there's no proof.

So who knows maybe madonna is god

Contrary to popular belief, in Islam, we do believe that the universe is an ever-expanding thing. The Quran says that God is "steadily expanding the universe". In human reckoning, this is taking place over billions and billions of years.

Cool. A religon that can fit both science and faith together. Probably explains why the Islamic world was able to advance itself so rapidly throughout the middle ages while christian europe was busy burning heretics and banning books.

Cool. A religon that can fit both science and faith together. Probably explains why the Islamic world was able to advance itself so rapidly throughout the middle ages while christian europe was busy burning heretics and banning books.

Yep. Also that's why Islam grows so rapidly. People that believe that there is a scientific explanation for everything see that Islam preached things way before it was discovered/theorized through science.

Maybe, but I really agree with that comment - Aliens are in a better position to have created the Earth than any god, I mean - where is this god?

Where are these aliens?

Aliens and gods exist in the mind though do they not? Certainly god does, and Aliens, it has been said, exist for the same reason god exists, to allow us understanding, and a purpose. If god didn't exist, we'd have no purpose, same with our Alien buddies - if they didn't exist why else would we have heard of them etc....don't get me wrong i don't believe in god, but I do believe in Aliens, simply because there is more proof that Aliens exist than there is that a god (of any religion) exists. I pray....not to gods but to Aliens - I am also, not a sci-fi nut, but a sci-fi fanatic, theres a difference, sci-fi nuts treat sci-fi as a religion, i don't i treat it as a life.

Gods Aliens there all threats to me

One of the things I've always wondered is, if there are intelligent alien species out there, do they also have a belief that they were the only ones created in the image of their god(s)?

Gods Aliens there all threats to me

Paranoid schizophrenic?

One of the things I've always wondered is, if there are intelligent alien species out there, do they also have a belief that they were the only ones created in the image of their god(s)?

You know, I often dream about that, that we were not created in the image of anything, that a god follows the image of what it creates - that's a far better religion.....but as i said earlier religion doesn't exist. It's all in the mind

You know, I often dream about that, that we were not created in the image of anything, that a god follows the image of what it creates - that's a far better religion.....but as i said earlier religion doesn't exist. It's all in the mind

That has always been my view. Religion seems like it arose as an early means of survival for the human species (it would build unity in a particular group), but began to expand and eventually came in to conflict, with predictable results. It is interseting also to see that the so called "primitive" polytheistic systmes were more tolerant and could integrate foreign beliefs better than more "modern" beliefs such as Christianity.

I belive that both are possible but I have seen no real proof of either one.
There certainly is more proof for extra-terrestrial visitation than exists for God. There are many thousands of UFO sightings, sometimes with photos and video. There are many people who've reported similar abduction phoenomena. There stories seem quite incredible, but a few of them have had some pretty wild things removed from their bodies.

The only evidence for a creator is it's alleged creation. The problem with proving God is that God remains largely undefined.

There certainly is more proof for extra-terrestrial visitation than exists for God

True. There are actual pieces of direct footage that is difficult to disprove, along with large amounts of government secrecy surrounding many of the alleged alien programs at area 51/roswell, which are still denied despite actual picture of the Groom Lake installation.

Miracles/visions usually come only from the person experiencing them, and there is no footage or documentation, only their word.

Actually I've seen quite a lot of proof of God....bleeding statues, eyewitness accounts, fish and bread. I guess they just get passed of as hoaxes, or have some scientific explanation. I won't go any further into that though.

I've seen quite a lot of proof of Aliens. In fact I just did a research paper on Roswell, New Mexico. Seems to me either it was aliens, or the government military is way, way more advanced than we think it is.

EDIT:
I never understood the fear of inavsion. After all, if the aliens have evolved intergalactic travel to get to earth, wouldn't they have already solved any problems with resource management so they could have t hat technology in the first place, and wouldn't their society be old enough to have long since evolved past conquest?

I don't believe society evolves past conquest, rather conquest is something society evolves towards. To set aside your hopes for conquest is resigning to the belief that what you have now is all you will ever have. Of course, that's bad for the people you're conquering....hmmm...perhaps further study of this is necessary.

Actually I've seen quite a lot of proof of God....bleeding statues, eyewitness accounts, fish and bread. I guess they just get passed of as hoaxes, or have some scientific explanation. I won't go any further into that though.

I've seen quite a lot of proof of Aliens. In fact I just did a research paper on Roswell, New Mexico. Seems to me either it was aliens, or the government military is way, way more advanced than we think it is.

EDIT:


I don't believe society evolves past conquest, rather conquest is something society evolves towards. To set aside your hopes for conquest is resigning to the belief that what you have now is all you will ever have. Of course, that's bad for the people you're conquering....hmmm...perhaps further study of this is necessary.

The problem with bleeding statues and stuff is that none of it can be proved true - sure the statues bleeding, but in 95% of the cases where the statue bleeds, the blood is put there by one of the congregation or priest etc. Most of it is a complete and utter lie.

probability says that there is alien life out there. (tho, probably not intelligent)

god has never been proven to me.

Who believes in both? interesting point - those who believe in both, that's fine.....those that believe in God and not in Aliens....how arogant are you????? ;)

Allow me then to say this, if we're arogant for believing in God and not in aliens, then aren't those who believe in aliens and not God also arogant?

Also, since the Bible doesn't say "there are aliens" and since it suggests that there aren't then why would I?

Another thing, don't call other people arogant, unless you can at least recognize that you at one point or another you are arogant also.

Just my two cents since this seems like a really silly topic to me.

That has always been my view. Religion seems like it arose as an early means of survival for the human species (it would build unity in a particular group), but began to expand and eventually came in to conflict, with predictable results. It is interseting also to see that the so called "primitive" polytheistic systmes were more tolerant and could integrate foreign beliefs better than more "modern" beliefs such as Christianity.
I believe religion was the original form of government. It provided rules and regulations to allow people to coexist within set boundaries. Nothing more than a form of control. Then some people took it and went nuts and used it to strictly control thought so they could profit in some way.

Allow me then to say this, if we're arogant for believing in God and not in aliens, then aren't those who believe in aliens and not God also arogant?

Also, since the Bible doesn't say "there are aliens" and since it suggests that there aren't then why would I?

Another thing, don't call other people arogant, unless you can at least recognize that you at one point or another you are arogant also.

Just my two cents since this seems like a really silly topic to me.

The bible was written by people not by god, for starters - and i personally think the bible is full of sh*t anyway - none of it was real - written by people unwilling to believe that their lives had no points to them - yes i am arogant sometimes i know that, everyone is. Those who believe in Aliens and not god are not being arogant, simply because there is a much higher probability that aliens exist than god.

I believe religion was the original form of government. It provided rules and regulations to allow people to coexist within set boundaries. Nothing more than a form of control. Then some people took it and went nuts and used it to strictly control thought so they could profit in some way.

Most likely. Since the majority of religion is based upon emotion and not logic, it would be the ideal means of control for the more primitive stages of humanity when logical thought had not yet become established (this would be before the rise of agriculture, which more or less ensured the survival of the species.)

Allow me then to say this, if we're arogant for believing in God and not in aliens, then aren't those who believe in aliens and not God also arogant?



Not at all. There is no proof of god. There is no conclusive proof of alien visitations but because of the size of the universe, the odds that there is some life out there (intelligent or not) are so good its practically a certainty. Odds are we'll never see it though, it'd be so far away.

Not at all. There is no proof of god. There is no conclusive proof of alien visitations but because of the size of the universe, the odds that there is some life out there (intelligent or not) are so good its practically a certainty. Odds are we'll never see it though, it'd be so far away.

My sentiments exactly (just worded better) :headbang:

I don't believe society evolves past conquest, rather conquest is something society evolves towards.


This would probably be true until society reached a point where all are governed by one world/system/galactic government, at which point the need for conquest would be eliminated. However, since the survival of the species depends on expansion, eventually they would depart their home planet/galaxy and begin expanding to intergalactic colonies, which would precipitate the next phase of conquest. It seems aggression would be more cyclical than continuous, and so fit a type of "evolving" with gaps, not unlike physical evolution.

So your Gods are like, the plants, trees and animals?

It’s called animism and is a very ancient belief. In fact, it's probably the oldest religion.

It’s called animism and is a very ancient belief. In fact, it's probably the oldest religion.

I know. That's the kind of thing I've believed in for a long while, sort of....it's also loosely Buddhism.

EDIT: ok, make that VERY loosely.

This would probably be true until society reached a point where all are governed by one world/system/galactic government, at which point the need for conquest would be eliminated. However, since the survival of the species depends on expansion, eventually they would depart their home planet/galaxy and begin expanding to intergalactic colonies, which would precipitate the next phase of conquest. It seems aggression would be more cyclical than continuous, and so fit a type of "evolving" with gaps, not unlike physical evolution.

But would that point ever come to pass? I don't really think that societies move towards anything besides eachother. There is no real way to show that society is getting closer to a world government, or a focus on conquest or peace or whatever. Any theory of society that puts us on some sort of rigid train of "progress" is really arbitrary.

Most likely. Since the majority of religion is based upon emotion and not logic, it would be the ideal means of control for the more primitive stages of humanity when logical thought had not yet become established (this would be before the rise of agriculture, which more or less ensured the survival of the species.)

Even after that religion was tha main structure of government. The first city-states of Mesopotamia were built around massive self-sufficient temple complexes. Religion is often very logical and methodical. If you don't think this is possible, just look at all the stupid stuff people figure out with logic.

I believe religion was the original form of government.

Religion started to explain phenomena that man could not explain. For example, lightning, earthquake, thunder, volcano. Man knew he did not cause the lightning etc., and if he didn’t create it, the “spirits” must have done it. When disaster struck, man could not explain it so he assumed the “spirits” caused it and he devised means of appeasing the “spirits” so the disaster would not strike again.

Religion started to explain phenomena that man could not explain. For example, lightning, earthquake, thunder, volcano. Man knew he did not cause the lightning etc., and if he didn’t create it, the “spirits” must have done it. When disaster struck, man could not explain it so he assumed the “spirits” caused it and he devised means of appeasing the “spirits” so the disaster would not strike again.

Ah, but it continued in order to control people. sorry.

Even after that religion was tha main structure of government. The first city-states of Mesopotamia were built around massive self-sufficient temple complexes. Religion is often very logical and methodical. If you don't think this is possible, just look at all the stupid stuff people figure out with logic.

I should have been more specific. I meant the animistic/shamanistic groups of the earliest humans.


Otheriwise:
This is correct. The early cultures, such as the Mesopotamian groups, the Egyptians, Minoans, and Mycenaens (sp?) all had a well organized government centered around a hierarchy of priests. They also made considerable advancement in technology. This is interesting, given the fact that religion has been more recently the opposite of science. A comparison is also due between these groups and th Aztecs, who also possessed a well organized priestly order yet made not contributions of any kind (they gleaned their knowledge from conquests).

Allow me then to say this, if we're arogant for believing in God and not in aliens, then aren't those who believe in aliens and not God also arogant?

Also, since the Bible doesn't say "there are aliens" and since it suggests that there aren't then why would I?

Another thing, don't call other people arogant, unless you can at least recognize that you at one point or another you are arogant also.

Just my two cents since this seems like a really silly topic to me.

I think the issue is that disbelieveing in aliens is arrogant because it assumes there is something special and unique about humanity. I don't really see how disbelieving in God works quite the same way.

I'm not exactly sure the Bible really suggests there are no aliens as strongly as it suggests a lot of other stuff that people definitely don't believe (stuff goes around earth, pi is 3, etc.). Religion and aliens are pretty compatible.

This isn't about your post, it's just a general comment on the thread: While with the size of the universe it's really really likely that aliens exist, I don't think it's something to be talked about in terms of believeing in them. Not only does that phrase seem to imply belief in alien visitation, etc., but it seems to say that aliens are really a matter of belief at all. There is really no reason for aliens not to exist somewhere, and with how easily life forms alien life is very, very likely. It's part of the physical, proven world as much as gravity is, not the world of belief.

I should have been more specific. I meant the animistic/shamanistic groups of the earliest humans.


Otheriwise:
This is correct. The early cultures, such as the Mesopotamian groups, the Egyptians, Minoans, and Mycenaens (sp?) all had a well organized government centered around a hierarchy of priests. They also made considerable advancement in technology. This is interesting, given the fact that religion has been more recently the opposite of science. A comparison is also due between these groups and th Aztecs, who also possessed a well organized priestly order yet made not contributions of any kind (they gleaned their knowledge from conquests).

You sure about that last part about the Aztecs? I seem to recall they did a lot of stuff with astronomy and the like. Maybe that was just the Mayans, but I think it was the Aztecs too.

Religion started to explain phenomena that man could not explain. For example, lightning, earthquake, thunder, volcano. Man knew he did not cause the lightning etc., and if he didn’t create it, the “spirits” must have done it. When disaster struck, man could not explain it so he assumed the “spirits” caused it and he devised means of appeasing the “spirits” so the disaster would not strike again.

That in some ways, but also as a method of survival. You sacrificed to the deer-god because you wanted the deer to come back so you could hunt them again. And because you did they came back every year.

I think the issue is that disbelieveing in aliens is arrogant because it assumes there is something special and unique about humanity. I don't really see how disbelieving in God works quite the same way.

I'm not exactly sure the Bible really suggests there are no aliens as strongly as it suggests a lot of other stuff that people definitely don't believe (stuff goes around earth, pi is 3, etc.). Religion and aliens are pretty compatible.

This isn't about your post, it's just a general comment on the thread: While with the size of the universe it's really really likely that aliens exist, I don't think it's something to be talked about in terms of believeing in them. Not only does that phrase seem to imply belief in alien visitation, etc., but it seems to say that aliens are really a matter of belief at all. There is really no reason for aliens not to exist somewhere, and with how easily life forms alien life is very, very likely. It's part of the physical, proven world as much as gravity is, not the world of belief.

The whole point of this thread was that a lot of people are actually deluded into believeing that aliens don't exist - and those very same people believe in god - my point was that's rediculous

Most likely. Since the majority of religion is based upon emotion and not logic, it would be the ideal means of control for the more primitive stages of humanity when logical thought had not yet become established (this would be before the rise of agriculture, which more or less ensured the survival of the species.)

Agriculture didn't really ensure the survival of man; it just made his life a little easier. It just meant man no longer had to be a hunter-gatherer. He could settle down in one area and still eat, but he was still at the mercy of the environment for his survival. Drought, flood, etc could wipe out his crops. So worshiping "Mother Earth" one of the earliest Goddesses to prevent natural disasters and ensure good crops was a very wise idea.

Ah, but it continued in order to control people. sorry.

Yes, as it evolved some control over people was exerted.

Yes, as it evolved some control over people was exerted.

And evil was invented

Agriculture didn't really ensure the survival of man; it just made his life a little easier. It just meant man no longer had to be a hunter-gatherer. He could settle down in one area and still eat, but he was still at the mercy of the environment for his survival. Drought, flood, etc could wipe out his crops. So worshiping "Mother Earth" one of the earliest Goddesses to prevent natural disasters and ensure good crops was a very wise idea.

True, this is similar to the argument I have about the rise of religion; however, it was an overgeneralization to say agriculture ensured our survival, I concede.


You sure about that last part about the Aztecs? I seem to recall they did a lot of stuff with astronomy and the like. Maybe that was just the Mayans, but I think it was the Aztecs too.

No, a large amount of the Aztecs' knowledge of astronomy came from the Mayans, who had died out before them.

The problem with bleeding statues and stuff is that none of it can be proved true - sure the statues bleeding, but in 95% of the cases where the statue bleeds, the blood is put there by one of the congregation or priest etc. Most of it is a complete and utter lie.

It's often the same with alien vistations. Both are outside the range of the more credible scientists and therefore not much conclusive proof exists on either side.

The whole point of this thread was that a lot of people are actually deluded into believeing that aliens don't exist - and those very same people believe in god - my point was that's rediculous

I agree. I believe in God. I also think it possible aliens exist. After all, is God is capable of making man on earth God is also capable of making a man like creature on another planet.

It's often the same with alien vistations. Both are outside the range of the more credible scientists and therefore not much conclusive proof exists on either side.

No one said there was proof that aliens had visited, at least i certainly didn't. I don't believe in alien visitation, though it would be cool.

And evil was invented

That would depend on why and how the control was used.

I agree. I believe in God. I also think it possible aliens exist. After all, is God is capable of making man on earth God is also capable of making a man like creature on another planet.

Or God could even merely be only in control of this solar system, and there are other Gods that made aliens.

Just an idea.

That would depend on why and how the control was used.

Control of any form is evil if used against another human beings, animals not as much so - they are used as food mainly so is not evil to control them.

That would depend on why and how the control was used.

I think the point was that the concept of evil was used for control, not that the act of controlling was evil.

Or God could even merely be only in control of this solar system, and there are other Gods that made aliens.

Just an idea.

Not the God I believe in, however I see your point.

I think the point was that the concept of evil was used for control, not that the act of controlling was evil.

That too

Control of any form is evil if used against another human beings, animals not as much so - they are used as food mainly so is not evil to control them.

I know this is really, really off topic, but why is control necessarily evil? What if it's used to stop an evil act? And your point about animals seems to say that if you're routinely controlled already it's ok to control you, which is really twisted logic.

No one said there was proof that aliens had visited, at least i certainly didn't. I don't believe in alien visitation, though it would be cool.

Some earlier posts did. I thought you were with them. My mistake.

I know this is really, really off topic, but why is control necessarily evil? What if it's used to stop an evil act? And your point about animals seems to say that if you're routinely controlled already it's ok to control you, which is really twisted logic.

My animal point was that animals were put on earth (supposedly) by god for us to eat - ergo control of them is good.

Humans were put on the earth for companionship ergo bad to control

your point about control to stop an evil act, that's crap - who knows what an evil act is? do you? are you gonna make that choice? are you gonna interupt someones freedom of choice speech and action? Why do you have the right to do so?

i think control is fine as long as you arent using it for...evil.

Some earlier posts did. I thought you were with them. My mistake.

No, they said they believed in proof - there is the same amount of prrof that aliens exist as there is proof that god exists.

i think control is fine as long as you arent using it for...evil.

any control on humans is evil

My animal point was that animals were put on earth (supposedly) by god for us to eat - ergo control of them is good.

Humans were put on the earth for companionship ergo bad to control

your point about control to stop an evil act, that's crap - who knows what an evil act is? do you? are you gonna make that choice? are you gonna interupt someones freedom of choice speech and action? Why do you have the right to do so?

But you said straight out that control is an evil act no matter what...

Unless it's the only definitely evil act there are logically others out there.

Personally I don't think evil acts exist at all and thus have no problem with control.

And why is it bad to control a companion? It might get boring if it's aboslute, but if it's just temporary what really is the problem with it?

Missed the thread for a while. What is the "control" you're discussing?

But you said straight out that control is an evil act no matter what...

Unless it's the only definitely evil act there are logically others out there.

Personally I don't think evil acts exist at all and thus have no problem with control.

And why is it bad to control a companion? It might get boring if it's aboslute, but if it's just temporary what really is the problem with it?

Have you ever had a companion?

No, they said they believed in proof - there is the same amount of prrof that aliens exist as there is proof that god exists.

I was just responding to some other people on this thread who said there was more proof of aliens than god. I don't think there's any real proof of either.

I was just responding to some other people on this thread who said there was more proof of aliens than god. I don't think there's any real proof of either.

oh right, ok

Have you ever had a companion?

Define companion....

Anyway, that doesn't really say why it's morally a bad idea, just why it's inadvisable.

Missed the thread for a while. What is the "control" you're discussing?

As far as I can tell it's any sort of resriction to a person's autonomy.

Define companion....

Anyway, that doesn't really say why it's morally a bad idea, just why it's inadvisable.



As far as I can tell it's any sort of resriction to a person's autonomy.

It's morally bad because it is....it's the same argument that rapists use for saying rape is a good idea - control is the same thing - is very bad morally and in reality

Well, that kind of control is necessary. I think that control should be determined solely by necessity. The more urgent and dangerous the threat to the controlled group, the more control is needed to ensure survival. However, for lesser matters than survival, I feel that self determination with a backdrop of laws is the best control.

Well, that kind of control is necessary. I think that control should be determined solely by necessity. The more urgent and dangerous the threat to the controlled group, the more control is needed to ensure survival. However, for lesser matters than survival, I feel that self determination with a backdrop of laws is the best control.

Rape is neccesary now? I really didn't know that. Neccessity is the same argument Hitler used for his control over his people.

It's morally bad because it is....it's the same argument that rapists use for saying rape is a good idea - control is the same thing - is very bad morally and in reality

Most rapists don't say that rape is a good idea because it is a good idea...

Yes, I know that's not what you are saying. I just kind of think that saying its bad because its bad is kind of giving up. I would just like to know some details. For example, are you basically saying autonomy is a fixed moral principle? If so, are there any others? What happens when they come into conflict? If it's just that one, what makes it more important than, for example, life? I'm not saying it's not, I just want to know why.

Rape is neccesary now? I really didn't know that. Neccessity is the same argument Hitler used for his control over his people.

I think the point here is that rape and Hitler are both not necessary and thus are illegitamate forms of control, while more benign ones like stopping a child from wandering off the edge of a building might not be. In general I think Vetalia is talking about an absolute measure of necessity rather than one that can be persuaded, much like your absolute devotion to autonomy.

In general I think Vetalia is talking about an absolute measure of necessity rather than one that can be persuaded, much like your absolute devotion to autonomy.

Exactly. An example of this, branching in to science fiction, is Frank Herbert's God Emperor Leto II. He needed to save humanity and was forced to do so in a brutal manner. It was wrong, and he knew it, but had no choice. That is one of the great dilemmas of survival.

Most rapists don't say that rape is a good idea because it is a good idea...

Yes, I know that's not what you are saying. I just kind of think that saying its bad because its bad is kind of giving up. I would just like to know some details. For example, are you basically saying autonomy is a fixed moral principle? If so, are there any others? What happens when they come into conflict? If it's just that one, what makes it more important than, for example, life? I'm not saying it's not, I just want to know why.

Life and freedom are the two most important principles - freedom of the mind most of all - controlling someone because of an evil act is not right, simply because two wrongs do not make a right - if you ask me, prisons should not exist for this reason, we should rehabilitate, not imprison. If the mind is evil, we should teach (note teach, not force) it to become good - and if that means the imprisoning of the body then so be it, let's just make sure it's comfortable first.

Life and freedom are the two most important principles - freedom of the mind most of all - controlling someone because of an evil act is not right, simply because two wrongs do not make a right - if you ask me, prisons should not exist for this reason, we should rehabilitate, not imprison. If the mind is evil, we should teach (note teach, not force) it to become good - and if that means the imprisoning of the body then so be it, let's just make sure it's comfortable first.

Just continuing with the Socratic dialogue:

So if life and freedom are the two most important principles, what happens when they conflict? What makes them important, anyway?

Just continuing with the Socratic dialogue:

So if life and freedom are the two most important principles, what happens when they conflict? What makes them important, anyway?

Like i said, imprison the body and rehabilitate the mind - control is never, NEVER, neccessary!

Exactly. An example of this, branching in to science fiction, is Frank Herbert's God Emperor Leto II. He needed to save humanity and was forced to do so in a brutal manner. It was wrong, and he knew it, but had no choice. That is one of the great dilemmas of survival.

Wait, so which act was wrong? Being brutal, which you said was wrong, or letting humanity die, which you implied was wrong? Or is it a lesser of two evils situation? Isn't necessity in your worldview synonymous with right? If not, what is it?

To a degree, freedom has benefits as well. In early human life, a tribe probably existed in a kind of democratic chiefdom. After all, by expressing their thoughts, a person could possibly save their tribe from destruction.

I agree that prison should focus on rehabilitation, but should not be comfortable (cable tv/internet). They should prepare the inmate for life after prision. However, I make an exception for vile crimes like rape, sexual/spousal abuse and pedophilia. I think they should be punished, since they prey on those who are weak and unable to defend themselves.

Like i said, imprison the body and rehabilitate the mind - control is never, NEVER, neccessary!

What about the example I gave earlier about a child walking off a building? There seems to be a clear conflict between life and autonomy there. Or, even simpler, someone is about to shoot someone. You can stop them from shooting, which would be an act of control, or you can let the person get shot, which would jeopardize life. Which is the right choice?

However, I make an exception for vile crimes like rape, sexual/spousal abuse and pedophilia. I think they should be punished, since they prey on those who are weak and unable to defend themselves.

An thus rehabilitation fails. and the crime's committed again and again and again.

What about the example I gave earlier about a child walking off a building? There seems to be a clear conflict between life and autonomy there. Or, even simpler, someone is about to shoot someone. You can stop them from shooting, which would be an act of control, or you can let the person get shot, which would jeopardize life. Which is the right choice?

Like i have said earlier, it is the control of the mind that i am so against - control of mind ie brainwashing, religion etc - if ur stopping a child from walking off a building, fine, you're not brainwashing the child, same with the man with the gun.

To a degree, freedom has benefits as well. In early human life, a tribe probably existed in a kind of democratic chiefdom. After all, by expressing their thoughts, a person could possibly save their tribe from destruction.

I agree that prison should focus on rehabilitation, but should not be comfortable (cable tv/internet). They should prepare the inmate for life after prision. However, I make an exception for vile crimes like rape, sexual/spousal abuse and pedophilia. I think they should be punished, since they prey on those who are weak and unable to defend themselves.

Come to think of it, that's another dilemma I'd like to see Gorganite solve, though an easier one: If control (defined by Gorganite as rape) is so evil, what do you do to its perpetrators? Do you still not control them, as two wrongs don't make a right, or can you control them as a sort of poetic justice?

An thus rehabilitation fails. and the crime's committed again and again and again.

It is sad that they do commit them again. Still, I think it is hard to consider rehabilitation not because of logic but because of the sheer emtional response these crimes evoke on everyone, even those unaffected.

Like i have said earlier, it is the control of the mind that i am so against - control of mind ie brainwashing, religion etc - if ur stopping a child from walking off a building, fine, you're not brainwashing the child, same with the man with the gun.

So why is specifically mental control rather than physical control so important? And what if someone's mind is geared to destroy life and can't be taught (this is really hypothetical, but it's always useful to test the edges). Can you brainwash them? It'd be sort of clockwork organge-ish, but with more at stake.

It is sad that they do commit them again. Still, I think it is hard to consider rehabilitation not because of logic but because of the sheer emtional response these crimes evoke on everyone, even those unaffected.

I have several friends who have been raped - and most of them believe death is too good for the rapists, but the one thing they all say - rehabilitate.

It is sad that they do commit them again. Still, I think it is hard to consider rehabilitation not because of logic but because of the sheer emtional response these crimes evoke on everyone, even those unaffected.

And there's always the death penalty.

Let the flames begin.

I have several friends who have been raped - and most of them believe death is too good for the rapists, but the one thing they all say - rehabilitate.

Actually, now that I think about it, I can see why. The punishment of a lifetime of scorn, humiliation and ostracism they will recieve is far worse and far more punishing than a quick death.

So why is specifically mental control rather than physical control so important? And what if someone's mind is geared to destroy life and can't be taught (this is really hypothetical, but it's always useful to test the edges). Can you brainwash them? It'd be sort of clockwork organge-ish, but with more at stake.

No, if their mind is prgrammed only for evil, imprison them, alone if you have to, but imprison them whatever.

I have several friends who have been raped - and most of them believe death is too good for the rapists, but the one thing they all say - rehabilitate.

This isn't an argument, just a conjecture: how would they react to the rapists after rehabilitation?

This, however, is an argument: Is rehabilitation always possible? Can it always be done without control? Why?

Actually, now that I think about it, I can see why. The punishment of a lifetime of scorn, humiliation and ostracism they will recieve is far worse and far more punishing than a quick death.

Precisely.

Whoa, I open a thread entitled "Aliens and God" and everybody is talking about acceptable punishment for crimes?
:confused:
*leaves, bewildered*

This, however, is an argument: Is rehabilitation always possible? Can it always be done without control? Why?

Not necessarily. There are undoubtedly some who are so twisted that they can't possibly be rehabilitated (Charles Manson? John Wayne Gacy?) and so should face the death penalty. This is difficult to determine, however.

No, if their mind is prgrammed only for evil, imprison them, alone if you have to, but imprison them whatever.

And that's not control? Or, for that matter, infringement on life? (Death by prison is really just another form of the death penalty)

This isn't an argument, just a conjecture: how would they react to the rapists after rehabilitation?

This, however, is an argument: Is rehabilitation always possible? Can it always be done without control? Why?

It is always done without mind control. I have, as i said, a number of friends who have been raped, and two of them HAVE met their rapists post rehab, and have commented that, though they were nervous, the perp's were really nice and understanding, even though they were previously nasty people. This sounds like mind control - but it was done in a way that i believe all rehab should be done, they met the people they had hurt, they spoke to them. One of my friends is now friends with the man who raped her.

Whoa, I open a thread entitled "Aliens and God" and everybody is talking about acceptable punishment for crimes?
:confused:
*leaves, bewildered*

It's called hijacking a thread. Or a realistic conversation with people like us. I'd reccomend picking the one you can't report to the mods.

It is always done without mind control. I have, as i said, a number of friends who have been raped, and two of them HAVE met their rapists post rehab, and have commented that, though they were nervous, the perp's were really nice and understanding, even though they were previously nasty people. This sounds like mind control - but it was done in a way that i believe all rehab should be done, they met the people they had hurt, they spoke to them. One of my friends is now friends with the man who raped her.

It doesn't have to be sci-fi-ish mind control to necessarily be an infringement on autonomy. Why is that method of rehab not control? I mean especially if these were regularly pracicing rapists (which you seem to imply) before their rehab did they want to think of their victims as people? If not, then how is making them think otherwise not control? All I'm saying is that this appears to be a situation in which some degree of control is necessary. And, going back to the orginal reason for this discussion, what if the only available rehab method of the time is religion? In that case, is it still evil?

Simply put, I think rehab evokes memories of Room 101.

Simply put, I think rehab evokes memories of Room 101.

Sorry, don't get the reference.

If I were God and I made Earth, I'd want to try again too. :p

And if we're the finished product, I think God has a sick sense of humor. Which I greatly respect. :)
Lunatic Goofballs is a genius

Lunatic Goofballs is a genius

True.

By the way, you win the on-topic award of the last 3 pages or so. Good job.

Room 101 refers to 1984, where the individual is forced to confront their greatest fear or succumb to Big Brother.

BTW, thanks for the award. I'd like to thank NS....*drones on before security forces me to exit*

Room 101 refers to 1984, where the individual is forced to confront their greatest fear or succumb to Big Brother.

Hmm...rehab by torture...hey, that's the preferred method for terrorists!

Seriously, I don't think most rehab involves that serious a break in sanity, though exceptions exist.

Either Gorganite is busy typing a huge reply or quit the thread, which is sad.
That was almost as good a debate as I had against that guy who didn't believe in evolution.

Either Gorganite is busy typing a huge reply or quit the thread, which is sad.
That was almost as good a debate as I had against that guy who didn't believe in evolution.

I ain't quit - i merely went to bed. That method of rehab works and is nothing like the room 101 style rehab, it's not torture or brainwashing - it's good old fashioned sense of the word, Rehab.

Aliens, Hell YEAH! God, not so much.

I guess I'd have to say I believe in both, since I think the Gods WERE aliens.

I guess I'd have to say I believe in both, since I think the Gods WERE aliens.

You believe in Gods? as in plural rather than singular?