NationStates Jolt Archive

Putting aside technical issues and statistical improbabilities, lets say humanity makes contact with, or to be more precise is contacted by, a clearly extraterrestrial species that is far in advance to plain old homo sapiens in both technological and societal development, so much so that technology to them appears to be like magic to us.

They can either be peaceful, observant or warlike, it doesn't really matter although I suppose such an advanced race if warlike would probably wipe Earth clean before bothering to say hello.

The fact of the matter is that, they've got a superior leg up on humans, look absolutely nothing at all like humans and as a species are older than Earth mud. For all I care, they could be a race of Jabba the Hutts.

I'm a bit undecided on this aspect, but they can either have no working religious system, because they don't see the need for it, or they're a theocratic race who believes in the giant invisible space slug being the master of the universe. I'll leave this one as an open ended setting

How would the monotheistic religions, especially the ones which go along the lines of "God/Allah/Vishnu is almighty and look like us" cope?

Maybe religion would evolve; see also; Bene Gesserit, Church of The Emperor, etc etc.

How would the monotheistic religions, especially the ones which go along the lines of "God/Allah/Vishnu is almighty and look like us" cope?

The same way they cope with all other logic:

http://www.personneltoday.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=4678

It's survived everything else, why not that?

halo anybody? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_%28Halo%29)

See, religion would survive any other way, this isn't some sort of a geek utopia that is Star Trek,... THIS IS SPARTA!

The same way they cope with all other logic:

http://www.personneltoday.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=4678

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl9ldtRFigw

The same way they cope with all other logic:

http://www.personneltoday.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=4678

I may have to make sure I have that one for future use :)

See, religion would survive any other way, this isn't some sort of a geek utopia that is Star Trek,... THIS IS SPARTA!

http://thecia.com.au/star-trek/original-series/1/04b7.jpg

Maybe religion would evolve; see also; Bene Gesserit, Church of The Emperor, etc etc.

I'm fairly certain the Church of The Emperor was a brand new one rather than a modification of an existing religion.


The same way they cope with all other logic:


Ahhh, but this isn't logic which you can hide behind "too complicated, God didit".

It's "in your face" aliens who trounce you in every field.

It's survived everything else, why not that?

Because this is a great deal more drastic than everything else it has faced before.

On, "How does religion cope?" , see also; "DIE SPACE MUTANT HEATHEN, PURGE THEM BY FIRE".

Depends though, on what we say, ... if religion would evolve they would incorporate netspeek into it such as, "LOLZORZ NO U! I RAEP U!"

It's "in your face" aliens who trounce you in every field.


Even sexuality?!? :eek:

That is one arena with which i'm not going to allow faith alone to suffice.

On, "How does religion cope?" , see also; "DIE SPACE MUTANT HEATHEN, PURGE THEM BY FIRE".

Depends though, on what we say, ... if religion would evolve they would incorporate netspeek into it such as, "LOLZORZ NO U! I RAEP U!"

Maybe, but remember, the aliens would be in a far, far, superior position technology wise than humans, including weaponry. So snuffing out humanity would be a simple task for them.

And yes, if they did incorporate netspeak, I fully expect them to go "OMG! HAX!11 Where admin?!"

:p

We won in Independence Day, we can win again... as long as the aliens forget to update their MacAfee subscription.

We won in Independence Day, we can win again... as long as the aliens forget to update their MacAfee subscription.

They use linux. :p

And yes, if they did incorporate netspeak, I fully expect them to go "OMG! HAX!11 Where admin?!"

:p
What if they possess a preoccupation with owls and cats to supplement that?

First contact? Most certainly.
Repeated and forceful contacts....probably.

Are these contacts fatal?

What if they possess a preoccupation with owls and cats to supplement that?

Then they'll derail the thread?

First contact? Most certainly.
Repeated and forceful contacts....probably.

Are these contacts fatal?

Depends on which species type you picked. The peaceful contact or the violent one.

Depends on which species type you picked. The peaceful contact or the violent one.

Passive-Agressive Gelatin-Based life-forms.

Then they'll derail the thread?

Argh!
Verily, you wound me. And rightly so. :D
http://www.oldmansimpson.com/frames/full/1F04/cap002.jpg

Passive-Agressive Gelatin-Based life-forms.

Then it will be quite the smothering contact. :p

Passive-Agressive Gelatin-Based life-forms.
http://www.70disco.com/images/horta2.jpg
or
http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/0/L/m/simpTHOHXVII_DrPhil_Family_v4f.jpg
?

Scientologists might be happy?

Scientologists might be happy?
The ones that might get banned?
Instead of inscribing fishes in the dirt ... would it be some part of Tom Cruise's anatomy?

Depends on which species type you picked. The peaceful contact or the violent one.Wouldn't it be funny to see a priest trying to convert a xenomorph?

The ones that might get banned?
Instead of inscribing fishes in the dirt ... would it be some part of Tom Cruise's anatomy?:eek: you used the forbidden word... :eek:

Oe of two thing, either they will have a religion of their own, or I will begin explining ours to them, assuming they aren't sucking my brains out.

How about this-what if they show up looking for the homeland of Jesus? Would atheism survive that?

The same way they cope with all other logic:

http://www.personneltoday.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=4678

KNEEL before God! :p

And no, you don't count as God.

If it ever happened it would be interesting to see if they ever sinned or they are still perfect like adam was.

:eek: you used the forbidden word... :eek:

"It"?
Probably shouldn't tell me.

Oe of two thing, either they will have a religion of their own, or I will begin explining ours to them, assuming they aren't sucking my brains out.

How about this-what if they show up looking for the homeland of Jesus? Would atheism survive that?

Jesus, friend of the aliens? Yeah, I can't really see how that makes atheism particularly problematic. Or Christianity any more credible.

Wouldn't it be funny to see a priest trying to convert a xenomorph?

Oe of two thing, either they will have a religion of their own, or I will begin explining ours to them, assuming they aren't sucking my brains out.

http://www.planetduke.com/alienz/images/alien.jpg

"Convert ye heathen! Let the blessings of Yaaa! The pain! The pain!" *squelch*

I couldn't resist. :p



How about this-what if they show up looking for the homeland of Jesus? Would atheism survive that?

Atheism doesn't affirm or deny the existence of aliens, much less the superiority of any species based on religious dogma. You fail.

Oe of two thing, either they will have a religion of their own, or I will begin explining ours to them, assuming they aren't sucking my brains out.
Ours? Surely you don't speak for me.
*wags finger*

How about this-what if they show up looking for the homeland of Jesus? Would atheism survive that?Of course it would. They'd be distracted and bemused forever, just like everyone else thinking there's enough proof to qualify their religions when taxed to. Well, the major ones, anyway.

The 'made in His image' thing is usually taken to be a metaphor by most educated people. The reason for the metaphor would be to explain what humans have that animals don't. In the case of my Christian faith, if we had contact with aliens I would be genuinely surprised, but I have no reason to feel that if otehr sentient life exists my God must not... those do not logically follow, that would be like say, I can see a sandwich, so basketball hoops don't exist... they don't necessarily have a direct relationship to each other ('they' being my personal faith, and these newfound aliens).

My beliefs would stay the same, and though technically religious in nature, I have a personal relationship with Christ... perhaps religion would shrivel and die, and so it should (aliens or no), but my persoanl beliefs and relationship, again, would remain unchanged.

How would you respond if aliens came and had proof that god existed and that evolution was false?

"It"?
Probably shouldn't tell me.No, silly.

The ones that might get banned?
Instead of inscribing fishes in the dirt ... would it be some part of ****'s anatomy?

Atheism doesn't affirm or deny the existence of aliens, much less the superiority of any species based on religious dogma. You fail.

How does he fail? You fairly dodged the question, he asked if Athiesm would fail because the aliens were looking for, in effect, Jesus (implying greater certainty of His existence, and seeming Divinity), not whether Athiesm prescribes a belief about aliens. You fail.

They'd make up a series of new lies that fit the facts and carry on. You really think they'll just stop cashing in on people's gullibility and need to believe in something greater than ourselves? And don't forget the New Agers who'll worship the aliens to get in on what is, now, a burgeoning market.

http://www.planetduke.com/alienz/images/alien.jpg

"Convert ye heathen! Let the blessings of Yaaa! The pain! The pain!" *squelch*

I couldn't resist. :p
You rock. I just so happened to be seeing the queen-reawakening scene of AVP right as i flicked on that link. :)

How would you respond if aliens came and had proof that god existed and that evolution was false?

Well, I believe in God, so that part wouldn't bother me any.

And if they had found a way to falsify evolution, I'd say, "Rock on, space-scientists."

How would you respond if aliens came and had proof that god existed and that evolution was false?
That's not gonna happen. Ever.

Putting aside technical issues and statistical improbabilities, lets say humanity makes contact with, or to be more precise is contacted by, a clearly extraterrestrial species that is far in advance to plain old homo sapiens in both technological and societal development, so much so that technology to them appears to be like magic to us.

They can either be peaceful, observant or warlike, it doesn't really matter although I suppose such an advanced race if warlike would probably wipe Earth clean before bothering to say hello.

The fact of the matter is that, they've got a superior leg up on humans, look absolutely nothing at all like humans and as a species are older than Earth mud. For all I care, they could be a race of Jabba the Hutts.

I'm a bit undecided on this aspect, but they can either have no working religious system, because they don't see the need for it, or they're a theocratic race who believes in the giant invisible space slug being the master of the universe. I'll leave this one as an open ended setting

How would the monotheistic religions, especially the ones which go along the lines of "God/Allah/Vishnu is almighty and look like us" cope?

Reality - even with giant space bugs - has never been an obstacle to religion.

Mere evidence? That's all you've got?

"Rock on, space-scientists."

Awesome.

Thats going in my sig.

How would you respond if aliens came and had proof that god existed and that evolution was false?

I'd smile and tell them to move to some places in the South where they belong, where perhaps it's the heat or the water or several generations of inbreeding that tend to help reinforce that particular persuasion of delusion.
Of course, i'd only say some of that unless they asked.

How would you respond if aliens came and had proof that god existed and that evolution was false?

Most atheists would be like "yay". We're not atheists because we want to be, but because it's the only option that's credible.

That's not gonna happen. Ever.
That's not what Kirk Cameron said!
Some other installment of "Left Behind", i think.

I'd smile and tell them to move to some places in the South where they belong, where perhaps it's the heat or the water or several generations of inbreeding that tend to help reinforce that particular persuasion of delusion.
Of course, i'd only say some of that unless they asked.

Umm, he had said 'proof' not 'idea' that God both existed, and evolution was false....

That's not gonna happen. Ever.

Ahh, an absolute. Then there must be other things that are absolute as well. Anywho, it's just as likely as the OP's question.

We're not atheists because we want to be, .

Admit it, thats how you types get your jollies isn't it? I knew it!

:p

Most atheists would be like "yay". We're not atheists because we want to be, but because it's the only option that's credible.Since when are you an atheist?

I'd smile and tell them to move to some places in the South where they belong, where perhaps it's the heat or the water or several generations of inbreeding that tend to help reinforce that particular persuasion of delusion.
Of course, i'd only say some of that unless they asked.

But if they came and supported your belief you would believe them. Hmmm, smells of double standards and hypocracy.


Edit: Or rather, prooved.

And don't forget the New Agers who'll worship the aliens to get in on what is, now, a burgeoning market.

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/rsz/434/x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/65/03/67/18823217.jpg

Ahh, an absolute. Then there must be other things that are absolute as well. Anywho, it's just as likely as the OP's question.Maybe an alien space ship crash lands on some religious nutjob's head tomorrow. That's a lot more likely than the existence of your god.

But if they came and supported your belief you would believe them. Hmmm, smells of double standards and hypocracy.

I wouldn't "start believing them" for reinforcing what i already know, duh. :rolleyes:
But conflatulations to you for filling in your own blanks (not a religious principle in the least :p )
You really, really should learn to spell, or at least pay attention. Funny how your computer doesn't let you know when you're making errors with your text .... and lamentable that it takes other people to do the same about your "arguments".


Edit: Or rather, prooved. Delicious, nummy irony. You're on my "favourites" list. :fluffle:

I may have to make sure I have that one for future use :)

I had originally searched for an ostrich, but I liked this one better. :)

Maybe an alien space ship crash lands on some religious nutjob's head tomorrow. That's a lot more likely than the existence of your god.

According to who? Uhhh thats right, you. Blinded by your own prejudice.

Awesome.

Thats going in my sig.

Thanks. I edited your sig to be within the 8-line limit so you're within the rules and still have the quote. :)

I wouldn't "start believing them" for reinforcing what i already know, duh. :rolleyes:
But conflatulations to you for filling in your own blanks (not a religious principle in the least :p )
You really, really should learn to spell, or at least pay attention. Funny how your computer doesn't let you know when you're making errors with your text .... and lamentable that it takes other people to do the same about your "arguments".


Delicious, nummy irony. You're on my "favourites" list. :fluffle:

My, my, I misspelled hipocrisy, thank you for telling me in a kind informative non-sarcastic way.

Edit: How kind of you, I have always wanted to be a favorite. But really I don't see how it's irony if an "alien" actually could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God did not exist. If that were so I would not be as close minded as if if the alternative happened to you.

Thanks. I edited your sig to be within the 8-line limit so you're within the rules and still have the quote. :)

Thanks! (Why doesn't it show up on this board?)

Umm, he had said 'proof' not 'idea' that God both existed, and evolution was false....

I know what s/he said. Roll it over a minute and it makes more sense.
Of course, i'd only say some of that unless they asked.
;)

According to who?Reality.

My, my, I misspelled hipocrisy, thank you for telling me in a kind informative non-sarcastic way.Twice?
You're having me on, brave sir/madam. Good sport!

How does he fail? You fairly dodged the question, he asked if Athiesm would fail because the aliens were looking for, in effect, Jesus (implying greater certainty of His existence, and seeming Divinity), not whether Athiesm prescribes a belief about aliens. You fail.

I'll admit to not fully answering the question properly, if you'll admit to adding more parameters into his question than were originally asked.

Originally asked were parameters of Jesus, and his homeland. The implication to his statement would be whether Atheism would fall apart if they were. To this, the answer is clearly no. All it would affirm is that Jesus existed, and that at some point of time, aliens knew him.

Anything else is simply tacking on added meaning without proof.

How would you respond if aliens came and had proof that god existed and that evolution was false?

You are simply avoiding the parameters outlined in the op. But that's alright I suppose. It's not like I could reasonably expect topics on NSG to stay on topic for more than a page before detractors would come along with opposing scenarios.

As to your scenario, it fails to provide any sort of example beyond a vaguely termed concept of "proof". What sort of proof? A direct hotline to god hmm? You'll need better than that. At least I defined my scenario somewhat.

Umm, he had said 'proof' not 'idea' that God both existed, and evolution was false....

Which god, I wonder?

I'm wondering why we would listen to alien proof about the existence or non-existence of 'gods' anyway...

Thanks! (Why doesn't it show up on this board?)

Do you have sigs set to display in your Options?

Reality.

s/he said 'who' not 'what'.

Also, you are presenting no evidence to support your faith-based calim... are you any better than the lowest religious zealot in terms of reasoning? If so, show it, don't use imaginary, unexplained proof as justification for your faith.

Since when are you an atheist?

Not sure. 1987, maybe? Ish.

Which god, I wonder?

I'm wondering why we would listen to alien proof about the existence or non-existence of 'gods' anyway...

Because for it to be proof (this is hypothetical) it would be... wait for it... proven, and therefor not able to be argued against by anyone who is of sound mind... proof, not belief in their god/s

s/he said 'who' not 'what'.

Also, you are presenting no evidence to support your faith-based calim... are you any better than the lowest religious zealot in terms of reasoning? If so, show it, don't use imaginary, unexplained proof as justification for your faith.

Implicit Atheism is easy - we just don't believe any of the pretty pretty stories. One doesn't have to 'prove' skepticism. It just is.

They use linux. :p

Damn terrorists!

This is America, Fuck Yeah!

Twice?
You're having me on, brave sir/madam. Good sport!

Whew that word is killing me. *Ahem* *Testing mike* "Hypocrisy"

Because for it to be proof (this is hypothetical) it would be... wait for it... proven, and therefor not able to be argued against by anyone who is of sound mind... proof, not belief in their god/s

So many problems with it... ranging from the simple fact that an infinite being can NEVER be 'proven' in a finite reality (we could never, no matter the science, know of ALL of the existence of an entity that exceeds the limits of our reality - we'd STILL have to take some of it on faith)... to the Douglas Adams premise that faith can only exist in the absence of proof - in which case, incontrovertible evidence would actually destroy a god, even if he/she/it had been real to start with.

Do you have sigs set to display in your Options?

Thanks, I got it going now... it's weird, do they ever change setting? It used to/sometimes displays them.

I'll say yes, since the religious are already in denial, why would that change?

If it ever happened it would be interesting to see if they ever sinned or they are still perfect like adam was.
lol.

How would you respond if aliens came and had proof that god existed and that evolution was false?
If they had actual proof? I'd say, "ooh, neat. It seems I was incorrect after all."

Ahh, an absolute. Then there must be other things that are absolute as well. Anywho, it's just as likely as the OP's question.

No, it really isn't. There's fairly strong evidence for evolution, and absolutely none for God. Therefore, it seems unlikely that they'd come with evidence disproving it.

An interesting question for Kontor and any other YECs: how would the aliens manage to build up the technology and then be able to have enough time to get to Earth in a 6,000 year old universe?

Whew that word is killing me. *Ahem* *Testing mike* "Hypocrisy"

Winner of Thread. Good show!
*bows*

I'll say yes, since the religious are already in denial, why would that change?

'denial' of what might I ask?

Thanks, I got it going now... it's weird, do they ever change setting? It used to/sometimes displays them.

Unless there's a technical glitch on Jolt's end (which isn't all that unlikely, really), I can't figure what would be likely to cause that other than you or an admin changing it.

An interesting question for Kontor and any other YECs: how would the aliens manage to build up the technology and then be able to have enough time to get to Earth in a 6,000 year old universe?

Not sure what a YEC is, but I can tell you that not every religious observant (of the Abrahamic religions anyway) believes in literal six-day Creation, nor necessarily the idea that universe is only 6,000 years old.

I suspend judgement on these issues because what does it matter, regarding my faith in Christ Jesus how old the universe is? Or what methods He used in Creation (wheterh he instantly Created man from the clay literally, or whether He guided evolution through it's stages, eitehr way it is a beautiful Creation method, and here we are, regardless of which way it happened).

Then again that is just my opinon.

'denial' of what might I ask?

That they don't know. No religion is empirically verifiable, so agnosticism is the only honest religious stance. Faith = belief without proof.

An interesting question for Kontor and any other YECs: how would the aliens manage to build up the technology and then be able to have enough time to get to Earth in a 6,000 year old universe?

God did it for mysterious reasons unknown to us?

I'm not a YEC, but that would seem to be the obvious explanation.

That they don't know. No religion is empirically verifiable, so agnosticism is the only honest religious stance. Faith = belief without proof.

I agree, and I have faith, that does not make me in denial, I understand that while my beliefs have been proven to me, I cannot turn around and prove them to you. It's a religious experience... people can know things for sure, and still be wrong (there either is, or is not a God/god/s with so many people knowing for certain so many contrasting things, some people must be wrong, even though they know)

I relaize that 'knowledge' is not proof, I cannot prove it to you, and I realize that... so saying, I have to disagree with you feeling that agnosticism is the only honest stance, I have met many Chrisitans who feel the same way that I do... they have experienced the proof, but not empirically (get where I'm coming from at all? Or is this gibberish?)

An interesting question for Kontor and any other YECs: how would the aliens manage to build up the technology and then be able to have enough time to get to Earth in a 6,000 year old universe?

Just like to say, that's a beautiful question. *bows*

(get where I'm coming from at all? Or is this gibberish?)

I respect your ability to word as such. *bows*

I agree, and I have faith, that does not make me in denial, I understand that while my beliefs have been proven to me, I cannot turn around and prove them to you. It's a religious experience... people can know things for sure, and still be wrong (there either is, or is not a God/god/s with so many people knowing for certain so many contrasting things, some people must be wrong, even though they know)

I relaize that 'knowledge' is not proof, I cannot prove it to you, and I realize that... so saying, I have to disagree with you feeling that agnosticism is the only honest stance, I have met many Chrisitans who feel the same way that I do... they have experienced the proof, but not empirically (get where I'm coming from at all? Or is this gibberish?)
I get what you're saying. We're limited by language. The word "knowledge" is often misemployed. If knowledge is not empirical, it is not knowledge, it is a feeling. You can call it "knowing" but that does not make it so.

That they don't know. No religion is empirically verifiable, so agnosticism is the only honest religious stance. Faith = belief without proof.

What about Implicit Atheism? The Implicit Atheist position requires no 'faith' - indeed, it is basically defined by an absence of it.

As a note - agnosticism isn't a 'religious stance' - it is a modifier to one. Agnosticism refers only to whether or not it is possible to KNOW if there is a god or gods - you could admit to not KNOWING, and still believe, or disbelieve.

I get what you're saying. We're limited by language. The word "knowledge" is often misemployed. If knowledge is not empirical, it is not knowledge, it is a feeling. You can call it "knowing" but that does not make it so.

Wouldn't 'knowledge' just (basically) be 'what you know?'

(And thus, empirical or no, is kind of irrelevent?)

What about Implicit Atheism? The Implicit Atheist position requires no 'faith' - indeed, it is basically defined by an absence of it.

As a note - agnosticism isn't a 'religious stance' - it is a modifier to one. Agnosticism refers only to whether or not it is possible to KNOW if there is a god or gods - you could admit to not KNOWING, and still believe, or disbelieve.

Incorrect, Athiesm is the specific belief that no supreme being/s exist, which while unproven, is faith.

Because agnosticism is a religious stance (that is, a stance about religion/supreme being/s) it is a religious stance... that seems circular... but it is a pretty simple, yet accurate statement. merely because one does not specifically believe in god/s does not make it not faith, nor does it make it a non-religious stance.

What about Implicit Atheism? The Implicit Atheist position requires no 'faith' - indeed, it is basically defined by an absence of it.

As a note - agnosticism isn't a 'religious stance' - it is a modifier to one. Agnosticism refers only to whether or not it is possible to KNOW if there is a god or gods - you could admit to not KNOWING, and still believe, or disbelieve.

Semantics. I consider agnosticism a stance, e.g. "Does God exist? I don't know." I also don't know if it's possible to know or not. Find me a god, and I'll check it out ;) Believing or disbelieving = faith = no empirical proof = feeling.

Wouldn't 'knowledge' just (basically) be 'what you know?'

(And thus, empirical or no, is kind of irrelevent?)

I'm distinguishing knowing from believing. One is empirically verifiable, one is not. Show me some non-empirical knowlege.

Incorrect, Athiesm is the specific belief that no supreme being/s exist, which while unproven, is faith.

Because agnosticism is a religious stance (that is, a stance about religion/supreme being/s) it is a religious stance... that seems circular... but it is a pretty simple, yet accurate statement. merely because one does not specifically believe in god/s does not make it not faith, nor does it make it a non-religious stance.

Actually, agnosticism is an epistemological stance, and while it can influence a person's beliefs on religious questions, it doesn't necessarily do so.

For example, I'm an agnostic theist. I don't claim to know that God exists, just that I have a belief that God exists.

Wouldn't 'knowledge' just (basically) be 'what you know?'

(And thus, empirical or no, is kind of irrelevent?)

Yes... for example, the Greeks (for the most part) knew their gods existed (and since that idea is technically yet viable... they could be correct, though I myself doubt it).

At one time some people in Europe (for some reason) knew the Earth was flat... well, that has been disproven I think....

Knowing need not be correct... it is merely the quality of certainty, of sureness... and merely because people are sure, does not make them right, my friend thought that spare tires ('donuts', if you will, were made of solid rubber, that they did not have air in them... he knew this, it was fact to him... he found out he was wrong when his started going flat and he need to put *gasp* air in it-needless to say many a good laugh at him were had.)

Something is not proven without empirical proof. Many ideas can have evidence without being proven. Things can be known, whether or not they are correct because knowledge is limited (as our human minds are), and so is our conception of reality, and what we view as proof.

Something is not proven without empirical proof. Many ideas can have evidence without being proven. Things can be known, whether or not they are correct because knowledge is limited (as our human minds are), and so is our conception of reality, and what we view as proof.

Or in short : innocent until proven guilty.

Semantics. I consider agnosticism a stance, e.g. "Does God exist? I don't know." I also don't know if it's possible to know or not. Find me a god, and I'll check it out ;) Believing or disbelieving = faith = no empirical proof = feeling.

In what way is not believing faith?

"There is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, I do not believe in him." Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say to me.
To say that there's no proof that he does not exist is to shift the burden of proof. If you say that there is a God, you're the one claiming something's existence, so you're the one that should provide evidence.

If it's the burden for the disbeliever to disprove God, then we should also believe in Baal, Thor, Russell's Teapot, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Actually, agnosticism is an epistemological stance, and while it can influence a person's beliefs on religious questions, it doesn't necessarily do so.

For example, I'm an agnostic theist. I don't claim to know that God exists, just that I have a belief that God exists.

Semantics, I feel that any belief, idea, or lack thereof that alters anything regarding religion, morality, or worldview to be 'religious' in nature... then again that might well be the 'loosest' connotation of 'religious stance' that there is, but it fits enough for me.

In what way is not believing faith?

"There is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, I do not believe in him." Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say to me.
To say that there's no proof that he does not exist is to shift the burden of proof. If you say that there is a God, you're the one claiming something's existence, so you're the one that should provide evidence.

If it's the burden for the disbeliever to disprove God, then we should also believe in Baal, Thor, Russell's Teapot, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I feel that the burden of proof should go both ways... people can believe what they want, until one side proves their belief. Burden of proof should be universal, not on the side that is convenient with your beliefs. :p

In what way is not believing faith?

"There is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, I do not believe in him." Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to say to me.
To say that there's no proof that he does not exist is to shift the burden of proof. If you say that there is a God, you're the one claiming something's existence, so you're the one that should provide evidence.

If it's the burden for the disbeliever to disprove God, then we should also believe in Baal, Thor, Russell's Teapot, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Bolded statement implies belief God does not exist, which is also empirically unverifiable and therefore as much a stance of faith as belief He/She/It does exist.

Incorrect, Athiesm is the specific belief that no supreme being/s exist, which while unproven, is faith.

Because agnosticism is a religious stance (that is, a stance about religion/supreme being/s) it is a religious stance... that seems circular... but it is a pretty simple, yet accurate statement. merely because one does not specifically believe in god/s does not make it not faith, nor does it make it a non-religious stance.

Explicit Atheism claims there is no god - that is a statement of faith. i.e. "A faith in a lack of gods"

Implicit Atheism makes no such claims. It is a "Lack of faith in gods".

Worth mentioning - I'm an Implicit Atheist, and an Agnostic. I have friends who are agnostic theists - hence 'agnostic' only applies to the 'knowledge', not to the faith, or lack of it.

Semantics, I feel that any belief, idea, or lack thereof that alters anything regarding religion, morality, or worldview to be 'religious' in nature... then again that might well be the 'loosest' connotation of 'religious stance' that there is, but it fits enough for me.

I understand the difficulties of terminology.

I tend to see all belief systems as explanatory narratives, a category into which religious beliefs, secular beliefs, and everything in between falls into.

Bolded statement implies belief God does not exist, which is also empirically unverifiable and therefore as much a stance of faith as belief He/She/It does exist.

How's this going to stop religion from working if we ever survived first contact?

For all we know, the first contact itself would cause Scientology into the leading religion of humanity.

(... is Scientology monotheistic?)

I feel that the burden of proof should go both ways... people can believe what they want, until one side proves their belief. Burden of proof should be universal, not on the side that is convenient with your beliefs. :p

Okay, agreed. But - what about those who lack faith in either argument? You are demanding that they should (somehow) believe something until they can PROVE it wrong?

I wonder if you'd apply the same logic to goblins, fairies, ghosts and ace spaliens?

In what way is not believing faith?

Athiesm is the specific belief, through faith, that there is no supreme being. Not believing that supremem being(s) exist, is having faith, that supreme beings do not exist.

Merely because atheists often feel like they are covered by a veil of impenetrable logic, they belief just as faith-based an idea as any religion.

Actually, agnosticism is an epistemological stance, and while it can influence a person's beliefs on religious questions, it doesn't necessarily do so.

For example, I'm an agnostic theist. I don't claim to know that God exists, just that I have a belief that God exists.

The joy of polysylabic vocubulary is in the precision. "Episteme off by using bigger words than me." :p For me it's actually an entomylogical stance. It bugs me that people use the word "knowing" to mean "feeling" ;)

Okay, agreed. But - what about those who lack faith in either argument? You are demanding that they should (somehow) believe something until they can PROVE it wrong?

I wonder if you'd apply the same logic to goblins, fairies, ghosts and ace spaliens?

"I believe I'll have another drink." :cool:

It's a-gettin' gooda now.
*munches popcorn*

How's this going to stop religion from working if we ever survived first contact?

For all we know, the first contact itself would cause Scientology into the leading religion of humanity.

(... is Scientology monotheistic?)

I never said 1st contact would change the way people believe, just the opposite in fact. Check my first post in the thread ;)

How's this going to stop religion from working if we ever survived first contact?

For all we know, the first contact itself would cause Scientology into the leading religion of humanity.

(... is Scientology monotheistic?)

You might want to ask if it's theistic at all.

Bolded statement implies belief God does not exist, which is also empirically unverifiable and therefore as much a stance of faith as belief He/She/It does exist.

The bolded statement implies no such thing.

It says that - lacking evidence - there is no reason to believe. It makes no assumption either way about whether there is a god or not - only whether one believes.

One last try to explain:

The Talking Cat:

MY cat can talk -

The Theist position would be "Okay! Your cat can talk!"

The Explicit Atheist position would be "No way! Your cat can't talk!"

The Implicit Atheist position would be "I don't believe it. Prove it." (Not a bold assertion there are no talking cats, just a healthy doubt until evidence is provided to prove (or disprove) the claim).

I understand the difficulties of terminology.

I tend to see all belief systems as explanatory narratives, a category into which religious beliefs, secular beliefs, and everything in between falls into.
/agree
On some level, I have faith in empiricism. :eek:

well...
for my opinion, there's no use debating over this subject.
faith is personal thing. human develop faith and believes as their approach to the world. believes and faith both construct our weltanschaung.
'god' is a representation of the totality of our world-view. so, we found that each person has their own version of 'god', even the agnostics, ot atheists.
anyway... god is overrated....

Okay, agreed. But - what about those who lack faith in either argument? You are demanding that they should (somehow) believe something until they can PROVE it wrong?

I wonder if you'd apply the same logic to goblins, fairies, ghosts and ace spaliens?

Not at all, they can see the requierment for burden of proof for either side, without taking a stance themselves either way. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be more reasonable to not believe something because that something is as yet unproven... if 'x' is unproven, but 'not x' is also unproven, why should there be a focused burden of proof? It should be shared by anyone who holds to one of those two beliefs, those who maintain that 'maybe x, maybe not x' should not have any burden of prrof, as they have no specified stance other than either indicision, or contemplative neutrality... merely because they don't believe one way or the other does not mean that they need to.

One can believe in goblins and fairies should they so choose, I will maintain my disbelief, and the burden of proof is on us both, until one of us can prove it however, both stances are equally reasonable on the surface.

The bolded statement implies no such thing.

It says that - lacking evidence - there is no reason to believe. It makes no assumption either way about whether there is a god or not - only whether one believes.

One last try to explain:

The Talking Cat:

MY cat can talk -

The Theist position would be "Okay! Your cat can talk!"

The Explicit Atheist position would be "No way! Your cat can't talk!"

The Implicit Atheist position would be "I don't believe it. Prove it." (Not a bold assertion there are no talking cats, just a healthy doubt until evidence is provided to prove (or disprove) the claim).
So, you're an agnostic?

The joy of polysylabic vocubulary is in the precision. "Episteme off by using bigger words than me." :p For me it's actually an entomylogical stance. It bugs me that people use the word "knowing" to mean "feeling" ;)

Wow, I have finally encountered someone who makes even more horrible puns than I do. :) (It was funny, by the way.)

I hereby grant you the threadwin.

there's no use debating over this subject.Yes there is!
;)

Athiesm is the specific belief, through faith, that there is no supreme being.


And 'Christianity' is the specific belief that there is a god, and the Pope is his representative on earth.


Not believing that supremem being(s) exist, is having faith, that supreme beings do not exist.


Not at all - that's not even logic.

If this were math, your 'equation' is that we are solving for x, and - since we don't know what x is, it equals zero.


Merely because atheists often feel like they are covered by a veil of impenetrable logic, they belief just as faith-based an idea as any religion.

Except the ones who don't.

Yes there is!
;)
No there isn't!

Wow, I have finally encountered someone who makes even more horrible puns than I do. :) (It was funny, by the way.)

I hereby grant you the threadwin.

/bow

No there isn't!

You just contradicted me! Just then!

You just contradicted me! Just then!

No, no, no.

So, you're an agnostic?

I believe I've addressed that elsewhere.

I am agnostic - but that doesn't affect this little scenario.

In effect - the Agnostic position regarding the talking cat would be "I'm not entirely sure it's possible to know for sure that a cat can talk, regardless of proof".

I doubt. I think it likely there is no way to know. I have no reason to accept any of the stories I have heard so far, but I don't rule out one of them could be true.

No, no, no.

Oh, i'm sorry ... is this the 5-minute argument, or the full half-hour?
Battery's almost dead.

Not at all, they can see the requierment for burden of proof for either side, without taking a stance themselves either way. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be more reasonable to not believe something because that something is as yet unproven... if 'x' is unproven, but 'not x' is also unproven, why should there be a focused burden of proof? It should be shared by anyone who holds to one of those two beliefs, those who maintain that 'maybe x, maybe not x' should not have any burden of prrof, as they have no specified stance other than either indicision, or contemplative neutrality... merely because they don't believe one way or the other does not mean that they need to.

One can believe in goblins and fairies should they so choose, I will maintain my disbelief, and the burden of proof is on us both, until one of us can prove it however, both stances are equally reasonable on the surface.

You believe people can 'choose' to believe something? Interesting.

I don't believe in fairies... but I'm perfectly willing to accept they might exist. I do not deny them, or accept them - I lack faith either way. There is no burden of proof on me, I just doubt the stories till they are shown to be true.

That, in a nutshell, is Implicit Atheism. But - for fairies.

/agree
On some level, I have faith in empiricism. :eek:

Interesting. Why do you say that?

I believe I've addressed that elsewhere.

I am agnostic - but that doesn't affect this little scenario.

In effect - the Agnostic position regarding the talking cat would be "I'm not entirely sure it's possible to know for sure that a cat can talk, regardless of proof".

I doubt. I think it likely there is no way to know. I have no reason to accept any of the stories I have heard so far, but I don't rule out one of them could be true.

Bah, semantics again. We're using the same words to mean different things.

Bah, semantics again. We're using the same words to mean different things.

Capitulate!

...and all is lost, like so many civilisations.

And 'Christianity' is the specific belief that there is a god, and the Pope is his representative on earth.

Umm, the pope has no specific meaning to me. I'm Christian, not Catholic, there is a pretty big difference in a lot of areas... I am Christ's representative on earth (as are all believers in Christ's death and resurrection).

Not at all - that's not even logic.

If this were math, your 'equation' is that we are solving for x, and - since we don't know what x is, it equals zero.

I saw no lack of logic in it.

Except the ones who don't.

You're right, I apologize, I misspoke (typed, I guess). It seems to me that many athiests hide behind veils of what they think is impenetrable logic. This belief is based on personal experience, not pre-determined bias. To those athiests who realize that while they may well believe in not god, that does not make them automatically, and unrepraochably masters of all logic, I extend some respect, I have seen many atheists on NS forums that counter any argument with 'logic' or soemthing like 'athiesm is right because of logic' or 'I believe in logic therefore I am an athiest' without explaining in any way anyhting remotely close to a reasonable logical deduction. That was what I meant, and I understand that not all athiests (and hopefully not the majority) do this, as not all 'religious fanatics' do this either.... (but I lose respect for those Christians whose sole argument is likewise logic that is unmentioned, or the portrayal of their beliefs as unassailable fact).

Athiesm is the specific belief, through faith, that there is no supreme being. Not believing that supremem being(s) exist, is having faith, that supreme beings do not exist.

Merely because atheists often feel like they are covered by a veil of impenetrable logic, they belief just as faith-based an idea as any religion.
You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding the accepted use of atheism. However, I thought this was the most simplified answer in the thread:
The bolded statement implies no such thing.

It says that - lacking evidence - there is no reason to believe. It makes no assumption either way about whether there is a god or not - only whether one believes.

One last try to explain:

The Talking Cat:

MY cat can talk -

The Theist position would be "Okay! Your cat can talk!"

The Explicit Atheist position would be "No way! Your cat can't talk!"

The Implicit Atheist position would be "I don't believe it. Prove it." (Not a bold assertion there are no talking cats, just a healthy doubt until evidence is provided to prove (or disprove) the claim).

Not at all, they can see the requierment for burden of proof for either side, without taking a stance themselves either way. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be more reasonable to not believe something because that something is as yet unproven... if 'x' is unproven, but 'not x' is also unproven, why should there be a focused burden of proof? It should be shared by anyone who holds to one of those two beliefs, those who maintain that 'maybe x, maybe not x' should not have any burden of prrof, as they have no specified stance other than either indicision, or contemplative neutrality... merely because they don't believe one way or the other does not mean that they need to.

One can believe in goblins and fairies should they so choose, I will maintain my disbelief, and the burden of proof is on us both, until one of us can prove it however, both stances are equally reasonable on the surface.

What you're asking for is simply not logically possible. You cannot prove a negative. This why the burden of proof is generally on the positive statement. How am I to prove that, in all of space and time, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist? And if we are to give FSM the godly powers he so deserves and possesses, he is infinite and non-temporal so you not only are unable to prove the negative by logical principles within the universe, you must also do so by some unknown principles outside of the universe. You see the completely absurd position of placing the burden of proof on proving a negative? It simply flies in the face of logic.

Interesting. Why do you say that?

No one has ever proved to me that there is another way of knowing, but I do believe I can know, within a given epsilon, empirically. It gets kinda self-referentially tangled up, you know?

Bah, semantics again. We're using the same words to mean different things.

It's an important differentiation, though - one can actually believe in a god, whilst simultaneously believing it impossible to ever KNOW for sure. One can believe there are no gods, whilst simultaneously believing it impossible to KNOW for sure.

Or - one can simply lack a faith in gods or their definite lack.. and still believe it impossible to KNOW for sure.

Or - any of those positions, whilst thinking it MIGHT be possible to know for sure. Thus - gnostic and agnostic are not positions on faith, but on knowledge.

Capitulate!

...and all is lost, like so many civilisations.

I'm sorry, but the five minutes is up.

I'm sorry, but the five minutes is up.

That was never five minutes!

What you're asking for is simply not logically possible. You cannot prove a negative. This why the burden of proof is generally on the positive statement. How am I to prove that, in all of space and time, the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist? And if we are to give FSM the godly powers he so deserves and possesses, he is infinite and non-temporal so you not only are unable to prove the negative by logical principles within the universe, you must also do so by some unknown principles outside of the universe. You see the completely absurd position of placing the burden of proof on proving a negative? It simply flies in the face of logic.

I understand your point... I jsut don't feel that one belief should be accepted as more reasonable merely because of 'burden of proof' both sides can ask the other for proof, neither side has, would that not make both sides reasonable? (I'm not saying that at face value deism is more reasonable that athiesm, merely that they, as extremes are both equally reasonable... at face value... agnosticism is probably the most reasonable, but that is opinion... so... ther eyou have it)

It's an important differentiation, though - one can actually believe in a god, whilst simultaneously believing it impossible to ever KNOW for sure. One can believe there are no gods, whilst simultaneously believing it impossible to KNOW for sure.

Or - one can simply lack a faith in gods or their definite lack.. and still believe it impossible to KNOW for sure.

Or - any of those positions, whilst thinking it MIGHT be possible to know for sure. Thus - gnostic and agnostic are not positions on faith, but on knowledge.

I've been trying to differentiate between "Knowing" and "Feeling." Our different definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" are merely semantic. I use the words differently than you, but I don't think it's worth arguing about, that's all.

That was never five minutes!

I'm afraid it was. If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Umm, the pope has no specific meaning to me. I'm Christian, not Catholic, there is a pretty big difference in a lot of areas... I am Christ's representative on earth (as are all believers in Christ's death and resurrection).


That's exactly my point.

You made a claim about atheism, but your point details ONLY the position of the Explicit Atheist. Apparently you couldn't see that - so I used a parallel - I applied the same logic to 'Christians'.


I saw no lack of logic in it.


That's the problem.

Lack of evidence for x, doesn't mean x doesn't exist, right?

Lack of evidence for FAITH in x, doesn't mean FAITH that x doesn't exist, right?


You're right, I apologize, I misspoke (typed, I guess). It seems to me that many athiests hide behind veils of what they think is impenetrable logic. This belief is based on personal experience, not pre-determined bias. To those athiests who realize that while they may well believe in not god, that does not make them automatically, and unrepraochably masters of all logic, I extend some respect, I have seen many atheists on NS forums that counter any argument with 'logic' or soemthing like 'athiesm is right because of logic' or 'I believe in logic therefore I am an athiest' without explaining in any way anyhting remotely close to a reasonable logical deduction. That was what I meant, and I understand that not all athiests (and hopefully not the majority) do this, as not all 'religious fanatics' do this either.... (but I lose respect for those Christians whose sole argument is likewise logic that is unmentioned, or the portrayal of their beliefs as unassailable fact).

Most Atheists do rely on logic - which is why most are (what we call) Implicit. They aren't necessarily the loudest ones.

But, logic isn't the problem - it's evidence. Logic doesn't make me an atheist, but logic applied to a complete lack of objective evidence, does.

(Similarly, I assume your position is actually reached by applying logic to what you consider to be convincing evidence, yes?)

No one has ever proved to me that there is another way of knowing, but I do believe I can know, within a given epsilon, empirically. It gets kinda self-referentially tangled up, you know?

Yes, quite. It's just rare for me to encounter someone who has the self-awareness that you do.

Have you ever considered that when you get all self-referentially tangled up, you may be making no progress because you've hit a basic facet of reality?

Yes, quite. It's just rare for me to encounter someone who has the self-awareness that you do.

Have you ever considered that when you get all self-referentially tangled up, you may be making no progress because you've hit a basic facet of reality?

Actually, I usually notice the lint in my bellybutton at that point. I suppose bellybutton lint could be a basic facet of reality . . .

(But I have read a bit of Hofstadter, and studied fractals and their application in describing natural phenomena, as far as self-reference being fundamental goes)

I understand your point... I jsut don't feel that one belief should be accepted as more reasonable merely because of 'burden of proof' both sides can ask the other for proof, neither side has, would that not make both sides reasonable? (I'm not saying that at face value deism is more reasonable that athiesm, merely that they, as extremes are both equally reasonable... at face value... agnosticism is probably the most reasonable, but that is opinion... so... ther eyou have it)

The thing is, if you are positing some thing's existence, that is, making a positive statement, then, logically, you have the actual capacity to prove that thing, either through logic and extrapolation or through empiricism. On the other hand, you can not, ever, prove a things non-existence. It's simply an impossible demand. This is why, generally, atheists will say the burden of proof is upon the theists because they are the ones positing a thing's existence. Not only are they saying something exists, but they are saying something exists that entails such and such rules and regulations!

Personally, I'm a deist so I'll actually happily go on record saying that, yes, I think deism is less reasonable than atheism.:p This has to do with the argument from first cause and I've yet to see a valid logical counter to it (the infinite regression nonsense is...well, nonsense and easily countered). But if someone disputes my premises or logic, I admit that the burden of proof is upon me, as the one contending the existence of such a thing, to provide sufficient evidence rather than for them to commit a logically impossible feat.

(Similarly, I assume your position is actually reached by applying logic to what you consider to be convincing evidence, yes?)

Lol, naturally, nor am I saying that all athiests, are in entirety wrong in everyway due to missapplication of logic. I understand that as humans (who, really, probably have a pretty poor grasp on good logic all the way around), we can all apply the same logic to different sets of evidence, and get way different results, I have seen it with some athiest, and agnostic friends of mine, it seems that we apply almost the same method of thinking, to different perspectives, life experiences, and even different evidences, and here is where our perspectives become very diverse.

What I was saying bothered me is those people (regardless of what they belive, or don't believe) who hide behind unexplaind logic ('well, it's because of logic that this is the only plausible belief, everyone else is too dense to see that') as though ti is some empirical shield that will protect them from any possible reproach... I understand that even if we use the same logic, we can arrive at different conclusions, and that says nothing about people who use different logic (not better, or worse, merely different)... Lol, now I probably sound like a subjectivist (though I'm not, it's part of that 'love your neighbor thing' that Jesus was kinda into, lol), I erspect the opinions of people who have a reasonable base for their beliefs, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with their beliefs, likewise I have almost no respect (sometimes none) for those who do not have reasonable cause to believe what they believe, yet carry on as though their one word answer is all the proof that is ever needed in any situation, and is universally applicable, and even makes sense ('hmm, and why do you believe that?' 'logic, duh')

The thing is, if you are positing some thing's existence, that is, making a positive statement, then, logically, you have the actual capacity to prove that thing, either through logic and extrapolation or through empiricism. On the other hand, you can not, ever, prove a things non-existence. It's simply an impossible demand. This is why, generally, atheists will say the burden of proof is upon the theists because they are the ones positing a thing's existence. Not only are they saying something exists, but they are saying something exists that entails such and such rules and regulations!

Personally, I'm a deist so I'll actually happily go on record saying that, yes, I think deism is less reasonable than atheism.:p This has to do with the argument from first cause and I've yet to see a valid logical counter to it (the infinite regression nonsense is...well, nonsense and easily countered). But if someone disputes my premises or logic, I admit that the burden of proof is upon me, as the one contending the existence of such a thing, to provide sufficient evidence rather than for them to commit a logically impossible feat.

I understand what you mean. And I realize that non-existence is 'unprovable' (technically, it could be, but I don't see how), I am merely saying that it feels to me like too many people take the assigning of burden of proof to mean that unless proven, deistic stances are right out. (I'm form America, I just really happen to like Monty Python and the Holy Grail... I could recite it right now, and have you ROTFLOL... *ahem* sorry....)

I understand what you mean. And I realize that non-existence is 'unprovable' (technically, it could be, but I don't see how), I am merely saying that it feels to me like too many people take the assigning of burden of proof to mean that unless proven, deistic stances are right out. (I'm form America, I just really happen to like Monty Python and the Holy Grail... I could recite it right now, and have you ROTFLOL... *ahem* sorry....)

Erm...just a note, but I think you mean theistic, rather, since you seem to be including yourself in the category? Or perhaps I am simply misunderstanding your stance on the issue.

But, really, I don't see why that should bother you. I mean, if people are extremely vocal and, well, I don't know the word for it but....missionary, perhaps? in their beliefs, then that's a different story and they open themselves up to scrutiny and analysis from empirical and logical grounds. Unfortunately you do see atheists like this who feel it is upon them to convert people to their belief system (not as many theists of various types, mind you, but enough), and I can't see how this wouldn't bug the crap out of the less belligerent atheists out there.

The bolded statement implies no such thing.

It says that - lacking evidence - there is no reason to believe. It makes no assumption either way about whether there is a god or not - only whether one believes.

One last try to explain:

The Talking Cat:

MY cat can talk -

The Theist position would be "Okay! Your cat can talk!"

The Explicit Atheist position would be "No way! Your cat can't talk!"

The Implicit Atheist position would be "I don't believe it. Prove it." (Not a bold assertion there are no talking cats, just a healthy doubt until evidence is provided to prove (or disprove) the claim).

Kay, I'm going to be a smartass now. What would you call one who denies any possible existence of any Earth-based religion's God, Goddess, or gods existing but merely has healthy doubts about some sort of divine being and is furthermore quite gnostic? (That is, the polar opposite of agnostic)

Putting aside technical issues and statistical improbabilities, lets say humanity makes contact with, or to be more precise is contacted by, a clearly extraterrestrial species that is far in advance to plain old homo sapiens in both technological and societal development, so much so that technology to them appears to be like magic to us.

They can either be peaceful, observant or warlike, it doesn't really matter although I suppose such an advanced race if warlike would probably wipe Earth clean before bothering to say hello.

The fact of the matter is that, they've got a superior leg up on humans, look absolutely nothing at all like humans and as a species are older than Earth mud. For all I care, they could be a race of Jabba the Hutts.

I'm a bit undecided on this aspect, but they can either have no working religious system, because they don't see the need for it, or they're a theocratic race who believes in the giant invisible space slug being the master of the universe. I'll leave this one as an open ended setting

How would the monotheistic religions, especially the ones which go along the lines of "God/Allah/Vishnu is almighty and look like us" cope?

this is an interesting multi-aspect question.

the rest of the universe, is, if anything, more, not less, diverse then this one planet ever has been.

there ARE still "flat earthers" so in a sense, blind faith, can to some degree, survive anything. no thought, dream or fantasy that enters the public consciousness ever completely goes away. though it's degree of dominance may plumit below the "event horizon" of visibility.

'first' contact, WILL have profound ripples throughout the world of belief, at least among those who don't entirely reject the use of their god given brains.

a lot depends on WHO first contact is with. WHICH alien worlds, and or multicultural, multi-world political or other entities.

don't for a moment imagine, that any sentient spiecies on any world, hasn't had at least some likelyhood of having evolved quite probably multiple systems of belief. after all, ANY world, capable of harbouring 'people'/beings, who create and inovate, is a very big and diverse place. every bit as much so as our own is or has ever been.

will the first individuals to contact our first individuals, be athiests, agnostics, or have as many beliefs as we have, of sorts we have yet to even begin to imagine? who knows?

yet loving hearts will find ways to build bridges, while those inclind to the excitement of violence will look for excuses for that as well.

i'm sure many parallels will be found between some or even many earth beliefs and those of our 'first contact (ers/ees, and its a lot more likely ers then ees, as it is we who will be the 'new kids' on an in all likelyhood, much older 'block', (and human egos are just going to have to get over and growup beyond that one)).

different faiths will be impacted differently, not just in degree but in entirely different ways.

faiths like baha'i, which sees all revealers of at least dominent organized beliefs as representatives of the same one god, will likely take it more or less in stride, that other worlds have their own revealers and faiths, ultimately from that same god in origen.

others, like buddhism and taoism, not focused on the concept of a single all powerful diefied personality, might likewise, hardly feel a ripple.

for massively popular fanatical personality cults, like christianity and islam, of course, that is where this gets to be another matter, whatever the beliefs of the nonhuman and nonhuman looking people from otherworlds might also have or not have.

and if baha'u'llah happened to have been right, one of several very real possibilities, our next devine outpouring might well be in the form of someone who appears to a multiplicity of worlds our earth will then be part of, as likely in the flesh of one world as another, and thus a very good chance of not being in form and appearance, our own.

=^^=
.../\...

don't for a moment imagine, that any sentient spiecies on any world, hasn't had at least some likelyhood of having evolved quite probably multiple systems of belief. after all, ANY world, capable of harbouring 'people'/beings, who create and inovate, is a very big and diverse place. every bit as much so as our own is or has ever been.

True, but depending on how they developed as a species, any such belief system could be radically different from anything even conceivable to the human mind.

Part of the reason why belief systems spring up is because they deal with the ultimate unknown, death. Belief systems help to serve as a cushion effect, effectively casting answers, even if they aren't empirical, on something that just about every single organism at a basic level fears.

What if, as old and advanced as this alien species is, they have transcended death? A way to cheat dying that utterly negates that underlying fear of death?

Would they have need of a belief system then? Who knows?

And more importantly, how would religion view such a thing? Immortal beings advanced beyond mortal understanding.


will the first individuals to contact our first individuals, be athiests, agnostics, or have as many beliefs as we have, of sorts we have yet to even begin to imagine? who knows?

Who knows indeed. They might even set themselves up as gods. Considering the technological advantage they have, advanced to the point of being magical, or divine. That might be interesting to see.


for massively popular fanatical personality cults, like christianity and islam, of course, that is where this gets to be another matter, whatever the beliefs of the nonhuman and nonhuman looking people from otherworlds might also have or not have.

That is more or less what I was focused on, seeing as how both religions like those are quite jealous about other religions, and tend to elevate themselves as chosen or favored in some way.

Part of the reason why belief systems spring up is because they deal with the ultimate unknown, death. Belief systems help to serve as a cushion effect, effectively casting answers, even if they aren't empirical, on something that just about every single organism at a basic level fears.


Now, people say that a lot but I honestly don't see it. There are a number of religions that really only pay minimal attention to death and the afterlife. Judaism is the first that comes to mind, but that's simply because I'm from a Jewish household. Many of the older pantheons, too, aren't really as concerned with death as they are with daily sustenance. You sacrifice to such and such because it makes shit grow and hunting plentiful, not because you want a good spot in the afterlife.

I think the reason belief systems really spring up is because the human mind (and, arguably, any sentient mind) requires causes and, short of a perfect understanding of the universe, some causes aren't going to be explainable. So I'd imagine any alien civilization to have some kind of religious system (or thirty).

Now, people say that a lot but I honestly don't see it. There are a number of religions that really only pay minimal attention to death and the afterlife. Judaism is the first that comes to mind, but that's simply because I'm from a Jewish household.


Eh, you've still got that afterlife thing going for Judaism anyway. It doesn't dwell on it overmuch, but it doesn't have to. A vague promise is a lot easier to get away with than one with a lot of well defined parameters.


Many of the older pantheons, too, aren't really as concerned with death as they are with daily sustenance. You sacrifice to such and such because it makes shit grow and hunting plentiful, not because you want a good spot in the afterlife.

If you're talking about the Greek/Roman mythos, they had Hades to take care of that. So yes, they still had something to deal with what happens when you die.


I think the reason belief systems really spring up is because the human mind (and, arguably, any sentient mind) requires causes and, short of a perfect understanding of the universe, some causes aren't going to be explainable. So I'd imagine any alien civilization to have some kind of religious system (or thirty).

This would only be for an alien civilization that is young by galactic standards. An alien civilization that has been around for almost as long as the galaxy would most likely have very, very, little left not to understand.

Mine would.

But then, I don't believe that god is a human, though I believe that she appears to us as such. I believe she'd appear to aliens as whatever they look like. I don't believe she has a physical form, I believe she's composed entirely of spirit, kind of a supreme soul. But enough about what I personally believe.

Could Christianity survive contact? Not without some pretty intense change/explanation, and lots of somewhat flimsy attempts at rationalizing.

How would the monotheistic religions, especially the ones which go along the lines of "God/Allah/Vishnu is almighty and look like us" cope?

They would probably fold up, and new religions would rise in their place, as always happens.

They would probably fold up, and new religions would rise in their place, as always happens.

Alien worshipping religions in 5, 4, 3, 2.......

it all depends if the Devilgirls of Mars allow us the freedom to have religion

In my personal experience, and through the experience of others that I have looked to for further information (through books, the net, etc), I have seen religion as an excuse to pretend the world is something it's not at best (see the US sothern states and their intelligent design) and at worst a violently destructive and restrictive force (see the 5~600 years of non-development in the middle ages and the religious fanatics stirring up trouble now).

Richard Dawkins wrote in his book "the god delusion" about the most likely biological reason that people would concoct a god in the first place. As you know people have a tendency to subconciously place an assumed human personality and intelligence on everything. "Everything" includes things as innocuous as the weather and as belligerant as the virus riddled computer in the foyer at work. My mate has an interesting approach to this concept and has settled on the idea that everything is out to kill him, he also purports that inanimate objects are the most violent. I don't see his reasoning there.

So, with that tendency it's no huge surprise that the first primitive peoples would give their erroniously perceived bogeymen names and personalities and families and all the rest. A god's gotta have a good social life too apparently~ And who's to say that life evolving on another world would also have developed the tendency to give natural phenomena and inanimate objects perceived personalities and the likes? They might rock up and think that the lot of us are all loons for even having thought of something so contrary to anything demonstrable.

As far as the original First Contact question is concerned I reckon that the first contact itself shouldn't have terribly much to do with religion at all, we'll all be busy with the actual finding out if we're in trouble or not bit, but any potential following cultural exchanges would be where beleif systems would be involved.

I apologise for any genuine spelling mistakes, i do not apologise for Australian english

Religions have survived pretty much every kind of actual evidence and disproof of their supernatural claims. They generally just roll with it and insist that it's all part of God's plan. Frankly, if the alien race who engineered humanity came to us with the specific blueprints and laid out the entire process, I'd still expect 60% of Americans to insist that God started us out in the Garden.

Religions have survived pretty much every kind of actual evidence and disproof of their supernatural claims. They generally just roll with it and insist that it's all part of God's plan. Frankly, if the alien race who engineered humanity came to us with the specific blueprints and laid out the entire process, I'd still expect 60% of Americans to insist that God started us out in the Garden.

God was just testing the aliens faith. And they failed. Quick, lets kill them all before they fail again!

I think Bottle has it right. We have had religion from pretty much the start, I guess it will always be with us.

The same way they cope with all other logic:

http://www.personneltoday.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=4678

So true!:p

The religious would find some way to bluff their way out of trouble, like they have with science. There are always idiots who'll believe anything.

How would the monotheistic religions, especially the ones which go along the lines of "God/Allah/Vishnu is almighty and look like us" cope?
Well the form guide suggests that, when confronted by objective evidence that doesn't fit in with their particular mythology, the major monotheistic religions will either:

i) ignore it
ii) deny it and persecute those who don't, or
iii) accept it, but squeeze it into their belief system so that people keep listening to them.

In this hypothetical situation, against the backdrop of current general knowledge and widespread accessibility to non-religious sources of information that has rendered the first 2 options nigh-on impossible for them, I suspect that they'd plump for option iii) and attempt to place the new information somewhere that fitted with their worldview in some way.

You have to hand it to them... they are persistent, if nothing else.

It'll just become not as mainstream nas it is now.

If it ever happened it would be interesting to see if they ever sinned or they are still perfect like adam was.

Current, if not historic, Roman Catholic thought on the subject seems to be open to the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. See, e.g., Kenneth Delano, Many Worlds, One God (1977) [cite: http://books.google.com/books?id=sk51eo3fKEgC&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=catholic+church+position+extraterrestrial+intelligence&source=web&ots=iKeljLBuZT&sig=WKW2hk6Pl1X0FVUSaIK9XTbCApQ ], also Douglas Vakoch, SETI Institute, “Roman Catholic Views of Extraterrestrial Intelligence” [cite: http://ieti.org/tough/books/succeeds/sectVp11.pdf ]

The possibility of superior extraterrestrials not in need of redemption was also discussed by Vakoch, see p. 172: "Several priests considered the implications that would follow from other civilizations not being in need of redemption. A priest from Illinois suggested, “Perhaps there is a race of intelligent beings out there who have never fallen from grace and who have made very great technological progress over many thousands of years.” Similarly, another priest concluded, “if you placed ‘Intelligent life on other planets’ and these beings ‘obeyed’ Him then such beings would be inexplicably more intelligent than us and far more scientifically advanced. ” One priest suggested that extraterrestrials not in need of redemption would be so different from sinful humans that there might be problems in understanding one another: “any form of communication with, association with, or even minimal contact with [them] would be impossible in this material existence; they being so vastly different— their very life would be unintelligible to us and us to them.”

The Catholic Church, or at least certain factions within it, would thus seem to be more open-minded on the issue than certain sniggering unbelievers, and in no danger of disappearing once the LGM's arrive ;)

Well the form guide suggests that, when confronted by objective evidence that doesn't fit in with their particular mythology, the major monotheistic religions will either:

i) ignore it
ii) deny it and persecute those who don't, or
iii) accept it, but squeeze it into their belief system so that people keep listening to them.

In this hypothetical situation, against the backdrop of current general knowledge and widespread accessibility to non-religious sources of information that has rendered the first 2 options nigh-on impossible for them, I suspect that they'd plump for option iii) and attempt to place the new information somewhere that fitted with their worldview in some way.

You have to hand it to them... they are persistent, if nothing else.

What if the aliens bring along their own religion? Will it replace the Terran ones? What will current religious institutions hold on to if they lose their followers?

How would the monotheistic religions, especially the ones which go along the lines of "God/Allah/Vishnu is almighty and look like us" cope?

Well, if we assume God is omnipotent, then one would think it would be within His power to, y'know, change shape and suchlike.
Maybe He just decided not to include that in the bible sisnce there wasnt a Hebrew/Greek/Latin word for 'Giant Space Slug'. Plus it probably wouldnt've been very good PR. I mean, he had to compete with Zeus and all, and Zeus turned into all sorts of cool shit. I mean, he's got bulls, geese, various household impliments. Just imagine if some early Christian was faced with a Zeus worshipper and had to answer the, "Oh yeah, well what can YOUR god turn into?" question knowing that.

Just imagine if some early Christian was faced with a Zeus worshipper and had to answer the, "Oh yeah, well what can YOUR god turn into?" question knowing that.And all he could answer was "a dry slice of bread".

I am as monotheistic as they come but even I question whether there is one Lord of this earth and or solar system alone, or if at some point there are other lords of other huge astronomical areas.

I think that it would be great to meet aliens and have conversations with them about faith and religion.

I do not think that the Bible is incompatible with the idea of aliens. It is just silent on the whole issue methinks.

All of them would survive.

After all there is a new batch of souls to convert and save!

What if the aliens bring along their own religion? Will it replace the Terran ones? What will current religious institutions hold on to if they lose their followers?
I suppose that the answer to that would depend very much on the nature of the religion that they brought with them.

If it was yet another form of 'revealed' theology, predicated on the idea that some group or individual in their past had received direct instructions in the faith by some supreme being, then I suspect that my original suspicions would hold, and the terran monotheistic lot would manage to somehow accommodate it as a different take on their own faith.

I've never really given any thought to what would happen if it was some other kind of religion because, at the end of the day, it's all a big 'meh' for me. In my worldview the whole 'what if?' game pales in comparison to the 'this is how X is, why is that?' and 'how does that work?' that natural phenomena throw up everywhere we look. :)

Judaism would probably say, "Oh, G-d created other worlds as well. That's totally awesome, but exactly how does that affect our religion?"

The real problem would come when an alien wants to convert to Judaism. I do not envy the rabbis who get to deal with that problem. The number of laws that would have to be altered is immense.

Some rabbis have theorized that G-d might have given the Torah to other species. If the aliens had an alien Torah, I think Judaism would gain a lot of converts. Some would suggest that aliens were responsible for the miracles - they transmitted their religion to Earth - but many more would be convinced that if the aliens are also Jewish, then Judaism is correct.

Judaism would probably say, "Oh, G-d created other worlds as well. That's totally awesome, but exactly how does that affect our religion?"

The real problem would come when an alien wants to convert to Judaism. I do not envy the rabbis who get to deal with that problem. The number of laws that would have to be altered is immense.

Some rabbis have theorized that G-d might have given the Torah to other species. If the aliens had an alien Torah, I think Judaism would gain a lot of converts. Some would suggest that aliens were responsible for the miracles - they transmitted their religion to Earth - but many more would be convinced that if the aliens are also Jewish, then Judaism is correct.Jews in space, huh? Nimoy says that's Vulcans. Makes Andorians sympathetic, doesn't it?

This has to do with the argument from first cause and I've yet to see a valid logical counter to it (the infinite regression nonsense is...well, nonsense and easily countered).

What about Quantum? Quantum doesn't need causes, which Hume (different arguement) disputes anyway.

The universe could have been created spontaniously from nothing, as the positive energy of mass cancels out the negative energy of gravity, making it energy neural, net. Pure nothingness decays into soemthing with a half-life of one planck unit (very quickly!), and so is incredibly likely to produce soemthing pritty damn quickly. Like a universe.

Jews in space, huh? Nimoy says that's Vulcans. Makes Andorians sympathetic, doesn't it?

http://www.showmii.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/zoidberg.jpg
Shalom

I'm not convinced aliens would want to contact us while we still have religion.

I'm not convinced aliens would want to contact us while we still have religion.

You never know. There might be anthropologists among them who want to see what the primitive local natives are like.

What about Quantum? Quantum doesn't need causes, which Hume (different arguement) disputes anyway.

The universe could have been created spontaniously from nothing, as the positive energy of mass cancels out the negative energy of gravity, making it energy neural, net. Pure nothingness decays into soemthing with a half-life of one planck unit (very quickly!), and so is incredibly likely to produce soemthing pritty damn quickly. Like a universe.

Right, so you make up a 'scientific' idea that is basically 'Well, we either say that it happened without reason, or cause, or we admit that there might be a creator of some sort.'

It's funny how at the lines of extremity the left and right (politically) seem to meet, and how the reasonlessly religious, and the 'reason-only' scientific also seem to meet....

Everything can be explained easily, if we need not issue causes.

anyone who has read the mass effect novel, i made a pretty good assumption. The death of some religions wth the replacments of other "outside influence" based religions. Some religion ignore it as secular tricks and others ry to bend their faith to fit ETs

The universe could have been created spontaniously from nothing

This might well be the single worst attempt at a 'scientific' explanation of anything I have ever heard. The very word 'science' makes that theory incompatible with it, as well as what science is. That statement alone is one of the biggest professions of faith I have ever heard as there seems to be no reasonable cause to think that without cause anyhting at all would happen, much less anything on the scale of a universe (or even the existence of any matter at all, in that case).

EDIT: No offense....

It would also be interesting if these aliens had been watching Earth for thousands of years and showed us our true history. Would be interesting if they proved the prophets as mere madman.

Jabba is a Hutt. There is no species "Jabba the Hutts". They're called Hutts and they think they're gods.

Right, so you make up a 'scientific' idea that is basically 'Well, we either say that it happened without reason, or cause, or we admit that there might be a creator of some sort.'

It's funny how at the lines of extremity the left and right (politically) seem to meet, and how the reasonlessly religious, and the 'reason-only' scientific also seem to meet....

Everything can be explained easily, if we need not issue causes.

No, the difference is that science is looking at possibilities, hence the word 'could' - it doesn't provide definitive answers to an as yet unanswerable question.

The difference is that religion states what happened absolutely.

It would also be interesting if these aliens had been watching Earth for thousands of years and showed us our true history. Would be interesting if they proved the prophets as mere madman.

I'd imagine if they somehow had indisputable video recordings of various religious figures throughout history, the more fanatical of the religious groups would dismiss it as falsifications, sort of like the flat earthers and images of earth from space.

Jabba is a Hutt. There is no species "Jabba the Hutts". They're called Hutts and they think they're gods.

Oh I know, but I figured Jabba was a better acquainted name than just a plain Hutt.

No, the difference is that science is looking at possibilities, hence the word 'could' - it doesn't provide definitive answers to an as yet unanswerable question.

The difference is that religion states what happened absolutely.

Thanks for the gross generalization, but my religious beliefs do not say with any certainty what, or how anything was created, save that God's Hand was intricately involved. Example: If literal six-day Creation happened, well, it's pretty easy to see God in that one. If some form of slow 'big-bang'-esque process that caused the universe to slowly form into what it is, then it would have been so at the behest, and shaping of God.

Similarly, did we evolve? A lot of evidence supports that, but that means it can still be far from the truth, should we have evolved, no doubt God's hand was likewise in that, crafting us humans into what we are.

The reason for my not really caring 'how' everything happened (in how it pertains to my religious belief in any case, I would say I'm quite interested in finding out what happened, btu that is a general curiosity issue) is that my faith in Christ need not be contingent on whether or not there are aliens, or how exactly the Earth was formed.

It seems that the idea of 'something from nothing for no particular reason' is a stretch for scientifically religious, hey whatever, just so long as you relaize that our mutual faith in the unempirical (at the moment in any case) brings us close together in that science comes no where near explaining either idea... somehow the universe came into existence and was formed, but any idea even remotely must be faith, and I respect all would realize that it is faith, and not 'above' faith merely because it touts the title of 'scientific'

I for one, welcome our new Hutt Overlords!

Thanks for the gross generalization, but my religious beliefs do not say with any certainty what, or how anything was created, save that God's Hand was intricately involved. Example: If literal six-day Creation happened, well, it's pretty easy to see God in that one. If some form of slow 'big-bang'-esque process that caused the universe to slowly form into what it is, then it would have been so at the behest, and shaping of God.

Similarly, did we evolve? A lot of evidence supports that, but that means it can still be far from the truth, should we have evolved, no doubt God's hand was likewise in that, crafting us humans into what we are.

The reason for my not really caring 'how' everything happened (in how it pertains to my religious belief in any case, I would say I'm quite interested in finding out what happened, btu that is a general curiosity issue) is that my faith in Christ need not be contingent on whether or not there are aliens, or how exactly the Earth was formed.

It seems that the idea of 'something from nothing for no particular reason' is a stretch for scientifically religious, hey whatever, just so long as you relaize that our mutual faith in the unempirical (at the moment in any case) brings us close together in that science comes no where near explaining either idea... somehow the universe came into existence and was formed, but any idea even remotely must be faith, and I respect all would realize that it is faith, and not 'above' faith merely because it touts the title of 'scientific'

The certainty is that God did it.

All science says is 'not necessarily'. More than that, it can show testable, workable and consistent reasons for how the universe has formed beyond the initial cause.

Look at this paragraph for the difference in thinking...

Similarly, did we evolve? A lot of evidence supports that, but that means it can still be far from the truth, should we have evolved, no doubt God's hand was likewise in that, crafting us humans into what we are.

You putting 'no doubt' on something for which there's no evidence and questioning something that has 'a lot of evidence'.

That's okay, the point of science is to question rather than say 'no doubt'.

Actually i would use the chance as a scientific opportunity to study what an alien face of incredulity looks like after we try to explain to it all the complete bullshit most of us believe in.

You putting 'no doubt' on something for which there's no evidence and questioning something that has 'a lot of evidence'.

That's okay, the point of science is to question rather than say 'no doubt'.

Right, those reflect religious beliefs there buck-o. What did I question? In fact questioning is what I am not do... wondering about? Sure. Questioning? Nope. Also, there is plenty of evidence, even should it be only internal, in fact, to me, and in my own mind, the existence, and involvement of God is proven. Can I prove it in turn to you? Nope, however, it has been proven to me, not empirically... but what can I do about that right?

If anything, it would strengthen the faiths of people on Earth. Think about it: if this ultra-advanced race which had nothing in common with our own save the fact they were capable of intelligent thought believed in an all-powerful sentient being, wouldn't that be somewhat reassuring? Besides, the fact that they'd see him as a "slug" wouldn't bother me- throughout the ages God has appeared in different ways at different times to different people (see the Burning Bush- probably wouldn't make much sense to them).

Can I prove it in turn to you? Nope, however, it has been proven to me, not empirically... but what can I do about that right?

That's where science and faith go their separate ways. Science says "this could be so" and shows it to all and sundry. It does not rely on perceptions or faith to be so. Faith says "this is so" but cannot show it to anyone. It relies on the trust of the person to be so.


If anything, it would strengthen the faiths of people on Earth. Think about it: if this ultra-advanced race which had nothing in common with our own save the fact they were capable of intelligent thought believed in an all-powerful sentient being, wouldn't that be somewhat reassuring? Besides, the fact that they'd see him as a "slug" wouldn't bother me- throughout the ages God has appeared in different ways at different times to different people (see the Burning Bush- probably wouldn't make much sense to them).

They wouldn't necessarily be religious, and if they did, they might not proscribe to a basic monotheistic religion of an all powerful being.

Right, those reflect religious beliefs there buck-o. What did I question? In fact questioning is what I am not do... wondering about? Sure. Questioning? Nope. Also, there is plenty of evidence, even should it be only internal, in fact, to me, and in my own mind, the existence, and involvement of God is proven. Can I prove it in turn to you? Nope, however, it has been proven to me, not empirically... but what can I do about that right?

...with apologies to Marrakech II...

See this picture (http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c179/KilliansPub/100_1603.jpg)? See the T-shirt worn by the kid on the right?

That's my response.

The one likely to survive the best would be that most pragmatic of religions, Buddhism.






Yes, I stole that from Childhood's End, so sue me. Arthur C. Clarke rocks.

...with apologies to Marrakech II...



lol....np

It seems to me that you're working on the common misconception that religion is primarily made to explain the universe. As a religious man, I can tell you it has nothing to do with that. The interpretations might change, as they already often have, but religion has far more to do with discovery of your own self then it does with discovery of the stars, has more to do with how you see the world and those around you then the mechanical forces that make it up and the chemicals around you. Indeed, if the aliens were themselves religious, some notes might be exchanged, but things would be fundamentally the same, while if they weren't, they would be ignored, or perhaps even hated and viewed as soulless and infidel by believers.

It seems to me that you're working on the common misconception that religion is primarily made to explain the universe. As a religious man, I can tell you it has nothing to do with that. The interpretations might change, as they already often have, but religion has far more to do with discovery of your own self then it does with discovery of the stars, has more to do with how you see the world and those around you then the mechanical forces that make it up and the chemicals around you. Indeed, if the aliens were themselves religious, some notes might be exchanged, but things would be fundamentally the same, while if they weren't, they would be ignored, or perhaps even hated and viewed as soulless and infidel by believers.

If an alien perspective differed greatly from whatever was dominant (so - at the moment, basically Abrahamic monotheism) a quick review of our history suggests someone is going to get their brains (tentacles?) bashed out.

Athiesm is the specific belief, through faith, that there is no supreme being. Not believing that supremem being(s) exist, is having faith, that supreme beings do not exist.

Merely because atheists often feel like they are covered by a veil of impenetrable logic, they belief just as faith-based an idea as any religion.


No. It's getting really tiresome watching people play games with language and twist the meanings of words in order to muddy the water and obscure the debate. "Faith" is defined in the dictionary as "belief that is not based on proof." That is the active presence of belief in the passive absence of proof. It is not the absence of belief in the absence of proof. If I tell you that there's a giant panda chewing at your jugular and there isn't, then it doesn't require "faith" on your part for you to tell me I'm spouting nonsense. You aren't required to prove that I'm wrong because the absence of proof discredits my assertion, even if I "believe"- even if I have some kind of faith- that it's true. If I can't prove the existence of the thing that I claim is true, then my claim is unsubstantiated and I'm unjustified in expecting anyone else to share it.

The burden of evidence isn't on atheists to disprove the existence of what theists claim does exist in the absence of proof. The burden of evidence is on the person who says- in the absence of proof- that "this thing exists and it matters." If you can't demonstrate that it's real then it doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No. It's getting really tiresome watching people play games with language and twist the meanings of words in order to muddy the water and obscure the debate. "Faith" is defined in the dictionary as "belief that is not based on proof." That is the active presence of belief in the passive absence of proof. It is not the absence of belief in the absence of proof. If I tell you that there's a giant panda chewing at your jugular and there isn't, then it doesn't require "faith" on your part for you to tell me I'm spouting nonsense. You aren't required to prove that I'm wrong because the absence of proof discredits my assertion, even if I "believe"- even if I have some kind of faith- that it's true. If I can't prove the existence of the thing that I claim is true, then my claim is unsubstantiated and I'm unjustified in expecting anyone else to share it.

The burden of evidence isn't on atheists to disprove the existence of what theists claim does exist in the absence of proof. The burden of evidence is on the person who says- in the absence of proof- that "this thing exists and it matters." If you can't demonstrate that it's real then it doesn't matter to anyone but you.

That makes me think - all the time people say "I know god exists, it's been proved to me" (or some close equivalent)... that's not really what they mean, is it?

What they actually mean is - "I'm convinced that there is a god, but it is absolutely not any kind of comment on the overall nature of reality - I could just be taking too much cold medication"

They use linux. :p

Those bastards! :sniper:

Actually i would use the chance as a scientific opportunity to study what an alien face of incredulity looks like after we try to explain to it all the complete bullshit most of us believe in.

Mega- :fluffle:

All of them would survive.

After all there is a new batch of souls to convert and save!

Uhnow, our deflector shields are useless against phorton torpedoes, and we really need your support on this one, folks. Here at the 600 Club we need your money to spread the Word of Jesus, and build more advanced deflector shields for our galactic cruiser. Call now, and we'll give you this free pin.

:D