UFO/Aliens

[MCDavis]

I think there are some things science can explain and others science never will. There is more to this world then what appears and unless you've had some personal experiences in that regard you will never understand. Just remember..... The scientists gave us "Global Warming"...

And (true) religion is not man's way of controlling other men, it's a plan for all men to live together on this planet without killing each other off.

Well said, wbl.

 

[Wi-Golfer]

Who defines what true religion is?
Which of these following religions is a "true" one? And why or why not?

Mormons
Catholics
Lutherns
Muslims
Moonies
Scientology
David Koresh followers

 

[Eracer]

Who defines what true religion is?
Which of these following religions is a "true" one? And why or why not?

Mormons
Catholics
Lutherns
Muslims
Moonies
Scientology
David Koresh followers

Here you go. "True Religion" by Hot Tuna.

YouTube - Hot Tuna - True Religion

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Your argument works fine in the limited context of the macroscopic world.

Quantum physics is revealing that in the realm of the sub-atomic, there is no existence, only probability, until an observation occurs. The act of perceiving creates the reality. So who are we to say what's "real?"

In fact, quantum physics is showing us that the world can indeed be what we wish it to be, and that causality is an illusion.

Who knows how far the rabbit hole goes? Which is exactly my point. To adopt the view that any knowledge is absolute denies the fact that new discoveries create new understandings as much as they destroy old ones.

I think you're genuinely misunderstanding. If there is "no existence" then there is obviously no observation-- there would be nothing to observe. Something doesn't come out of nothing.

Perception does NOT create reality; think outside the box. Without perception, YOU would not be aware of reality, but YOU are only one being in this reality. Reality exists whether you choose to accept it or not. For example, you could be shot without ever seeing, hearing, or being aware of the gunman. You will die or be seriously hurt when the bullet hits you regardless of whether or not you PERCEIVED it.

New discoveries that "destroy" old ones just illustrate the poor logic and irrational thinking that was used in days before science. If a statement is truly rational and proper, then new information only makes a previous statement more precise. In rare occasions, a seemingly good idea (which was likely based on a correlation rather than true causality) can be destroyed, but only be an idea which we KNOW is better. How can any idea be better than any other if you can never really KNOW anything, Eracer?

This is the sort of BS that gets talked about in colleges, nowadays. Man is blind because he has eyes, deaf because he has ears, and destined to know nothing because he has a mind. It's bunk. If you have a proper understanding of concept formation (MANY people don't) then you're not ever in the dark. You understand logic, the onus of proof, and other rational necessities.

I recently read an essay on the Primacy of Consciousness, and it's basically an idea that stems from seeing the world as it revolves around ONE person. Well, it doesn't. Perception is not reality, because without reality, there would be nothing to perceive. Try building a skyscraper without the first 30 floors, and you'll have a better understanding of "perception is reality".

 

[SilverUberXeno]

I think there are some things science can explain and others science never will. There is more to this world then what appears and unless you've had some personal experiences in that regard you will never understand. Just remember..... The scientists gave us "Global Warming"...

And (true) religion is not man's way of controlling other men, it's a plan for all men to live together on this planet without killing each other off.

Global warming is bad science + propaganda, WBL. It's not real science. UNLESS you're referring to the natural warming and cooling cycles that the Earth has gone through, and will keep going through for the remainder of its "life." REAL science illustrates this by examining glacial cores. It's very neat.

 

[Eracer]

I think you're genuinely misunderstanding. If there is "no existence" then there is obviously no observation-- there would be nothing to observe. Something doesn't come out of nothing.

Perception does NOT create reality; think outside the box. Without perception, YOU would not be aware of reality, but YOU are only one being in this reality. Reality exists whether you choose to accept it or not. For example, you could be shot without ever seeing, hearing, or being aware of the gunman. You will die or be seriously hurt when the bullet hits you regardless of whether or not you PERCEIVED it.

New discoveries that "destroy" old ones just illustrate the poor logic and irrational thinking that was used in days before science. If a statement is truly rational and proper, then new information only makes a previous statement more precise. In rare occasions, a seemingly good idea (which was likely based on a correlation rather than true causality) can be destroyed, but only be an idea which we KNOW is better. How can any idea be better than any other if you can never really KNOW anything, Eracer?

This is the sort of BS that gets talked about in colleges, nowadays. Man is blind because he has eyes, deaf because he has ears, and destined to know nothing because he has a mind. It's bunk. If you have a proper understanding of concept formation (MANY people don't) then you're not ever in the dark. You understand logic, the onus of proof, and other rational necessities.

I recently read an essay on the Primacy of Consciousness, and it's basically an idea that stems from seeing the world as it revolves around ONE person. Well, it doesn't. Perception is not reality, because without reality, there would be nothing to perceive. Try building a skyscraper without the first 30 floors, and you'll have a better understanding of "perception is reality".

Sorry, but I can't carry on a sophomoric discussion. You tell me to "think outside the box," yet refuse to even try to understand anything beyond your preconceived notions. Live in Schrodinger's box if you want to.

End of discussion on my side, my man.

 

[DaveE]

Who defines what true religion is?
Which of these following religions is a "true" one? And why or why not?

Mormons
Catholics
Lutherns
Muslims
Moonies
Scientology
David Koresh followers

Not sure you can connect the existence of God with religion. Religion is man's creation.

I grew up in a fairly religious family and I just see religion as a way for people who believe in God to express and share that belief.

 

[Clugnut]

Curious; how do you justify the righteousness if your religion versus, say, violent Islam? Since neither one is based on proof or science, it's just a "I'd rather believe this," right?

Well, I'm not driving to NY to cut your head off for bashing religion. I believe that would be a difference. I would struggle to justify righteousness to someone who has no context for it. Where do you draw "righteousness" from?

Interesting read but one can never explain spiritual things with finite minds. It's like asking my four year old to take my Professional Engineering exam. He isn't ready. Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it does NOT exist. It's like asking someone to describe the feeling of being in love, or the taste of something bitter. We don't really understand, we just use our limited vocabulary and finite minds to reason with ourselves until we feel comfortable.

Well stated. I feel the same.

I think there are some things science can explain and others science never will. There is more to this world then what appears and unless you've had some personal experiences in that regard you will never understand. Just remember..... The scientists gave us "Global Warming"...

And (true) religion is not man's way of controlling other men, it's a plan for all men to live together on this planet without killing each other off.

Again, thank you. Well put.

Global warming is bad science + propaganda, WBL. It's not real science. UNLESS you're referring to the natural warming and cooling cycles that the Earth has gone through, and will keep going through for the remainder of its "life." REAL science illustrates this by examining glacial cores. It's very neat.

Bad science is still science. How can you tell bad science from good science? Scientists use data and findings to prove things one way or another. How do you know when its junk science or real? Do you use your gut instinct? Or do you know it when you see it?

Again, I will return to my Stephen Hawking example. Someone has decided this man is the smartest guy ever, so when he comes out with a theory, it is the gospel truth. His black hole theory was "science" for 20 years, until he reviewed it and changed it. Now the new theory is "truth". Well, what was/is the old "truth"?

People of faith call it faith. Scientists call it theory. Something you think is right, but is yet unproven. Science and faith could learn so much from each other. They can be amazingly similar at times.

 

[Eracer]

People of faith call it faith. Scientists call it theory. Something you think is right, but is yet unproven. Science and faith could learn so much from each other. They can be amazingly similar at times.

The essential difference is that faith accepts dogma (theory) as truth, while science constantly tests its theories and refines them. Science is perfectly willing to throw out old theories if better ones are found. Faith is absolute.

What religion would ever discard its God? Most people still think Jesus was a white man.

 

[Clugnut]

The essential difference is that faith accepts dogma (theory) as truth, while science constantly tests its theories and refines them. Science is perfectly willing to throw out old theories if better ones are found. Faith is absolute.

What religion would ever discard its God? Most people still think Jesus was a white man.

Accepted. Although, I'm not sure that science is always willing to throw away old theories. Science maybe, but those behind the science? Not so sure.


Oh, and the people thinking Jesus was a white man. That made me laugh. Good one. Unfortunately, someone painted a picture that portrayed Jesus as white, and that is the picture people use when they think of Jesus. Common sense would tell you Jesus was middle eastern.

 

[Eracer]

Accepted. Although, I'm not sure that science is always willing to throw away old theories. Science maybe, but those behind the science? Not so sure.

That is true. All people have a strong need to cling to that which they believe; scientists are no exception.

Oh, and the people thinking Jesus was a white man. That made me laugh. Good one. Unfortunately, someone painted a picture that portrayed Jesus as white, and that is the picture people use when they think of Jesus. Common sense would tell you Jesus was middle eastern.

Sure glad he wasn't a Muslim...

 

[DaveE]

The essential difference is that faith accepts dogma (theory) as truth, while science constantly tests its theories and refines them. Science is perfectly willing to throw out old theories if better ones are found. Faith is absolute.

What religion would ever discard its God? Most people still think Jesus was a white man.

Discarding God would be discarding the search for truth. What scientist would do that. Religion, while I'm not a huge fan, does change over time and they're not always as closed minded as people like to say.

When I was a kid we were regulars and even in the 70s, our preacher, Baptist by the way, gave a series of sermons on the compatibility of creationism and evolution. Not exactly a total acceptance of dogma.

His son was my best friend so I knew him very well and believe me, he never wavered on his belief in God but he was open to the idea that religion could be wrong. Even his. Of course I'm sure not all churches are like this.

The absolute truth is that none of us will know if God is real or imagined until we die.

I'll bet we can agree on not being in a hurry to find out.

 

[ezra76]

I thought I saw a UFO but it was really a blimp out at night.

I don't believe any aliens have visited but they could have. Definitely must be other planets with the conditions to support life, whether or not intelligent is another story.

If man came from apes, why are there still apes?

 

[Eracer]

I thought I saw a UFO but it was really a blimp out at night.

I don't believe any aliens have visited but they could have. Definitely must be other planets with the conditions to support life, whether or not intelligent is another story.

If man came from apes, why are there still apes?

We didn't evolve from the other apes. We evolved from a common, closely-related ancestor. The other currently existing apes besides man were all successful species. Man evolved - and is continuing to evolve - according to the evolutionary path of our own branch of the phylogenic tree.

 

[ezra76]

We didn't evolve from the other apes. We evolved from a common, closely-related ancestor. The other currently existing apes besides man were all successful species. Man evolved - and is continuing to evolve - according to the evolutionary path of our own branch of the phylogenic tree.

How far have we really come from throwing feces at each other and sitting in a tree masturbating all day?