What is the difference between believing in Aliens and believing in God?

[Moonbeam]

The real problem is that we could meet aliens or the supreme being every day of the week and never know it.

Aside from believing what we see and seeing what we believe there is the truth.

 

[tooltime]

uh, religion?

 

[Abraxas]

I don't know if this has been brought up, it possibly has but I don't have the time to read through the entire thread at the moment. One difference between believing in God and believing in extra-terrestrial life is that we know that in the universe, conidtions can exist for life. We know this because we see sufficient conditions for life having been met on Earth. What exists outside the universe, and this goes for God and any metaphysicals, it beyond our measure, beyond our observation, and beyond our understanding. We know life can exist in the universe, we haven't clue one what exists outside it. This is why it is less unscientific to believe in aliens, we know the phenomena of life can exist, we have no way of knowing if the phenomena God can exist.

 

[SlitheryDee]

It seems to me that we accept the fact that intelligent aliens might be so wildly different from us that we may not be able to even identify them as living things, let alone understand them. Those who believe in a god(s) generally think that their god(s) is so beyond them that they cannot understand his motivations e.g. "God works in mysterious ways". Yet we draw a definite line between God and aliens, when it would seem as though both are equally alien to us. In fact, the idea that god is an alien would not be very well accepted in most religious circles. The truth is the same religious circles often paint the picture of a fantastically powerful god who is more truly incomprehensible by definition than our most outlandish dreams about aliens.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I personally don't see a problem with the existance of a God and aliens. I do have a problem with believing that we are just some glorified chemical reaction. My guts just tell me that isn't right, so I'm able to make the "leap of faith" required to believe in an omni-potent being of some kind. Exactly what that is, I have no idea and no need to know. I also think that man has outgrown any religion that is so set in stone that it can't tolerate any dissent.

I think that not only are we the result of millions (or some other large denomination) of consecutive chemical reactions but that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM was in any way glorified.

And as far as I'm concerned, your welcome to believe whatever your little heart desires. By the nature of your answer I'm assuming your an atheist? If so, I'd like to ask you a question. If we could fast forward in time and watch you dying on your deathbed, do you think you just might change your mind at the last minute and decide to believe in a God?

I hear many people talk big about not believing in God, but how many really go to their death still denying the exsistance of a god?? It seems to me that someone saying their athiest is many times just bravado on their part and somehow implies that they are smarter then us dumb believers. I always wonder if it is just a convinient opnion for them at the time and they know they can always change their mind later or if they are really so sure they are right??.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

How about this for size...

God neither exists nor does not exist.

And no it isn't as deep or stupid as you might think, its simple really. It doesn't matter whether or not God exists. We can justify behavior philosophically, and everyone on the planet seems to have some agreement on basic morals (no killing, stealing, etc.) So I mean why oh why does it matter if there is a God or not? Think of it this way, if you are a good person you will continue to be a good person regardless of if there is a god, but if you are not a good person you will be bad if there is not a god. And frankly if you are gonna be bad if all the sudden there is not a god, you are probably already bad right now.

So... if we can agree on a set of ethics without religion, and good people will continue to be good with or without a god then someone please tell me why we have to be so concerned about it?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
And as far as I'm concerned, your welcome to believe whatever your little heart desires. By the nature of your answer I'm assuming your an atheist? If so, I'd like to ask you a question. If we could fast forward in time and watch you dying on your deathbed, do you think you just might change your mind at the last minute and decide to believe in a God?

I hear many people talk big about not believing in God, but how many really go to their death still denying the exsistance of a god?? It seems to me that someone saying their athiest is many times just bravado on their part and somehow implies that they are smarter then us dumb believers. I always wonder if it is just a convinient opnion for them at the time and they know they can always change their mind later or if they are really so sure they are right??.

I hope that I don't...but I can't guarantee it. My only hope is that sheer desperation doesn't overpower my ability to think clearly.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
How about this for size...

God neither exists nor does not exist.

And no it isn't as deep or stupid as you might think, its simple really. It doesn't matter whether or not God exists. We can justify behavior philosophically, and everyone on the planet seems to have some agreement on basic morals (no killing, stealing, etc.) So I mean why oh why does it matter if there is a God or not? Think of it this way, if you are a good person you will continue to be a good person regardless of if there is a god, but if you are not a good person you will be bad if there is not a god. And frankly if you are gonna be bad if all the sudden there is not a god, you are probably already bad right now.

So... if we can agree on a set of ethics without religion, and good people will continue to be good with or without a god then someone please tell me why we have to be so concerned about it?

Because without threat of force, many are not inclined to lead ethical lives. Since many people don't fear death, an appeal to divinity may be required to cow them into submission.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
How about this for size...

God neither exists nor does not exist.

And no it isn't as deep or stupid as you might think, its simple really. It doesn't matter whether or not God exists. We can justify behavior philosophically, and everyone on the planet seems to have some agreement on basic morals (no killing, stealing, etc.) So I mean why oh why does it matter if there is a God or not? Think of it this way, if you are a good person you will continue to be a good person regardless of if there is a god, but if you are not a good person you will be bad if there is not a god. And frankly if you are gonna be bad if all the sudden there is not a god, you are probably already bad right now.

So... if we can agree on a set of ethics without religion, and good people will continue to be good with or without a god then someone please tell me why we have to be so concerned about it?

This is a good post and a honest question. Hopefully I can justify it.

The answer IMO is that everyone believes in some type of God or gods, whether they choose to recognize it or not. Whether they are a good person or a bad person depends on whether or not they believe in good gods or bad gods. Whether or not they believe in hope or despair, you might say.

Too many people when they hear the word "god" think only of religion and the Christian god, and don't realize that they have surrounded themselves with their own personal gods. My joke (and I think I've already used it in this thread) is that "God is a lucky rabbit's foot". God is whatever there is outside you that you think can save you, especially when it obviously can't. Diet pills that say you don't have to change your lifestyle to lose weight are a god. Money is a god. Aliens are god. Government is god. Our emotions are god.

Whether God as described in the Bible (or any other holy book) actually exists or not really isn't the issue. His existence or non-existence is entirely independent of whether we believe in Him or not. He is or is not. No amount of faith will make Him more real than any amount of disbelief will make less real.
But the human concept of God... that's another thing entirely, and IMO what you are referring to. You can't just wish it away or pretend it doesn't exist. It will simply replaced with another god(s), some other thing outside you that you will irrationally believe will save you (or get you that promotion, or get you laid, or whatever).

Because what you think of your god(s) is what determines your worldview. People aren't good people just because they are magically good people. They're that what because what they believe in is good. And vice versa for the bad people. Because reality does not extend beyond your observation of it and everything else is belief.

So pick and choose your god(s) wisely. If you want my advice, try looking for one inside you instead of outside you. Shape your worldview around hope and that which you know to be good, and then treat everyone you meet as good as you can. Then that will become your god, and it will no longer be a lucky rabbit's foot -- that external thing you pray to to save you even when you know it can't -- but your internal capacity to love and appreciate your own existence, and thus the existence of others.

There, I think I'm gonna be done with this thread. At least for now.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Vic

So pick and choose your god(s) wisely. If you want my advice, try looking for one inside you instead of outside you. Shape your worldview around hope and that which you know to be good, and then treat everyone you meet as good as you can. Then that will become your god, and it will no longer be a lucky rabbit's foot -- that external thing you pray to to save you even when you know it can't -- but your internal capacity to love and appreciate your own existence, and thus the existence of others.

There, I think I'm gonna be done with this thread. At least for now.

Nice :thumbsup:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
How about this for size...

God neither exists nor does not exist.

And no it isn't as deep or stupid as you might think, its simple really. It doesn't matter whether or not God exists. We can justify behavior philosophically, and everyone on the planet seems to have some agreement on basic morals (no killing, stealing, etc.) So I mean why oh why does it matter if there is a God or not? Think of it this way, if you are a good person you will continue to be a good person regardless of if there is a god, but if you are not a good person you will be bad if there is not a god. And frankly if you are gonna be bad if all the sudden there is not a god, you are probably already bad right now.

So... if we can agree on a set of ethics without religion, and good people will continue to be good with or without a god then someone please tell me why we have to be so concerned about it?

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The point is that there is NO evidence for ANY theory regarding the formation of life from scratch. Thus, believing any of them is faith-based. In fact, I could even argue that the complete lack of evidence for abiogenesis, despite the continual supply of all the necessary ingredients, is in itself evidence of divine intervention.

"NO evidence" is a bit strong - there is some evidence or it wouldn't even be considered. See - that's the difference between science and religion - science is based on reasoning, evidence, testing. Religion is based on none of these things. You can call believing in science primarily "faith" but if this is the case it sure takes a lot less "faith" to believe in science than in religion. Just b/c we haven't been able to make abiogenesis happen in a lab doesn't mean something like it couldn't happen. It just means we haven't quite figured it out yet. This kind of gets me to my point:

believing in religion takes faith b/c it can't be tested or disproved.

believing in science doesn't b/c science is allowed to change and "believing" in it mostly just means accepting that these are the best models/explanations for the physical world that we have and they seem to work pretty well for now.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
How about this for size...

God neither exists nor does not exist.

And no it isn't as deep or stupid as you might think, its simple really. It doesn't matter whether or not God exists. We can justify behavior philosophically, and everyone on the planet seems to have some agreement on basic morals (no killing, stealing, etc.) So I mean why oh why does it matter if there is a God or not? Think of it this way, if you are a good person you will continue to be a good person regardless of if there is a god, but if you are not a good person you will be bad if there is not a god. And frankly if you are gonna be bad if all the sudden there is not a god, you are probably already bad right now.

So... if we can agree on a set of ethics without religion, and good people will continue to be good with or without a god then someone please tell me why we have to be so concerned about it?

Because without threat of force, many are not inclined to lead ethical lives. Since many people don't fear death, an appeal to divinity may be required to cow them into submission.

Good news for you. The ethical imperative is real with or without God because we have a human nature and not to live according to it is mentally ill. Mental illness is pain even when that pain is deeply buried. To lie cheat or kill is evil because it violates the self. Without self respect one is nothing and it is the feeling of being nothing that creates these acts. The evil person actually is in hell and karma is instant. The fact that they don't know it means nothing at all because the hell is real, known or not. Only the lover enters heaven. Virtue may be its only reward, but what a reward.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
"NO evidence" is a bit strong - there is some evidence or it wouldn't even be considered. See - that's the difference between science and religion - science is based on reasoning, evidence, testing. Religion is based on none of these things. You can call believing in science primarily "faith" but if this is the case it sure takes a lot less "faith" to believe in science than in religion. Just b/c we haven't been able to make abiogenesis happen in a lab doesn't mean something like it couldn't happen. It just means we haven't quite figured it out yet. This kind of gets me to my point:

believing in religion takes faith b/c it can't be tested or disproved.

believing in science doesn't b/c science is allowed to change and "believing" in it mostly just means accepting that these are the best models/explanations for the physical world that we have and they seem to work pretty well for now.

No, there is NO evidence. There are simply theories. Evidence is data in support of a theory, which we do not have. If we did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. All we can say right now is that there's a chance abiogenesis is true. It seems possible that, given all the raw components and nearly infinite time, they might randomly combine into life and that that life could subsequently evolve. This does not mean that this IS the truth - it's just one theory. As I've said time and again, you're confusing the ability to test a hypothesis with its validity. The two are completely unrelated.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
"NO evidence" is a bit strong - there is some evidence or it wouldn't even be considered. See - that's the difference between science and religion - science is based on reasoning, evidence, testing. Religion is based on none of these things. You can call believing in science primarily "faith" but if this is the case it sure takes a lot less "faith" to believe in science than in religion. Just b/c we haven't been able to make abiogenesis happen in a lab doesn't mean something like it couldn't happen. It just means we haven't quite figured it out yet. This kind of gets me to my point:

believing in religion takes faith b/c it can't be tested or disproved.

believing in science doesn't b/c science is allowed to change and "believing" in it mostly just means accepting that these are the best models/explanations for the physical world that we have and they seem to work pretty well for now.

No, there is NO evidence. There are simply theories. Evidence is data in support of a theory, which we do not have. If we did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. All we can say right now is that there's a chance abiogenesis is true. It seems possible that, given all the raw components and nearly infinite time, they might randomly combine into life and that that life could subsequently evolve. This does not mean that this IS the truth - it's just one theory. As I've said time and again, you're confusing the ability to test a hypothesis with its validity. The two are completely unrelated.

you seem to be contradicting yourself:

first you say that evidence is simply in support of a theory:
"Evidence is data in support of a theory"

and then you imply that evidence will be the end all to say a theory has a acceptable level of validity to be generally accepted in the scientific sense of the word:
"If we did (have evidence), then we wouldn't be having this conversation"

The supporting evidence would be the proper chemicals (or as you put it - "raw components") being present at the proper time. This is far from providing any kind of final answer on the subject of abiogenesis I'll agree but there is some supporting evidence for abiogensis (even though circumstantial). The idea isn't based on nothing at all.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
you seem to be contradicting yourself:

first you say that evidence is simply in support of a theory:
"Evidence is data in support of a theory"

and then you imply that evidence will be the end all to say a theory has a acceptable level of validity to be generally accepted in the scientific sense of the word:
"If we did (have evidence), then we wouldn't be having this conversation"

The supporting evidence would be the proper chemicals (or as you put it - "raw components") being present at the proper time. This is far from providing any kind of final answer on the subject of abiogenesis I'll agree but there is some supporting evidence for abiogensis (even though circumstantial). The idea isn't based on nothing at all.

:roll: If the evidence required to support a theory was merely the presence of the necessary components, then consider the following analogy. I was standing next to this girl yesterday, so she must be pregnant. After all, all the necessary components are there, right? You're ignoring the actual meat of the theory itself - that which discusses how these constituents come together to form life. Otherwise, I can say that life is created in 139057918357351 ways, as the necessary ingredients are there for any of these theories.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
you seem to be contradicting yourself:

first you say that evidence is simply in support of a theory:
"Evidence is data in support of a theory"

and then you imply that evidence will be the end all to say a theory has a acceptable level of validity to be generally accepted in the scientific sense of the word:
"If we did (have evidence), then we wouldn't be having this conversation"

The supporting evidence would be the proper chemicals (or as you put it - "raw components") being present at the proper time. This is far from providing any kind of final answer on the subject of abiogenesis I'll agree but there is some supporting evidence for abiogensis (even though circumstantial). The idea isn't based on nothing at all.

:roll: If the evidence required to support a theory was merely the presence of the necessary components, then consider the following analogy. I was standing next to this girl yesterday, so she must be pregnant. After all, all the necessary components are there, right? You're ignoring the actual meat of the theory itself - that which discusses how these constituents come together to form life. Otherwise, I can say that life is created in 139057918357351 ways, as the necessary ingredients are there for any of these theories.

the analogy isn't quite to the same degree - if the girl had a bit of a belly and was of a normal age to be having children then I would say it's more similar. Maybe she's overweight but maybe she's pregnant. There is some evidence that points to her being pregnant but it's def not final.

I think you are making abiogensis out to be a lot weaker idea than it really is. It requires no faith to see that it's possible or contains some amount of truth. God on the other hand requires faith entirely. This is a substantial difference. If someone were to say - abiogensis is right on and that's that - that requires some faith. But to agree that it stands a reasonable chance of being on the right track and working from there is what science is all about.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I think you are making abiogensis out to be a lot weaker idea than it really is. It requires no faith to see that it's possible or contains some amount of truth. God on the other hand requires faith entirely. This is a substantial difference. If someone were to say - abiogensis is right on and that's that - that requires some faith. But to agree that it stands a reasonable chance of being on the right track and working from there is what science is all about.

It can't contain a certain amount of truth - it's either true or it isn't. It is possible, but not proven. Many alternatives are also possible but not proven. That's the entire point.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I think you are making abiogensis out to be a lot weaker idea than it really is. It requires no faith to see that it's possible or contains some amount of truth. God on the other hand requires faith entirely. This is a substantial difference. If someone were to say - abiogensis is right on and that's that - that requires some faith. But to agree that it stands a reasonable chance of being on the right track and working from there is what science is all about.

It can't contain a certain amount of truth - it's either true or it isn't. It is possible, but not proven. Many alternatives are also possible but not proven. That's the entire point.

did newtons theory of gravitation hold no truth because in extreme cases it can't predict with any accuracy? Abiogenesis isn't static and some parts of the theory may be somewhat correct and other parts not quite right. what are the other reasonable alternatives that don't involve divine intervention?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
did newtons theory of gravitation hold no truth because in extreme cases it can't predict with any accuracy? Abiogenesis isn't static and some parts of the theory may be somewhat correct and other parts not quite right. what are the other reasonable alternatives that don't involve divine intervention?

Whether or not abiogenesis occurs is true or not. It cannot be both true and false. The details are irrelevant for this discussion, nor do I care to go into them. I don't care what other alternatives there are, as this is simply a discussion regarding whether or not faith is required to believe in aliens. Since we have yet to observe abiogenesis, believing it is an act of faith, by definition, regardless of how much promise you think the theory might have.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
How about this for size...

God neither exists nor does not exist.

And no it isn't as deep or stupid as you might think, its simple really. It doesn't matter whether or not God exists. We can justify behavior philosophically, and everyone on the planet seems to have some agreement on basic morals (no killing, stealing, etc.) So I mean why oh why does it matter if there is a God or not? Think of it this way, if you are a good person you will continue to be a good person regardless of if there is a god, but if you are not a good person you will be bad if there is not a god. And frankly if you are gonna be bad if all the sudden there is not a god, you are probably already bad right now.

So... if we can agree on a set of ethics without religion, and good people will continue to be good with or without a god then someone please tell me why we have to be so concerned about it?

This is a good post and a honest question. Hopefully I can justify it.

The answer IMO is that everyone believes in some type of God or gods, whether they choose to recognize it or not. Whether they are a good person or a bad person depends on whether or not they believe in good gods or bad gods. Whether or not they believe in hope or despair, you might say.

Too many people when they hear the word "god" think only of religion and the Christian god, and don't realize that they have surrounded themselves with their own personal gods. My joke (and I think I've already used it in this thread) is that "God is a lucky rabbit's foot". God is whatever there is outside you that you think can save you, especially when it obviously can't. Diet pills that say you don't have to change your lifestyle to lose weight are a god. Money is a god. Aliens are god. Government is god. Our emotions are god.

Whether God as described in the Bible (or any other holy book) actually exists or not really isn't the issue. His existence or non-existence is entirely independent of whether we believe in Him or not. He is or is not. No amount of faith will make Him more real than any amount of disbelief will make less real.
But the human concept of God... that's another thing entirely, and IMO what you are referring to. You can't just wish it away or pretend it doesn't exist. It will simply replaced with another god(s), some other thing outside you that you will irrationally believe will save you (or get you that promotion, or get you laid, or whatever).

Because what you think of your god(s) is what determines your worldview. People aren't good people just because they are magically good people. They're that what because what they believe in is good. And vice versa for the bad people. Because reality does not extend beyond your observation of it and everything else is belief.

So pick and choose your god(s) wisely. If you want my advice, try looking for one inside you instead of outside you. Shape your worldview around hope and that which you know to be good, and then treat everyone you meet as good as you can. Then that will become your god, and it will no longer be a lucky rabbit's foot -- that external thing you pray to to save you even when you know it can't -- but your internal capacity to love and appreciate your own existence, and thus the existence of others.

There, I think I'm gonna be done with this thread. At least for now.

I think you may be using the term god too loosly here. I mean of course there is a point for people to choose a set of morals, or a goal, or good to aim for (happiness for instance). All of those are well and good, but what is the importance of having a omnipotent being?

And to the other guy that said people need the threat of divinity, it seems to me as if many christians do criminal deeds and are arrested, and i doubt the number would increase drastically if all the sudden they weren't christians. I guess I am saying that law enforcement when done correctly would serve this purpose and that a divinity does not have the unique utility of keeping people in line.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The point is that there is NO evidence for ANY theory regarding the formation of life from scratch. Thus, believing any of them is faith-based. In fact, I could even argue that the complete lack of evidence for abiogenesis, despite the continual supply of all the necessary ingredients, is in itself evidence of divine intervention.

"NO evidence" is a bit strong - there is some evidence or it wouldn't even be considered. See - that's the difference between science and religion - science is based on reasoning, evidence, testing. Religion is based on none of these things. You can call believing in science primarily "faith" but if this is the case it sure takes a lot less "faith" to believe in science than in religion. Just b/c we haven't been able to make abiogenesis happen in a lab doesn't mean something like it couldn't happen. It just means we haven't quite figured it out yet. This kind of gets me to my point:

believing in religion takes faith b/c it can't be tested or disproved.

believing in science doesn't b/c science is allowed to change and "believing" in it mostly just means accepting that these are the best models/explanations for the physical world that we have and they seem to work pretty well for now.

Actually there is some evidence, they have managed to create amino acids from nothing, and have even gone so far as to have those amino acids form into proteins. Basically that is 1 or two steps away from the lowest forms of life.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
I think you may be using the term god too loosly here. I mean of course there is a point for people to choose a set of morals, or a goal, or good to aim for (happiness for instance). All of those are well and good, but what is the importance of having a omnipotent being?

I don't. "God" is whatever you believe in strongly to be important to your life. Like I said, a lucky rabbit's foot. Modern people usually don't want to recognize this because they deny the reality that our consumerist society is everything that ancient peoples called idolatry. Religion is a lot more than church on Sunday and the Christian god. I could easily and convincingly argue, within the context of this thread, that SETI is a religion.
And if you'll note my post, you'll see that I never argued for the need of having a belief in an omnipotent being.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
Actually there is some evidence, they have managed to create amino acids from nothing, and have even gone so far as to have those amino acids form into proteins. Basically that is 1 or two steps away from the lowest forms of life.

And yet it doesn't live. You may have missed the news, but abiogenesis is no longer a generally accepted scientific theory.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
did newtons theory of gravitation hold no truth because in extreme cases it can't predict with any accuracy? Abiogenesis isn't static and some parts of the theory may be somewhat correct and other parts not quite right. what are the other reasonable alternatives that don't involve divine intervention?

Whether or not abiogenesis occurs is true or not. It cannot be both true and false. The details are irrelevant for this discussion, nor do I care to go into them. I don't care what other alternatives there are, as this is simply a discussion regarding whether or not faith is required to believe in aliens. Since we have yet to observe abiogenesis, believing it is an act of faith, by definition, regardless of how much promise you think the theory might have.

so you are telling me that if some time in the future that we determine how life began and it shares some similarities with abiogenesis but has some distinct differences you wouldn't say that abiogenesis contained some truth? You were the one that said there were lots of alternatives - so let's hear some. If abiogenesis is so weak shouldn't there be many other weak theories that aim to answer the question? Have you observed electrons? No? I guess believing in electricity is an act of faith.

I can see this is going nowhere with you. You obviously want to put religion and scientific thought on the same playing field but I'm going to be un-PC and say that's BS as they aren't even close. Seeing still isn't believing. I have the ability to accept theories (and their limitations) for what they are without being a doubting Tommunist