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

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sixone
"Believing in" and "having faith in" are NOT the same. If the difference is not evident to you, you'll never find an adequate answer to your question.

Faith is a form of belief.

Faith

belief

Right, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Read kierkegaard. He's a Christian. And yet he understands what faith is.

I understand very well what faith is. And its importance and dangers to humanity. What I'm trying to is explain faith to people who wrongly believe that they live without it.

Have you ever read Kierkegaard? I don't live with faith. I believe in things that have evidence for them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Have you ever read Kierkegaard? I don't live with faith. I believe in things that have evidence for them.

Like the grays? 😉

How do you reconcile with the amount of faith it takes to believe with certainty that things, for which tangible evidence is either lacking or not convincing, do not exist?


And no, I haven't read Kierkegaard, but it is not relevant, unless you want to cite from him in defense of your argument. I'm sure I've read from countless authors that you have not read from.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Have you ever read Kierkegaard? I don't live with faith. I believe in things that have evidence for them.

Like the grays? 😉

How do you reconcile with the amount of faith it takes to believe with certainty that things, for which tangible evidence is either lacking or not convincing, do not exist?


And no, I haven't read Kierkegaard, but it is not relevant, unless you want to cite from him in defense of your argument. I'm sure I've read from countless authors that you have not read from.

WTF? I don't believe in Grays. Have any other examples?

How do you reconcile with the amount of faith it takes to believe with certainty that things, for which tangible evidence is either lacking or not convincing, do not exist?

Tangible evidence is not the only kind of evidence. As I have said in previous post, you have a strange view of what evidence is.

I suggest you read Kierkegaard for the following reason. You seem to want to defend Christian faith. He goes about it while still recognizing it is distinct from the world of science, while you seem to want to undermine science to push your faith.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Have you ever read Kierkegaard? I don't live with faith. I believe in things that have evidence for them.

Like the grays? 😉

How do you reconcile with the amount of faith it takes to believe with certainty that things, for which tangible evidence is either lacking or not convincing, do not exist?


And no, I haven't read Kierkegaard, but it is not relevant, unless you want to cite from him in defense of your argument. I'm sure I've read from countless authors that you have not read from.

WTF? I don't believe in Grays. Have any other examples?

How do you reconcile with the amount of faith it takes to believe with certainty that things, for which tangible evidence is either lacking or not convincing, do not exist?

Tangible evidence is not the only kind of evidence. As I have said in previous post, you have a strange view of what evidence is.

I suggest you read Kierkegaard for the following reason. You seem to want to defend Christian faith. He goes about it while still recognizing it is distinct from the world of science, while you seem to want to undermine science to push your faith.

Can't win so you turn to logical fallacy and lies, eh? When, in this entire thread, have I defended the Christian faith? When, in this entire thread or in any other post I have made here, have I said otherwise than that science and religion are separate and should remain so? When? Let's have some examples, eh?

My beef is that a great many ignorant assholes want to turn science into a religion and then place that pseudo-scientific religion in direct opposition with traditional religions. When, in this thread, have I said other than being in opposition to that agenda was my objective?

Don't fsckin' put words in my mouth, pal, or blatantly misrepresent what I am doing. I take offense.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Have you ever read Kierkegaard? I don't live with faith. I believe in things that have evidence for them.

Like the grays? 😉

How do you reconcile with the amount of faith it takes to believe with certainty that things, for which tangible evidence is either lacking or not convincing, do not exist?


And no, I haven't read Kierkegaard, but it is not relevant, unless you want to cite from him in defense of your argument. I'm sure I've read from countless authors that you have not read from.

WTF? I don't believe in Grays. Have any other examples?

How do you reconcile with the amount of faith it takes to believe with certainty that things, for which tangible evidence is either lacking or not convincing, do not exist?

Tangible evidence is not the only kind of evidence. As I have said in previous post, you have a strange view of what evidence is.

I suggest you read Kierkegaard for the following reason. You seem to want to defend Christian faith. He goes about it while still recognizing it is distinct from the world of science, while you seem to want to undermine science to push your faith.

Can't win so you turn to logical fallacy and lies, eh? When, in this entire thread, have I defended the Christian faith? When, in this entire thread or in any other post I have made here, have I said otherwise than that science and religion are separate and should remain so? When? Let's have some examples, eh?

My beef is that a great many ignorant assholes want to turn science into a religion and then place that pseudo-scientific religion in direct opposition with traditional religions. When, in this thread, have I said other than being in opposition to that agenda was my objective?

Don't fsckin' put words in my mouth, pal, or blatantly misrepresent what I am doing. I take offense.

I said you "seem" to want to. I hedged on purpose. Do be defensive if you want though. Maybe you should take some of your own medicine. You have told me I haven't read the bible in the past for no reason at all, for example, and there you did not hedge like I hedged here.

When you are done, let's get back to where we were. You said you people don't live without faith. I said I do. Do you want to challenge me on that?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I said you "seem" to want to. I hedged on purpose. Do be defensive if you want though. Maybe you should take some of your own medicine. You have told me I haven't read the bible in the past for no reason at all, for example, and there you did not hedge like I hedged here.

When you are done, let's get back to where we were. You said you people don't live without faith. I said I do. Do you want to challenge me on that?

Whatever. You invite flames, you get flames. I'm always happy to oblige in that respect. 🙂

As for your challenge... Do you have any long-term investments?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I said you "seem" to want to. I hedged on purpose. Do be defensive if you want though. Maybe you should take some of your own medicine. You have told me I haven't read the bible in the past for no reason at all, for example, and there you did not hedge like I hedged here.

When you are done, let's get back to where we were. You said you people don't live without faith. I said I do. Do you want to challenge me on that?

Whatever. You invite flames, you get flames. I'm always happy to oblige in that respect. 🙂

As for your challenge... Do you have any long-term investments?

You're saying long-term investments require faith? They do not. Why would they? People make investments and undersand there is risk. That's why they diversify. You don't need to faith to make long-term investments.

(PS I have seen you start "flames" on several occassions, including the time you said I hadn't read the bible with certainty for no reason at all. So it's not only a matter of responding in kind, you also like to start stuff with obnoxious statements).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You're saying long-term investments require faith? They do not. Why would they? People make investments and undersand there is risk. That's why they diversify. You don't need to faith to make long-term investments.

(PS I have seen you start "flames" on several occassions, including the time you said I hadn't read the bible with certainty for no reason at all. So it's not only a matter of responding in kind, you also like to start stuff with obnoxious statements).

Of course they do. Who's says you'll live long enough? And if you don't live long enough, wouldn't you have been better off spending the money and increasing your standard of living right here right now than living in the hope that someday sacrificing this money right now will lead to a better tomorrow?

And for the flames, you may as well call me black, O Mighty Pot.

 

[CrimsonChaos]

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course they do. Who's says you'll live long enough? And if you don't live long enough, wouldn't you have been better off spending the money and increasing your standard of living right here right now than living in the hope that someday sacrificing this money right now will lead to a better tomorrow?

And for the flames, you may as well call me black, O Mighty Pot.

Planning for a future you may or may not have is not a "leap of faith". It is merely hedging your bets. You know you could die tomorrow, so you make out a will -- you know you could live until you're old and feeble-minded, so you put aside some money.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
Planning for a future you may or may not have is not a "leap of faith". It is merely hedging your bets. You know you could die tomorrow, so you make out a will -- you know you could live until you're old and feeble-minded, so you put aside some money.

Like all things, there are varying levels of faith. Nothing is black and white without some gray in between. I am not saying otherwise.

 

[CrimsonChaos]

If by "faith" you mean trusting that events or situations will occur in life, then I would tend to agree with you - most everyone lives with some level of "faith". I can't generalize and say "everyone" cause obviously there could be exceptions to the rule.

For example, I'm sure we all believe that someday we will die. I don't know when, but I have faith in the scientifically proven premise that my current corporeal being will cease to exist in this physical realm, as it is known today (no, ashes doesn't count as existing).

I'm sure none of us feel we will be only person in human history to defy these scienticific principles, so I guess to that extent we do live with some level of faith. But I'm not sure I would even begin to compare this to the faith of believing in a god. As you state, there are differing levels of faith, so you would agree this is comparing apples to oranges?

 

[NarcoticHobo]

I did not say it was disproven. That you think it could be makes me question your actual ability to debate on this subject. Such a theory as abiogenesis cannot be proven or disproven. I said it was no longer generally accepted. May as well believe in the millions of monkeys pounding on typewriters. Give them 4.6 billion years of pounding and the result being what we have to day still seems pretty unlikely.

Ok... so far as I know it is still accepted, I mean that is still what biologists teach in our classes here, so unless something changed from fall term abiogenesis is still widely accepted amongst biologists.

Secondly, you are still using the term God loosely. Fine if thats how you want to use it, but in my statement God means omnipotent being. Therefore while you may or may not have a valid argument it does not successfully counter my own argument. It would be similar to me saying that oranges don't fair well in cold weather, and you replying that fruit holds up fine in cold weather. So, is your argument valid? I don't know. Does it respond to what I was saying? No.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
i think number of posts in an internet political forum is inversly proportional to level of "jackassery" 🙂 apparently you don't have anything better to do.

So your opinion is more valid than mine simply because you have a lower post count? Your logic is impeccable.

naw - you're reading into it too much - i'm just saying you are a jackass who posts on the internet all day instead of doing something more worthwhile 🙂

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tommunist
if this is to become a philosophy question we might as well stop b/c technically speaking if one can't make assumptions about anything nothing can be proven - it's a fruitless road to go down and should only be brought up as a counter-point to someone attempting to use it.

😕 Are you saying that emotions, particularly love, do not exist? I know for a fact that love does exist. But we shouldn't go down that road because it can't be proven. Well... neither, my friend, can aliens be proven.

I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this. I'm just saying that if you can't assume anything you have nothing to stand on to start out. If I get to assume some things first - then yes - love does absolutely exist as an emotion as it can be quantified scientifically.

 

[Kerouactivist]

29 pages and you still haven't figured it out....

The hokey pokey is what it is all about.......


(puts headphones, with dark side of the moon playing back on....)

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You're saying long-term investments require faith? They do not. Why would they? People make investments and undersand there is risk. That's why they diversify. You don't need to faith to make long-term investments.

(PS I have seen you start "flames" on several occassions, including the time you said I hadn't read the bible with certainty for no reason at all. So it's not only a matter of responding in kind, you also like to start stuff with obnoxious statements).

Of course they do. Who's says you'll live long enough? And if you don't live long enough, wouldn't you have been better off spending the money and increasing your standard of living right here right now than living in the hope that someday sacrificing this money right now will lead to a better tomorrow?

Huh? Probability would indicate you are more likely to live long enough to make investments worthwile. Even if you don't, it has nothing to do with faith. It's more akin to a gamble, if anything. And you don't need faith to gamble.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
naw - you're reading into it too much - i'm just saying you are a jackass who posts on the internet all day instead of doing something more worthwhile 🙂

What would you consider more valuable than arguing with idiots like yourself all day on the internet? Please, tell me what is so special about your life so I can actively pursue it.

 

[Monkeytool]

Bah!!! :| I don?t know why there is so much argument over this, why do people so strongly want to maintain their disdain for another person?s belief? The point is, if you believe in something that is not proven; don't put down someone else?s belief in something that's not proven just because you disagree with it. For that matter, don't put down someone else?s belief unless you can directly prove it is false, and then do so only in a constructive matter. Furthermore why are you arguing the syntax of faith and belief, I think they are pretty intuitive. Belief = thinking something to be true. Faith = same, w/o a degree of evidence, which may be different for each individual. I hate the c_ck swinging contests that people start over each others beliefs, like it somehow increases your self worth to contradict someone else?s beliefs, its incredibly elitist to chastise someone for their beliefs just because you don't agree. :disgust: Case in point, if you aren't omniscient and cannot prove someone wrong, don't open your mouth about there beliefs unless you intend to look like a hypocrite or fool.
Now go have a :beer: and revel in our communial ignorance about life and purpose and God and aliens, and if you haven't done so at least seek you personal truth before you focus on others'.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
naw - you're reading into it too much - i'm just saying you are a jackass who posts on the internet all day instead of doing something more worthwhile 🙂

What would you consider more valuable than arguing with idiots like yourself all day on the internet? Please, tell me what is so special about your life so I can actively pursue it.

"actively pursue" - that seems to imply activity which may be physical in nature. good luck with that my sedentary friend (that is unless you have a laptop mounted on a stationary bike or something).

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sixone
"Believing in" and "having faith in" are NOT the same. If the difference is not evident to you, you'll never find an adequate answer to your question.

Faith is a form of belief.

Faith

belief

Faith in Aliens != Faith in God.

You want try and take beliefs down to the level of faith in God because one word has more then one meaning and it is pretty stupid debate.

"often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." != " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
Bah!!! :| I don?t know why there is so much argument over this, why do people so strongly want to maintain their disdain for another person?s belief? The point is, if you believe in something that is not proven; don't put down someone else?s belief in something that's not proven just because you disagree with it. For that matter, don't put down someone else?s belief unless you can directly prove it is false, and then do so only in a constructive matter. Furthermore why are you arguing the syntax of faith and belief, I think they are pretty intuitive. Belief = thinking something to be true. Faith = same, w/o a degree of evidence, which may be different for each individual. I hate the c_ck swinging contests that people start over each others beliefs, like it somehow increases your self worth to contradict someone else?s beliefs, its incredibly elitist to chastise someone for their beliefs just because you don't agree. :disgust: Case in point, if you aren't omniscient and cannot prove someone wrong, don't open your mouth about there beliefs unless you intend to look like a hypocrite or fool.
Now go have a :beer: and revel in our communial ignorance about life and purpose and God and aliens, and if you haven't done so at least seek you personal truth before you focus on others'.

hey you don't agree with me so you must be a really dumb!!! I'm not going to argue with you in a condescending manner!!! look out!!! i'm the 1337est evvvaarrrrr!!!!

j/k - good points. i agree with your faith and belief definitions and that is essentially what I have been trying to get across without much success. The difference between belief and faith is really the heart of this argument and the difference between thinking aliens exist and thinking God exists (I'm not saying if I think either exists b/c that's not the point).

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sixone
"Believing in" and "having faith in" are NOT the same. If the difference is not evident to you, you'll never find an adequate answer to your question.

Faith is a form of belief.

Faith

belief

Faith in Aliens != Faith in God.

You want try and take beliefs down to the level of faith in God because one word has more then one meaning and it is pretty stupid debate.

"often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." != " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

well put again - this should have been resolved about 29 pages ago......

 

[Vic]

Bah. I cast pearls before swine.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
"actively pursue" - that seems to imply activity which may be physical in nature. good luck with that my sedentary friend (that is unless you have a laptop mounted on a stationary bike or something).

Not even worth it.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I've demonstrated how believing in aliens cannot be justified from any hard scientific position. That believing in aliens requires faith similar to the faith required to believe in God.

No you haven't, you've just been claiming you have since the first post. Again, the difference is their is a scientific basis for the possibility of alien life, not for the existance of God. You won't accept that (you sure keep ignoring it). Sadly, all of your posts don't read any different if you change the word god to 'Smurfs'.

Bill

Actually, you are just claiming there is a scientific basis for aliens, when there isn't. Apparently, you won't accept that (you sure keep ignoring it). Sadly all of your post don't read any different if you change the word aliens to 'Smurfs'.