Harder To Believe In - God or Aliens?

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
Empathy: Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. This is a survival benefit. It increases the chances of survival of an isolated species, tribe, whatever. It allows for more cooperation, sharing, peace etc.

Also somewhere along the lines, survival of the fittest, became survival of the spiritual. In other words, spiritual in the sense of sharing, being peaceful and compassionate, with each other, with animals, and feeling belonging to our universe, was intended by evolution. In other words, spirituality was always part of the universe.

Evolution thus takes on a human form, and it is that human form, we call God. Hence, God made man in his own image. All for the good in the end, light and peace.

I would call that being spiratual but being a good person.

Well, I think the only thing evolution intends to do is increase the chances of survival of a species. I agree with most of what you think, I just dont understand the whole God part, and "spiritually being a part of the universe". But hey, different worldviews.

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
"The reason God is such a universally held belief amongst the socio-political spectrum, is because when we see such perfection, and knowing that such perfection in daily life is never by blind chance, we arrive at the common sense conclusion, that there must be a creator or a higher force at work. God is essentially common sense."

Yes, but everything is perfect, if you break it down to a molecular level. Each and every little particle has a life cycle of it's very own. This hold true from the largest planet known, to the tiniest particle known. The human definition of "perfect" is very vague and unobservant. It was limited by our sight, for the longest time. Now it's limited by our sight, our technology, and, for some of us, our minds. God is anti-common sense, anti-progress, and anti-science. Religion is still the only subject/study that hasn't advanced one iota, from as far back as you can trace it, to date.

Secondly I just want to say, that my personal belief is that humans created the idea of god as a form of manuipulation and control. Mind control isn't really a new idea thought up by some politicians and secret agencies to get what they want.

There is plenty of evidence humans believed in God, a higher being, long before we had large civilizations. Long before it would even makes sense to create a system of mass control.

I think what you should say, which I would agree with, is that alot of churches and other tight holy doctrines were created as a means of suppression (control).

Certianly the orthodox church would be an example of this.

However, it's not God, it's the system we created around it.

Alec Eiffel,

I would have loved to share thoughts and compare notes. Would have loved to challenge my mind. But you are offering nothing. It doesn't seem like you bothered to read my posts it their entirety. You responses seemed scripted, as if you really quickly looked for keywords. I read your posts and considered what you said. I responded to your questions. *sighs*

God = God is You and I. God is the universe. God is nature. God is the building block of everything, of the known(science) and the unknown(magic). God is The Creator. God is The Observer. God is The Dreamer. God is the spiritual force that fuels creation/destruction, birth/death, light/dark, love/hate, wave/particle, and all aspects of duality. Everything that is is proof of Gods existence, because everything is God. Convenient? Or blatanly obvious...

Before you guys answer that, since most of you seem to live by the Bible of Science, I urge you to read up on the latest emergence in the scientfic field: Quantum Physics. There you will find more support for my case.


[edit on 113131p://28u57 by Lucid Lunacy]

Your own subjective universe revolves around you, not the objective universe. If you feel, if there is a God, there he should be keeping you happy, but as you are not, then he must not be. That is something you arrive at subjectively, that does not reflect the objective universe.

Presumptious git,
I have said REPETITEVLY that my reasons for not believing in god have nothing to do with my own happiness and are based on LOGIC. Where did I say that I think a god should keep me happy? .. and WHERE EXACTLY did I say that I haven't got a happy life? You can't even understand the basic phsychological reasons why empathy is neccessary for human survival.. if you are going to try play shrink make sure you have more than a couple of posts to go by and your biggoted assumptions.

You assume evolution leads to inorganic matter forming into organic matter, then that forming a self replicating organic molecule, then then aggregating to form living organisms, then aggregating further to form consciousness, and then further to form emotions. So obviously evolution is a progression and thus leads to more complexity.

Very good!!!!

Ants and bees are social animals, but they are not emotional animals, they are working animals functioning in a hive collective.

Bees attack something if it attacks their nest.. they get angry and attack.. though it may not be as complex as a human's emotion.. it still sounds like an emotion to me.

You contradict yourself now, first you say "survival of the fittest" which thus means a human animal would do all to ensure his survival, how does associating and taking on board others problems and feelng compassion for animals, fit into the paradigm of competition and the food chain. It doesn't, thus why does man need empathy?

If food is low.. we still can share it. If there is NO food around.. we will still choose to adopt an orphaned child than to eat it because we are hungry. Eating it would guarentee our survival wouldn't it? For about a week maybe it would keep a man alive.. but eating it would guarentee extinguishing the species. We would instead keep searching for food [and might resort to cannabalism it one dies]. We share food. Two minds are better than one. We help solve another's problems.. they help solve our own. It's mutually beneficial.

Here is a thinking point for you: If evolution is designed so we can survive, then surely the ultimate survival would be life after death; even computers have transferable hardrives.

I'll first agree that energy transforms.. but that doesn't mean 'soul' or conciousness. It may just be the electricty our bodies create add to the atmosphere. Our own personal desires to be immortal may seem like the 'ultimate survival'.. funny thing we have such a STRONG URGE urge to live forever/ leave something behind.. we fulfill THAT need by passing on our genes to our children.

quote: Actually.. although it's been a while since I read the entire bible I do remember it condoning slaughtering people.. and as the vatican at the time gave the official nod for these attrocities.. it was most definently written somewhere in doctrine.. not a move has it ever made without it's scholars. The current pope has also apologised for these crimes.. and therefore the church itself has accepted total accountability.

Really? Prove it. Scientists have often given the official nod to the construction of nuclear weapons. This one ends here too.

Google it yourself. The pope apologised for witch burnings and the crusades.. it's common knowledge. Scientists are usually commissioned to make weapons.. hitler for instance was on a crusade to give the aerean race world domination as he considered it 'god's chosen'. He used god as a motive to use weapons [as in gas chambers].

Where did the light/heat come from? Here we go again.

I don't mind talking about 'the begginning' [though it's arguable that there actually was one].. but no bible quotes please.

- A few posts ago you were saying it was chance. Ok, so they don't happen by chance? Well, thank you for saying that.

I don't think you quite understand the definition of chance. If someone wins the lottery they first have to buy a ticket.. then choose the numbers.. then enter it.. the money just doesn't magically appear in their bank account. Cause and effect.

Originally posted by Damned
Forget it, Riley. This guy is amongst the blindest I've ever seen. There's no point in arguing with him. He sees only what he wants to see, hears only what he wants to hear, and knows only what he's heard.

Amen.

"And so the saw the light.........

....and were blinded by it."

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
There is plenty of evidence humans believed in God, a higher being, long before we had large civilizations. Long before it would even makes sense to create a system of mass control.

Sure, and the earliest forms of these "gods" were what? The sun, various animals...etc. It had nothing to do with the story they now tell. Mythology wasn't always mythology.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Secondly I just want to say, that my personal belief is that humans created the idea of god as a form of manuipulation and control. Mind control isn't really a new idea thought up by some politicians and secret agencies to get what they want.

I think such a conclusion after doing some research in historybooks and how the bible came to be, is utterly ignorant.
When Jesus walked the earth, and the first ages after this, Christianity scared all leadership off in about every country it appeared. (in some countries it still does)
Christianity was forbidden in a lot of places, and did everything BUT manipulate or control people.

Riley, this is becoming a too much for your "brain" to handle.

Bees attack something if it attacks their nest.. they get angry and attack.. though it may not be as complex as a human's emotion.. it still sounds like an emotion to me.

There is a game called Half life. In it, you fight against zombies. If you attack the zombies in Half life, they attack back, oh and they sure look angry, but it's not because they have emotions.

If food is low.. we still can share it. If there is NO food around.. we will still choose to adopt an orphaned child than to eat it because we are hungry. Eating it would guarentee our survival wouldn't it? For about a week maybe it would keep a man alive.. but eating it would guarentee extinguishing the species. We would instead keep searching for food [and might resort to cannabalism it one dies]. We share food. Two minds are better than one. We help solve another's problems.. they help solve our own. It's mutually beneficial.

In England we have a saying, "talking out of your arse" As in you, Riley, are talking out of your arse. Sorry can't take you seriously.

It may just be the electricty our bodies create add to the atmosphere.

Still can't take you seriously -

Google it yourself. The pope apologised for witch burnings and the crusades.. it's common knowledge. Scientists are usually commissioned to make weapons.. hitler for instance was on a crusade to give the aerean race world domination as he considered it 'god's chosen'. He used god as a motive to use weapons [as in gas chambers].

You said "the bible condones slaughtering people" I said "prove it" have you? No. I'm waiting.

I don't mind talking about 'the begginning' [though it's arguable that there actually was one].. but no bible quotes please.

You said "life needs heat and light and oxygen etc" then I asked you "where did heat and light come from?" You have not answered.
You are exceptionally ignorant. Has it still not dawned on you, that nor me or Lucid Lunacy subscribe to the Christian god? You will do much better if you listen and pay attention, rather than incessantly talk from your arise.

I don't think you quite understand the definition of chance. If someone wins the lottery they first have to buy a ticket.. then choose the numbers.. then enter it.. the money just doesn't magically appear in their bank account. Cause and effect

How does this apply to evolution? Evolution bought a ticket, chose the numbers, and then entered it?

"Cause and effect" do you even know what this means. If you did, there is one huge gaping hole in your argument, see if you can spot it. I look forward to how this applies to evolution and all arguments thus far raised against it. If you are not going to take yourself seriously, why should I take you seriously?

I really feel like I'm wasting my time with you. Smarten up, mate, don't be a nincompoop all your life. Mannn...

[edit on 29-10-2004 by Indigo_Child]

You said "the bible condones slaughtering people" I said "prove it" have you? No. I'm waiting.

'Numbers 31
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites ..." 3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." ... 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe...
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man... 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly...
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them... 17 Now kill all the boys.
And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.'

'The Psalms
(Psalms 58) 10 The righteous will be glad when they are avenged,
when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.
(Psalms 44) 4 You are my King and my God ... 5 Through you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample our foes.'

'Mark 9
42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.'
' Luke 12
47 And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.'

Enough?

You are exceptionally ignorant. Has it still not dawned on you, that nor me or Lucid Lunacy subscribe to the Christian god?

You have been steadfastly defending it.. shows you're at least partial to it.

I really feel like I'm wasting my time with you. Smarten up, mate, don't be a nincompoop all your life. Mannn...

All your contributions to this thread have been spent putting other people down for not sharing your beliefs, outrightly insulting entire groups of people and insulting their personal ethics just because they belong to that certain group. You claim that YOUR ethics are the ones people should live by.. and you call basically the entire human race spiritually [and therefore morally] retarded. I have seen NO sign that you are indeed a compassionate, peaceful or tolerant 'soul' at all.. or that you are morally superior to anyone else.. even more reason for me not to subscribe to your beliefs.. they have not elevated you and you don't seem overly enlightened. You may consider me a waste of time and thats perfectly okay.. but I would like this is my last reply to you.. though you had a couple of points that I considered of merit.. I no longer wish to recieve anymore of your spiteful personal attacks on my ethics, my intelligence or even your judgements on my life... you may get off on it but I don't.

[apologisies to everyone else for getting personal]

Enough?

Good, for the first time you've actually substantiated what you said. However, for me Christianity is about the teachings of Christ, can you find the same for Christ?

Yes, the bible, the Quran and the Bhagvad Gita, amongst other religions, do condone war, but war if it is righteous. There is nothing wrong with "war" if it is to defeat evil. Then again, organized religion, who married politics to religion, have used such verses as justification for their own political wars.

You have been steadfastly defending it.. shows you're at least partial to it.

I am not defending christianity. Read this again. It says I do not subscribe to the Christian God. All, I am defending here, is the truth of God. Nor am I defending religion, I clearly said it was a man-made tool to attain God. If you were half-listening, there would be no need for my to repeat this, and make you feel belittled.

Seperate God from religion, and you will be able to view god without the associations of religion.

I really feel like I'm wasting my time with you. Smarten up, mate, don't be a nincompoop all your life. Mannn...

You claim that YOUR ethics are the ones people should live by.. and you call basically the entire human race spiritually [and therefore morally] retarded.

I am stating truths, that are really common sense: Lead your life positively and with an open-mind.

As for most people being spiritually retarded. Spirituality is about love, compassion and being positive and believing in yourself. How much of the population espouses these ideals? Not many. Hence they are what? spiritually retarded.

I have seen NO sign that you are indeed a compassionate, peaceful or tolerant 'soul' at all.. or that you are morally superior to anyone else.. even more reason for me not to subscribe to your beliefs..

I have an intolerance for stupidity and ignorance. If you were peaceful, compassionate and open-minded, I would be taking you more seriously. If you had valid points, I would be taking you seriously. However, how do you expect me to take you seriously, when your full of contradictions and do not explain your points.

they have not elevated you and you don't seem overly enlightened. You may consider me a waste of time and thats perfectly okay..

I do not claim to be "overly enlightened" or elevated above you. I am like everyone else, a soul seeking his source, except unlike yourself, I am seeking.

I want you to notice a difference between how I talked to Alec and the you and Damnation. Alec, recognizes the unknowns, and is open-minded enough not to dismiss the concept of God. He does not espouse my faith in souls, and gods, but that does not lower him in any way, shape or form in my eyes.

though you had a couple of points that I considered of merit..

Yes, and you ignored them. When someones makes a point that has merit, then you acknowledge it. Just like I have acknowledged you for your substantiation on violence in the bible. If you ignore a point, you are equivocating from the argument, which shows to me, you are not reasoning, all you are doing is parroting the same points again.

For instance, I set you the house of cards task. Then you said, it's not by chance. Then you say something about lottery tickets. You are just not making any sense. Explain yourself, and I will take you seriously.

I no longer wish to recieve anymore of your spiteful personal attacks on my ethics, my intelligence or even your judgements on my life... you may get off on it but I don't.

They are not attacks. You said "I am very spiritual" yet you do not agree with being positive, or believe in a soul, or a lifeforce. So how are you being spiritual?

You ignore my points, continue to hit me with the same christian God and religious points, when I have said time and time again, I do not subscribe them. What is that then? If not an illustration of a lacking of intelligence or listening?

I will take you seriously and show you respect, if you discuss with me intelligently. If you are going to be stupid, then I'm not going to bother. Have you noticed I stopped talking to Damnation? That's because there is nothing new he can say, it's just a string of his anti-god, anti-religion and anti-spiritual comments.

Respect is earned, not given for free. If you want my respect, earn it. I am not against you, because you disagree with me, I am against you because you disagree with common sense.

[edit on 29-10-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
There is plenty of evidence humans believed in God, a higher being, long before we had large civilizations. Long before it would even makes sense to create a system of mass control.

Sure, and the earliest forms of these "gods" were what? The sun, various animals...etc. It had nothing to do with the story they now tell. Mythology wasn't always mythology.

I have not been referring to the story they now tell...such as the Christian God. Or any specific story of God. Rather the idea itself. The quintessence of ineffability. I call it "God" since it's the closest frame of reference, but it is beyond labels.

Indigo_Child:
You ignore my points, continue to hit me with the same christian God and religious points, when I have said time and time again, I do not subscribe them. What is that then? If not an illustration of a lacking of intelligence or listening?

That's exactly how I feel, couldn't have said it better myself. Amen.

[edit on 103131p://29u42 by Lucid Lunacy]

Indigo_Child won't even reply to my posts. I assume he can't handle a real debate. (Actually, it's quite obvious he lacks intelligence, and/or the ability to reason) I've seen nothing but backward rhetoric from him. He has to be one of the most confused bags of wind I've seen in a long time. Every post just makes him look more ignorant, now. I wonder what color the sky is in his world?

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Damned]

I created a new thread for the few ATS members in this thread that still insist on spreading lies and confusion regarding christianity.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For me God is easy enough to believe in, as I have seen God in action.
Aliens on the other hand, I know only from the blurry, often hoaxes that float around the internet, so the answer is God for me.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Jakko]

It's easier (for me at least) to believe in something that is plausable by science than by some book thats 2000 years old and has been translated so many times that parts are incorrect, if what humans percieve as a god than it would have most likely evolved on another planet the way that we evolved on Earth, as for how the universe was created thats something that I wont know for a very very very very to the 3,000,000,000th power long time.
Oh and the chicken came before the egg.

Originally posted by iori_komei
It's easier (for me at least) to believe in something that is plausable by science than by some book thats 2000 years old and has been translated so many times that parts are incorrect, if what humans percieve as a god than it would have most likely evolved on another planet the way that we evolved on Earth, as for how the universe was created thats something that I wont know for a very very very very to the 3,000,000,000th power long time.
Oh and the chicken came before the egg.

You say you like things that are plausable by science yet you make a statement like this:
"Oh and the chicken came before the egg"
Science doesn't recognize that so what system of divination are you using?

And one can believe in God without believing in Christianity. One can believe in God w/o a religious system. For instance, you should take note to the fact that some of the biggest names in physics believe in God, such as Albert Einstein.

I agree one should question the validity of a book that is 2000+ years old, and has gone through many translations, however, this is seperate from God; you need to make that distinction yourself.

[edit on 113030p://3u48 by Lucid Lunacy]

I did not say that science said that the chicken came before the egg, I wrote that in the wrong context, I believe the chicken came before the egg.
Also Einstein was an Agnostic.

I must thank you though for unintentially finding my mistake.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I did not say that science said that the chicken came before the egg, I wrote that in the wrong context, I believe the chicken came before the egg.
Also Einstein was an Agnostic.

I must thank you though for unintentially finding my mistake.

Well that was the context you spoke it in, so as you said, the mistake was on your part; not in my intention.

Being agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe in God. It means you don't believe in God blindly.

He has been labeled atheist, agnostic, religious man, etc. It depends on the viewpoint. Creator God or personal God.

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."
-Albert Einstein

Einstein did indeed believe in a creator God, based on his findings in science. He did not believe in a personal God.

"I believe in a God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
-Albert Einstein

"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.
-Albert Einstein

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man.... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive"
-Albert Einstein

[edit on 023030p://4u20 by Lucid Lunacy]