It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by thegoodcause
Religion in its purest sense helps people understand values and morals.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by SaturnFX
Considering it's not altogether impossible that we were "created" a split second ago with fabricated memories of a time that never truly existed by cream cheese monsters from the 678th dimension? Even if the world was a computer simulation, wouldn't that make the programmers "God(s)"?
who exactly are you to judge others beliefs? What makes you right over them?
You share the same limitations, you share the same problems, your both people.
And just because an entity doesn't sit on our shoulders spouting divine commandments or flying around like some cosmic superman does not mean one does not exist. Simple logic man, Argumentum ad Ignorantum is a logical fallcy thus NOT LOGICAL.
Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by SaturnFX
Your reply to my reply cannot be replied to since you just ramble on not stating anything worthwhile to counter my comments. And your reply is unnecessarily long. Look up the meaning of the word "concise" and learn how to use it. And since I'm not a blind believer, or a believer period, all of your examples have no validity therefore no argument.
Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by SaturnFX
You cannot post anything about aliens trying to sound as if you and your link friend know anything about aliens.
Aliens is just a name given to a mythical being alleged to ride in what we have termed UFOs.
Yes, UFOs can be discussed but only the "craft"
as no one knows anything else.
To suppose is just to play mind games.
There is no evidence for the reality of alleged aliens and any tales put forward are, so far, just tales
No one can call them extraterrestrial because there is no evidence for such.
The only evidence we have is that we are the only beings in the universe.
Between 2010 and 2012, the whole world will get polarized and prepare for the ultimate dooms day. Heavy political maneuvers and negotiations will take place with little progress. In 2012, the world will start plunging into a total destructive nuclear war. And at that time something remarkable will happen, says, Buddhist monk of Tibet. Supernatural divine powers will intervene. The destiny of the world is not to self-destruct at this time. Scientific interpretation of the monks’ statements makes it evident that the Extra Terrestrial powers are watching us every step of the way. They will intervene in 2012 and save the world from self-destruction.
In world politics something will happen in and around 2010. At that time the world powers will threaten to destroy each other.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
Aliens is just a name given to a mythical being alleged to ride in what we have termed UFOs.
incorrect. Aliens are intelligent life forms not of earth.
a·li·en (l-n, lyn)
1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.
tr.v. a·li·ened, a·li·en·ing, a·li·ens Law
To transfer (property) to another; alienate.
no, it would make them programmers.
and besides, I don't actually have a problem with a God, I have a problem with religions that pop up in his name that demand all sorts of nonsense.
a greater order of the universe...a slowly awaking consciousness on a grand scale..its a interesting concept overall. its when people take that interesting concept and create a irrational religion out of it which twists the whole concept into a shallow, local fantasy soaked in blood and ignorance.
I am a human dealing with this as everyone else...and I have equal rights over "them. I am exactly on the same level as the pope, a imam, and a rabbi. The difference is, they use faith to create their worldview, I use logic and reason. I personally see my viewpoint and how its established to be more advanced than their methods, and advancement in thinking typically is closer to a truth than primitive thinking.
Wise man said, “There are no limitations to the mind except those we acknowledge”
and here we go, the worst potential argument ever.
you know what...just because I cannot see demons on my bed doesn't mean they are not there...and just because I dont see invisible flying unicorns wisking by me all the time doesn't mean there not there.
you cannot disprove a negative...science 101...you measure what is there and base theories on what can be measured. We can measure life, we can measure stars, we can measure planets around stars..we can make calculations of probable life statistics in the universe...we cannot measure a deity, or a fairy, or a unicorn until one presents itself, or at the very least, gives effects off in some surrounding area.
As stated, the rule "You can't prove a negative" is demonstrably false.For many phenomena, the existence of the phenomenon would have some consequences that are themselves falsifiable. You can easily prove that there is no dragon in your refrigerator. (A dragon, or any dragon-sized creature, would provably not fit into a box the size of your refrigerator. More generally, you could simply look in the refrigerator -- do you see a dragon? Do you see any place large enough that a dragon could hide? Ergo, no dragon!) With some cleverness, you could easily prove that there are no leaking pipes in your house. While far more difficult (and probably impractical), you could even prove that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
One might observe too, that the designation of statements as "negative" is arbitrary. The "negative" claim that "no swans are green" is equivalent to the "positive" claim that "all swans are non-green."
The claim of "You can’t prove a negative" is generally intended to argue that:
There ought to be no expectation that general laws can be proven, and the inability to prove a general rule does not disprove that rule.
Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη – epistēmē, "knowledge, science" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses the questions:
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.
The term was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Beliefs and biases
Flying gallop falsified; see image below.Belief can alter observations; the human confirmation bias is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer would disagree. Researchers have often admitted that the first observations were a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts". Eventually, factors such as openness to experience, self-esteem, time, and comfort can produce a readiness for new perception.
Needham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying gallop' image as an example of observation bias: In these types of images, the legs of a galloping horse are depicted as splayed, while the stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge show otherwise. In a gallop, at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, a horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying gallop observation.
This image demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; their beliefs will affect their observations (and, therefore, their subsequent actions, in a self-fulfilling prophecy). It is for this reason that scientific methodology prefers that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by multiple researchers. With the scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility, cognitive biases are diminished.
Certainty and myth
A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain. Theories very rarely result in vast changes in human understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science. Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and retained, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.
In contrast, a myth may enjoy uncritical acceptance by members of a certain group. The difference between a theory and a myth reflects a preference for a posteriori versus a priori knowledge. That is, theories become accepted by a scientific community as evidence for the theory is presented, and as presumptions that are inconsistent with the evidence are falsified.
Ah. So long as people meet with your approval their beliefs are fine? Once again. Who are you to judge?
And semantics. A programmer would constitute a "god" for denizens of that simulation. A being that exists outside the simulation that created the simulation. Sounds like the basic idea of a "god" to me.
Logic and reason you say? You are no doubt aware of the logical fallacy Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. It cuts both ways and if your argument includes a fallacy that obviously means that argument is not logical. Why exactly do you get to claim the label when you commit the same fallacy as those you oppose?
Not a very wise man then. Shall we now list the ways in which the human body is limited? Shall we talk about all the ways the 5 senses are limited?
Thanks for the response...I like the way you debate.
I judge for myself, and if others see the logic in my judgement, they will also judge for themselves. This is the basis of all ideas shared. People whom have a completely opposite viewpoint (say, God made mudman and ribwoman 8000 years ago) lack logic and I deem their understanding of the universe to be nonsense. Is it nonsense absolute? no..just my judgement on it and I put forth the best reasons why I come to this conclusion.
I play a game called Secondlife (more of a virtual environment). I manipulate some aspects of the environment...by your defination, the people whom create and maintain the servers are also Gods as they exist outside the simulation, they are creators and ultimate manager of the environment.
designers, creators, programmers, are not deitys...they are simply creators. I am open to the idea of creators actually,
I find the alien creators of our world to be a interesting subject to read up on...but even they would not qualify as gods.
There was a show called The Watchmen..a character in there, Doctor Manhattan, had near godlike powers and could indeed create life from nothing...he was not a God.
Michau Kaku did a bit on how we could one day create a universe ourselves, (would take alot of power). This would make us the creators of a universe (a small one) with billions of little galaxys and billions of little stars within the galaxys, etc...this would not make us Gods...just technologically advanced.
Perhaps our defination of what qualifies as a god may be clashing here...but I think this is just a interesting, yet pointless, part of the argument.
There is mounting evidence of extraterrestrials visiting our blue ball...
no proof yet mind you,but ultimately enough to warrant serious discussions worldwide.
on the other hand...
the biblical religions have actually already been proven wrong.
Without going into endless discussions about the plethora of examples, lets use just one.
Satan lead Jesus up on top of the mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the world from his vantage point. will clip it here.
This could only happen on a flat earth. it is simply impossible for a mountain of any size to see the other side of the earth. The bible was completely disproven by this single instance the moment the earth was found to be a sphere.
I admit I am picking on the biblical based religions moreso than others...but meh, they can take it, they have a monopoly on the worlds belief system.
Here is where we can go into endless debates about psychic phenomona, yet I know a losing argument. There is no solid proof for such phenomona that would be acceptable yet..so I will leave this as a point to you..however I reserve the right to weigh in more should any psychic phenomona become proven For now, I will accept that we do seem to have physical limitations.
The rest of your response spoke of a variety of things.
I never said my conclusions were based on scientific thinking...I I am saying my views are based on logical and rational thinking that favors science overall.
The term "rationality" is used differently in different disciplines.
In philosophy, rationality is the exercise of reason, a key method used to analyze the data gained through systematically conducted observations.
In economics, sociology, psychology and political science, a rational decision is one that is optimal, given the available information, in terms of achieving a goal, and individuals or organizations are called rational if they take rational decisions in pursuit of their goals. Thus one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. In this concept of "rationality", the individual's goals or motives are taken for granted and not made subject to criticism, ethical or otherwise. Thus, rationality simply refers to the success of goal attainment, whatever those goals may be. Sometimes, in this context, rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish. Sometimes rationality implies having complete knowledge about all the details of a given situation.
Debates arise in these four fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as whether it make sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of bounded rationality makes more sense for such models. Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for understanding human behavior; the term homo economicus (economic man: the imaginary man being assumed in economic models who is logically consistent but amoral) was coined largely in honor of this view.
Rationality is a central principle in artificial intelligence, where a rational agent is specifically defined as an agent which always chooses the action which maximises its expected performance, given all of the knowledge it currently possesses. Whether or not people are capable of rational thought is a key question in the psychology of reasoning.
Reason is a mental faculty found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect. In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies.
Reason is particularly associated with human nature, that which is unique and definitive about being human. As a way of coming to conclusions, it is often contrasted not only with the ways in which non-human animals appear to make decisions, but also with decisions based upon authority, intuition, emotion, mysticism, superstition, and faith. Reason is thought by rationalists to be more reliable in discovering what is true or what is best. The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and potentially in conflict with reason.
The essential difference between reason and other modes of consciousness is in explanation: thinking is more reasoned or rational if it is more consciously thought through in a way which can be expressed in language.
you cannot disprove a negative...science 101
all speculation of course, I just deem this line of speculation more likely to be the ultimate truth than others..in the end though, we "won't know until we know"