Aliens and evolution

Aliens and evolution

There are 6309 comments on the Washington Times story from Jun 19, 2012, titled Aliens and evolution. In it, Washington Times reports that:

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2470 Aug 28, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Liars like Nuggin, Buck and The Dude prefer to make up their own definitions but can't man up when they are proven to be wrong and illogical.
This is part of their mental illness really.
You've never demonstrated me a liar. In fact you've avoided addressing my posts in a coherent rational manner for the length of this entire thread.

When you start doing that then MAYBE you might be able to demonstrate exactly what it is that I've lied about.

So far though all you got is cussin'.

So it's kinda funny you of all people comparing me with BuckyO Nohair.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#2471 Aug 28, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>As opposed to what? I've asked you about a dozen times to give me one example of a god who is not "considered a god" but rather is an actual real life objectively real god.

You've balked at doing so. As such ALL gods are "considered gods".

And since neither you nor I actually worship Pharaohs, it's only appropriate that we refer to them as "considered gods" or "worshiped as gods" because we are talking about the opinions and actions of 3rd party people who are not a part of the discussion (because they are all dead.)

[QUOTE]
As long as you are aware that you are invoking a special, Nuggin only definition here, then no problem."

The DICTIONARY definition.

"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; "

Just because you reject it doesn't mean it's not in the dictionary. Are you saying that I am the ONLY person on the planet who uses the dictionary definition of words? Seriously?

Are you going to complain to Mirriam Websters that they are using subjective language in their description of a subjective thing?

By the way, STILL waiting for a definition from you which applies to ALL gods and which is not subjective.

[QUOTE]
You are actually arguing that their ancestry was not imagined?"

Are you actually arguing that Pharaohs popped out of the air fully formed without any sort of parents? That would actually make them magic.

[QUOTE]
Again, the Nuggin-specific definition of god. "

Again, "nuggin" is a mispelling. You mean "mirriam Websters"

Here it is again in case you've forgotten from earlier in the post

"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; "

[QUOTE]
You've basically said "here is my argument and my definition. Since I defined gods this way, I'm right and not other possibility exists."
Sorry, that's just not how reality works."

Actually, that's EXACTLY how reality works.

Until you can present a better or even DIFFERENT definition of god, you can't criticize mine as being incorrect.

Any definition of the word god must encompass all instances of the word, otherwise it is not a definition.

So, give it your best shot.

.... really? Not going to even try?

I guess the dictionary definition stands then.

[QUOTE]
Once again, you confirmed my position and failed to understand that yours is contingent upon accepting gods as believed beings only."

Once again, you have failed to come up with a single god which was not a believed in being.

ALL GODS are believed in beings. It's a fundamental aspect of the title.

Find me a single god in which no one believed and you win. It's as simple as that.

[QUOTE]
The divinity of Pharaohs was imagined."

Who cares? The divinity of ALL GODS is imagined. That makes Pharaohs EXACTLY like ALL GODS.

If you want to disprove that they were gods, you need to find things which make them DIFFERENT that gods, not the same.

[QUOTE]
you've created an argument based on Nuggin's definition of deity and are insisting that everyone else is wrong.
Oh, well, not a my problem thing."

3rd time in the same post. Try and remember it.

Mirriam Webster
"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; "

I'll allow you to reject this definition, if you likewise reject ALL definitions of ALL words found in the dictionary.

Sound fair? Or should I say "Bike Maple"? Since apparently according to you no words have definitions.
What are "more than natural attributes and powers"?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#2472 Aug 28, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Specifically your belief does not make a Pharaoh a true god.
Belief made a fake pharaoh into a fake god.
Slipping back into your Creationist mode again?

Pharaohs aren't the one true god of the Jews? Is that it?

Labels like "true god" and "fake god" assume that there are two categories of gods.

Give us the members of the category "True gods" would you? That way I can see who you are comparing the Pharaohs with to determine they don't measure up.

I'm guessing Yahweh is the only name on your list.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#2473 Aug 28, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
What are "more than natural attributes and powers"?
They are whatever the believers believes to be the case.

The cargo cult which worships King Philip as a god does so because he makes treasures fall from the heaven - a feat which they believe is impossible.

You, presumably, don't think that it is "more than natural" for someone to order a plane to drop cargo to needy people.

Same exact action. Different conclusions.

The believers believe he is a god, therefore he gets the title of "god" which means "someone believes this person is a deity".

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2474 Aug 28, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Slipping back into your Creationist mode again?
Pharaohs aren't the one true god of the Jews? Is that it?
Labels like "true god" and "fake god" assume that there are two categories of gods.
Give us the members of the category "True gods" would you? That way I can see who you are comparing the Pharaohs with to determine they don't measure up.
I'm guessing Yahweh is the only name on your list.
Thinking and guessing ...not your strong suits.

Nope all gods fall , short of reality.
But you make a fine drama queen and troll , Dr Nuggles.
True gods all will get the axe , it is a razor , it is a laser.
It will amaze ya.

You will never find a god that cuts finer.
In the path of the warrior your god will be cut asunder.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2475 Aug 28, 2012
Sudden impact vs magic... um will the machete prevail over the Colgate invisible shield?
Stay tuned folks for the exciting conclusion!

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2476 Aug 28, 2012
I predict this ends badly for ya , but you can retain some semblance of dignity by a simple admission,,,,and it's real , its real simple ....like ....Oh I was wrong in thinking that gawd was real in an Egyptian primitive mind, and the power of modern thinking trumps those simplistic minds of thousands of years ago.

OR...

You can cling to your belief that belief trumps reality. May God save you from the stupidity you hath committed yourself too .....

My very young and inexperienced Padawan disciple.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#2477 Aug 28, 2012
ZZZzzz...

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2478 Aug 28, 2012
MikeF wrote:
ZZZzzz...
HEY YOU ! slap!....WAKE UP so you can go back sleep! lol

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2479 Aug 28, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
As opposed to what? I've asked you about a dozen times to give me one example of a god who is not "considered a god" but rather is an actual real life objectively real god.
And I continue to tell you that that people have an imagined version of what gods are. They give all kinds of attributes to their gods.

I am using this measurement and it is here we see that the definition of god - and any god - can never be reached. They are impossible categories.

Hence, you have no choice but to write "considered, worshiped as, believed to be" and so on - because no Pharaoh was a god by the standards of those who believed they were.
You've balked at doing so. As such ALL gods are "considered gods".
And since neither you nor I actually worship Pharaohs, it's only appropriate that we refer to them as "considered gods" or "worshiped as gods" because we are talking about the opinions and actions of 3rd party people who are not a part of the discussion (because they are all dead.)
The DICTIONARY definition.
"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; "
Just because you reject it doesn't mean it's not in the dictionary. Are you saying that I am the ONLY person on the planet who uses the dictionary definition of words? Seriously?
I don't reject it. I take a much more sophisticated view than you seem capable. I've already told you, at least 100 times, that socially Pharaohs were gods.

To all indications, you aren't capable of holding more than one definition in your head and you insist, against all reason, that only one definition applies despite how nonsensical that is. Then you throw up all these straw men arguments to claim "see, they are gods!" over and over.

Finally, you get all angry when we can't accept your simple viewpoint here.

This is all gotten quite boring.
Are you going to complain to Mirriam Websters that they are using subjective language in their description of a subjective thing?
By the way, STILL waiting for a definition from you which applies to ALL gods and which is not subjective.
See? You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds. If you can't understand my point after pages and pages of me trying, you're not going to.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2480 Aug 28, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I have only ever been discussing Pharaohs. You keep bringing in outside imagined beings.
Nuggin wrote:
Untrue. You are saying that Pharaohs are not gods.
No, that is not what I have been saying.
If you had been saying "Pharaohs are not Pharaohs" then we would be having a very different conversation.
In a sense, Pharaohs were not Pharaohs - they were only Pharaohs in the social. Objectively, they did not have the nonmaterial attributes of Pharaohs.

Please note that this is the exact argument that I used with gods. Please note that it has multiple definitions and levels of analysis. Each one brings a different point to bear. Please don't invent some straw man or mischaracterize what I wrote.
Because you are saying they are not gods, then ALL GODS are subject to discussion.
To generalize, no deity lives up to its believed attributes. Therefore no deity fulfills the requirements of their being. They therefore do not exist and are not actually deities.

Except in the social. In the social, they are deities.
Just like if I said "a car is not a vehicle", it would be perfectly acceptable for you to point out that other vehicles are used to convey people and objects and that like a plane, or bike, or boat, a car fits that description.
Cars perfectly fit the definition of "vehicle" and live up to the attributes vehicles have.
Oh wait, let me guess. I'm using a "special made up definition of vehicle which only applies in my world". Right?
I don't know, did you?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2481 Aug 28, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Anyways, you and I are talking at cross purposes here. You understand my point but insist on a narrow definition of god that excludes how most people under understand and experience the word.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, my definition is EXTREMELY broad and covers ALL gods.
Broad in scope, narrow in analysis.
Second, how "most people understand" a word is irrelevant.
It cannot be irrelevant since "belief" is your key defining feature here.
Alanis Morreset and her fans "understand" the word "irony" to mean something very different than what "irony" actually means.
They think the word means "unfortunate coincidence".
Only in the simplest understanding of her song.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2482 Aug 28, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text deleted>
To sum:

1. Multiple definitions of "god" exist. Hence, multiple levels of analysis of "gods" exists. We can use each to further our understanding of gods and therefore people, culture, enculturation and biology.

2. Pharaohs were described as having certain nonphysical, impossible attributes.

3. Pharaohs were nevertheless believed to possess these and were thus divine. Their presumed nonphysical, impossible attributes made them gods in the eyes of the people who experienced them as divine.

4. Pharaohs objectively exist as privileged humans.

Thus, they are gods in the sense of the social while also not being gods in the sense of objective reality. They are not perfect and have no magical powers. Both definitions were in your dictionary quote and both definitions can be agreed on by most people.

Hence:

1. At one level, they were gods. We agree on this point. We rightfully call this social reality.

2. At another level, we both agree that Pharaohs did not and could not possess the attributes that defined them as divine beings. Pharaohs were therefore imagined divine beings. At this level of analysis, Pharaohs were not gods.

3. Because both levels of analysis are in our minds, we rightfully qualify their divinity with words like "believed to be, worshiped as, held the role of" etc.

I hope you understand that I agree with your definition as part of a multifaceted way to understand Pharaohs. Your position is not the only position available and if you take it as such you will miss out on other, important levels of analysis that leader to a larger picture.

The above is perhaps the best way I can state this. If you don't agree with it and insist on using only one level of analysis, that's a your-problem thing.

The more sophisticated, multiple level of analysis that I am using leads to a better understanding of people. We can then appreciate that people are capable of, and encultured to, believe in social fictions. When I write "encultured to" I mean a much, much stronger position than "believe in." I mean that their brains have been trained to experience life as if deities (and other fictions) were as real as chairs (and, as you pointed out, presidents and leaders are given real power through the social fiction of presidency).

And that allows us to ask the very important question "why can people experience imagined realities as real? How can they embody, perform, reproduce and produce fiction?"

These are very serious scientific questions. And we can approach them through 4 levels of analysis, guided by the framework theory of evolution:

1. Ultimate or evolutionary explanations:
1a. phylogeny (ancestral lineage of our species): did/do other species related to us show this behavior or is it a derived behavior (it's derived as far as we can tell).

1b. adaptation: what is this problem solving mechanism for?(I argue to create larger than kinship social bonds).

2. Proximate explanations:
2a. ontological (developmental): how does human biology develop to experience, perceive and physically react to belief/belief systems/imagined realities?(enculturation)
2b. immediate: what is the neuroscience behind belief? what effect does believing have on the human body?

If you do not use several levels of analysis, if you limit your definitions to one and refuse to listen to other explanations, you simply cannot understand the greater picture.

And that is really all I have to say on this topic, unless you want to discuss the nature of belief and how it affects human biology.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#2483 Aug 28, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Nope all gods fall , short of reality.
Then why are you referring to "false gods" and "true gods"?

Which ones are the "true gods"?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#2484 Aug 28, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I am using this measurement and it is here we see that the definition of god - and any god - can never be reached. They are impossible categories.
So, your definition of the word god is that there are no gods.

So when I present you with a list like this:
Thor, Zeus, Jesus, Vishnu and ask you to label these as a group, you would say.... what exactly?
I've already told you, at least 100 times, that socially Pharaohs were gods.
Name one god that is NOT a social god. Saying that Pharaohs were socially gods and that all other gods were ALSO socially gods just means that Pharaohs are exactly like all the other gods in that regard.

It's only a distinction if there is some other category, but you've already admitted there isn't another category.
you insist, against all reason, that only one definition applies despite how nonsensical that is.
How is it nonsensical?

What better definition can you come up with which applies equally well to Thor, Zeus, Jesus and Vishnu?
Finally, you get all angry when we can't accept your simple viewpoint here.
No, I get frustrated when you lie and say that I have imagined the dictionary or that I am the only person in the entire Universe who uses a dictionary.

Those are the sort of statements I expect from Skippy. You should be above that.
See? You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds. If you can't understand my point after pages and pages of me trying, you're not going to.
You don't have a point.

You are trying to claim that Pharaohs are not gods because they are exactly like all the other gods.

that's not a point, that's a contradiction.

Draw a distinction between them and other gods THEN you can make a point, until then you're just spinning your wheels.

In what way were Pharaohs DIFFERENT that all other gods?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#2485 Aug 28, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
It cannot be irrelevant since "belief" is your key defining feature here.
THAT there is belief is important, WHAT is believed is not.

It doesn't matter that one group believes that Jesus could walk on water and a different group believes that Thor causes thunder.

Jesus doesn't cause thunder, Thor doesn't walk on water. The "powers" that are believed in aren't important, it's THAT they are believed that is important.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#2486 Aug 28, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Thus,(Pharaohs) are gods in the sense of the social while also not being gods in the sense of objective reality.
As compared to what? What objectively real god are you comparing them with?

You can't make a distinction between two groups if ALL members of the group are in category 1 and none of them are in category 2.

That's not distinction.
They are not perfect and have no magical powers.
Exactly like every other god had no magic powers.
At this level of analysis, Pharaohs were not gods.
Then you are saying that no gods are gods, which is a contradiction making the word meaningless as a term.

If no Texans are Texans, then the term "Texan" is meaningless.

You are complaining that my definition of god is too broad because it includes all gods. Your definition is so narrow that it doesn't even include a definition.
I hope you understand that I agree with your definition as part of a multifaceted way to understand Pharaohs. Your position is not the only position available and if you take it as such you will miss out on other, important levels of analysis that leader to a larger picture..
Again, there is no need for other levels of analysis.

The question was: Are there any examples of any real things which can be categorized as gods?

Yes. Pharaohs were real. Pharaohs can be categorized as gods.

You've spent a week trying to argue that the above is false because Pharaohs are gods and shouldn't be consider gods because they have the exact same attributes of gods, therefore can't be gods which they are.

Then you say I'm not understanding you point.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#2487 Aug 28, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why are you referring to "false gods" and "true gods"?
Which ones are the "true gods"?
Not sure , I haven't limited the scope of reality to the impossibility. There could be a god I suppose the universe itself in fact could be god , and us its emanation of thought. But that's another story. At any rate I haven't seen or heard any true gods
nor expect that they will appear. Who knows they may be on the way from Nimbiru now? "shrugs shoulders" lol

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Level 2

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#2488 Aug 28, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
She's getting help for her sex obsession. Living in a chastity belt as of next week.
.. escaped from the treatment center. It was easy. All the female therapists were sex addicts ..

.. gonna start a self-help group. DF agreed to oversee the hot tub & CATCHER pre-registered ..

.. are you still wearing your chastity belt ??..

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#2489 Aug 28, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
As compared to what? What objectively real god are you comparing them with?
You can't make a distinction between two groups if ALL members of the group are in category 1 and none of them are in category 2.
That's not distinction.
<quoted text>
Exactly like every other god had no magic powers.
<quoted text>
Then you are saying that no gods are gods, which is a contradiction making the word meaningless as a term.
If no Texans are Texans, then the term "Texan" is meaningless.
You are complaining that my definition of god is too broad because it includes all gods. Your definition is so narrow that it doesn't even include a definition.
<quoted text>
Again, there is no need for other levels of analysis.
The question was: Are there any examples of any real things which can be categorized as gods?
Yes. Pharaohs were real. Pharaohs can be categorized as gods.
You've spent a week trying to argue that the above is false because Pharaohs are gods and shouldn't be consider gods because they have the exact same attributes of gods, therefore can't be gods which they are.
Then you say I'm not understanding you point.
No, you utterly fail to understand the position I have stated and have mischaracterized my argument.

Nevermind, Nuggin, you are not capable of understanding it. It seems too complex for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min replaytime 94,193
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 52 min Rose_NoHo 168,732
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 59 min 15th Dalai Lama 8
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 271
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 1 hr Rose_NoHo 40
Evolution is an ANCIENT RELIGION 4 hr Davidjayjordan 2
Evolution is boring as Hell (Nov '17) 6 hr Davidjayjordan 47