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.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5316 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The problem is this nougat , we named many things god thinking it was something that it is not.
Here is where you're whole argument falls apart.

You just conceded that we've "named many things god".

Boom. Game over. You lose.

That's the ENTIRE discussion right there.

My argument is ENTIRELY: People name things gods, therefore gods are those things named by people to be gods.

That's it. There's not some additional special qualification. If people have named this a god, then it's a god. What does that mean? It means that people named it a god. It carries ZERO additional meaning.

It's a LABEL.

Skippy is claiming that NOTHING with that label has ever really existed.

I am pointing out that, while MANY of the 150,000+ things labelled as gods do not actually physically exist, there have been several which were ACTUALLY real things.

Those include various volcanoes, a couple trees, and a bunch of different individuals - in particular the Pharaohs.

That's it. That's the WHOLE debate.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5317 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree but it is also true he had some Iraqis believe he was a god, he claimed divinity by being the descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.
He claimed supernatural power and immortality through cloning and deception.(particularly by using doubles and tunnels so he could appear to have move from one place to another impossibly)These techniques are no different than in pharaohs day.
Shall we call Saddam a god? I think not but he did qualify just as much as a pharaoh.
You are claiming that there were a group of Iraqis who believed he was a god. If that's true, then he was.

If, however, he merely claimed to be a god and no one believed him, then he wasn't.

"god" is not a label you can accurately self apply. It can only be applied by others who believe it.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5318 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Divinity is the easiest claim to disprove, there simply is no such thing.
That's not disproving something. That's merely proclaiming it false.

That's like me saying "Gravity has been falsified because there's no such thing as gravity."

That's an insufficient argument. Lay out your logic disproving it.
Secondly have you know anyone who could demonstrate supernatural or magical powers?
Again, that's a wildly insufficient argument.

I don't personally know anyone from Taiwan. Guess what, there are people from Taiwan. The existence of a person who fits a criteria is not limited to whether or not I personally know them.
It's pretty easy to dismiss all claims of demigods , because they are really attempts to justify that someone is above and better than everyone else.
Whoa! Talk about a reversal of position.

Now, you are apparently claiming that ALL gods/demigods are actually real people.

I mean, you're not saying that Thor needs justification that he is better than someone else cuz... news flash... Thor ain't real.
Only with a rabid Imperialistic cult can you have a demigod in charge and it violates all measure of human rights.
Why do you think so many aristocrats lost their heads?
You are aware that America violates human rights on a regular basis, right? We've imprisoned children. We've executed the mentally retarded. We declare war under false pretense.

You don't need to be a god to violate human rights, you just need the will to do so.

Also, Thor never violated any human rights because again... news flash.... never really existed.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#5319 Jan 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is where you're whole argument falls apart.
You just conceded that we've "named many things god".
Boom. Game over. You lose.
That's the ENTIRE discussion right there.
My argument is ENTIRELY: People name things gods, therefore gods are those things named by people to be gods.
That's it. There's not some additional special qualification. If people have named this a god, then it's a god. What does that mean? It means that people named it a god. It carries ZERO additional meaning.
It's a LABEL.
Skippy is claiming that NOTHING with that label has ever really existed.
I am pointing out that, while MANY of the 150,000+ things labelled as gods do not actually physically exist, there have been several which were ACTUALLY real things.
Those include various volcanoes, a couple trees, and a bunch of different individuals - in particular the Pharaohs.
That's it. That's the WHOLE debate.
No it isn't , except in your mind Nuglet. That's the end of your debate but where you define the labels between what is called god and what is actually a god. Is a stumbling block for you. You do not have the ability to differentiate between an abstract concept and reality.
The label for pharaoh is only applied to identify him in his cult.
It doesn't extend into our reality, not anymore than Saddam being a god. Legendary of mythical proportion , existing in fantasy, no more god than the volcano nougat.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#5320 Jan 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not disproving something. That's merely proclaiming it false.
That's like me saying "Gravity has been falsified because there's no such thing as gravity."
That's an insufficient argument. Lay out your logic disproving it.
<quoted text>
Again, that's a wildly insufficient argument.
I don't personally know anyone from Taiwan. Guess what, there are people from Taiwan. The existence of a person who fits a criteria is not limited to whether or not I personally know them.
<quoted text>
Whoa! Talk about a reversal of position.
Now, you are apparently claiming that ALL gods/demigods are actually real people.
I mean, you're not saying that Thor needs justification that he is better than someone else cuz... news flash... Thor ain't real.
<quoted text>
You are aware that America violates human rights on a regular basis, right? We've imprisoned children. We've executed the mentally retarded. We declare war under false pretense.
You don't need to be a god to violate human rights, you just need the will to do so.
Also, Thor never violated any human rights because again... news flash.... never really existed.
I can quite easily , it started with the magna carta It ended with the right of your Queen stripped to a figurehead. And the aristocrats put to the guillotine. There is no divine right , there is no royal blood
There is no special DNA , and there is no God DNA.

But there is the end of that type thinking you are spouting now.

And all this garbage IS garbage.

"You are aware that America violates human rights on a regular basis, right? We've imprisoned children. We've executed the mentally retarded. We declare war under false pretense.
You don't need to be a god to violate human rights, you just need the will to do so."

Sure some stuff happens but not like that.

And this?

We declare war under false pretense.

Just try to qualify that.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5321 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No it isn't , except in your mind Nuglet. That's the end of your debate but where you define the labels between what is called god and what is actually a god. Is a stumbling block for you. You do not have the ability to differentiate between an abstract concept and reality.
That's my point.

You keep trying to insist that being a god entails MORE than just the label.

It doesn't.

EVERY single god in the ENTIRE history of Humankind has fit into the "called a god" category.

100% of them.

So why bother inventing a new category which contains zero examples?

The ONLY reason to do that is because you have a secret god which you think IS real and you are offended when we point out that the other 150,000+ gods are valid.

I've been assuming you are defensive about Jesus. If it's not Jesus but is instead Allah or Xenu or something, then let us know.
The label for pharaoh is only applied to identify him in his cult.
As opposed to which god?

You already conceded that Thor is the Viking god of Thunder. Which means that despite the fact that ONLY the Vikings worshiped him, you acknowledge that he is a god.

Ditto Zeus and the Greeks.
Ditto Vishnu and the Hindus.

So, since you accept all three of those gods despite the limited number of believers, what sets them apart from any other god?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#5322 Jan 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are claiming that there were a group of Iraqis who believed he was a god. If that's true, then he was.
If, however, he merely claimed to be a god and no one believed him, then he wasn't.
"god" is not a label you can accurately self apply. It can only be applied by others who believe it.

That's where you are wrong, it takes effort on the aspiring gods part to claim divinity, and then deception to pull it off but was done by every first king in their cult, even right to the Ptolemaic dynasty, where Alexander claimed divinity and seized the throne of Egypt, they didn't believe him a first. I sure it took some smashing
heads to get them in line. Claims of divinity and deception were always the tools to becoming a god

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5323 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Sure some stuff happens but not like that.
And this?
We declare war under false pretense.
Just try to qualify that.
The premises for the Iraq war were two fold:

#1) That Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It didn't. The 9/11 hijackers were almost all Saudis (who hate Iraq) and they were all Conservative Shi'ites where as Iraq was run by secular Sunnis.

#2) That Iraq had been trying to make a nuclear weapon with "yellow cake". A claim that was so fraudulent that OUR CIA refused to support its inclusion in the State of the Union so W had to say the info came from British sources. Of course, the amount of yellow cake which was claimed to have been obtained was roughly equal to the ENTIRE output of all the mines in the country in question and would have had to have been transported in Wonder Woman's invisible jet in order for it to get from the mines to Iraq unnoticed.

The administration knew that both claims were false and pushed forward with the war making it unjustified and declared under false pretense.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5324 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That's where you are wrong, it takes effort on the aspiring gods part to claim divinity, and then deception to pull it off but was done by every first king in their cult, even right to the Ptolemaic dynasty, where Alexander claimed divinity and seized the throne of Egypt, they didn't believe him a first. I sure it took some smashing
heads to get them in line. Claims of divinity and deception were always the tools to becoming a god
You can declare yourself a god, but if no religion forms around you, you are not a god. You are just a guy who says they are a god.

If you do form a religion, then you are a god by the simple fact that other people believe in you.

It doesn't matter if you are benevolent or malevolent. It doesn't matter if you have powers or don't (you don't). It doesn't matter if you really exist or if you never existed by the people of the religion have made you up entirely.

As anthropologists, we can look at ANY religion and say: "Okay, this is a religion, it revolves around this particular doctrine and centers around the worship of that particular deity."

Trying to convince social scientists to pretend like religions don't exist and aren't able to be evaluated is anti-intellectualism at its worst.

Guess what. Things that you don't like do exist. People study them. Your opinion of the thing does not negate its existing in society.

I personally don't like motorcycles. That doesn't mean no one is allowed to use the word "motorcycle" anymore.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5325 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
no more god than the volcano nougat.
So, let's take two volcanoes.

One is Pele, and the natives are throwing virgins in it every winter solstice.

The other is Mt. St. Helens and the natives aren't throwing virgins or anything else in it.

Why is group one throwing virgins into Pele and group two is NOT throwing anything into Mt. St. Helens?

What is different between group one's beliefs about Pele?

After all, according to you, they are both just volcanoes, therefore both groups should behave EXACTLY the same way around the volcanoes.

So, what gives? What is causing the activities in group one?

Remember, you can't say it has anything to do with the beliefs of group one because you've already ruled out beliefs as a cause for such things.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#5326 Jan 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I'll address this criticism in two points.
First, I'd like to point out that you seem to be trying to indicate with this post that you think that you are smarter than me. I would suggest that you get a better grip on your argument before you bother to contradict yourself.
Second, I have not said I'm smarter than everyone else. Just that I'm stuck arguing with you two idiots. I have six month of evidence as to why you shouldn't be taken seriously. I dare you, scroll back through the last 100 pages and count the number of times you use the word "lie" or "liar". Then count the number of actual points you make.(FYI "Lie" is not a point).
As for Aura, do the same only instead of counting liar, count how many times he switches his position on things like whether or not Thor should be considered a god.
Of course we both know you won't do either of those things. Instead you'll respond with more bitchy posts about my penis and then criticize me for not arguing fair.
YAWN
There you go, still overestimating your intelligence.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#5327 Jan 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The premises for the Iraq war were two fold:
#1) That Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It didn't. The 9/11 hijackers were almost all Saudis (who hate Iraq) and they were all Conservative Shi'ites where as Iraq was run by secular Sunnis.
#2) That Iraq had been trying to make a nuclear weapon with "yellow cake". A claim that was so fraudulent that OUR CIA refused to support its inclusion in the State of the Union so W had to say the info came from British sources. Of course, the amount of yellow cake which was claimed to have been obtained was roughly equal to the ENTIRE output of all the mines in the country in question and would have had to have been transported in Wonder Woman's invisible jet in order for it to get from the mines to Iraq unnoticed.
The administration knew that both claims were false and pushed forward with the war making it unjustified and declared under false pretense.
Nope absolutely wrong.

We invaded them for non compliance with UN weapon inspectors.

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter; Edited

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/20/i...

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#5328 Jan 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, let's take two volcanoes.
One is Pele, and the natives are throwing virgins in it every winter solstice.
The other is Mt. St. Helens and the natives aren't throwing virgins or anything else in it.
Why is group one throwing virgins into Pele and group two is NOT throwing anything into Mt. St. Helens?
What is different between group one's beliefs about Pele?
After all, according to you, they are both just volcanoes, therefore both groups should behave EXACTLY the same way around the volcanoes.
So, what gives? What is causing the activities in group one?
Remember, you can't say it has anything to do with the beliefs of group one because you've already ruled out beliefs as a cause for such things.
Now you want me to argue about why a volcano isn't a god? OMFG! lol

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#5329 Jan 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You can declare yourself a god, but if no religion forms around you, you are not a god. You are just a guy who says they are a god.
If you do form a religion, then you are a god by the simple fact that other people believe in you.
It doesn't matter if you are benevolent or malevolent. It doesn't matter if you have powers or don't (you don't). It doesn't matter if you really exist or if you never existed by the people of the religion have made you up entirely.
As anthropologists, we can look at ANY religion and say: "Okay, this is a religion, it revolves around this particular doctrine and centers around the worship of that particular deity."
Trying to convince social scientists to pretend like religions don't exist and aren't able to be evaluated is anti-intellectualism at its worst.
Guess what. Things that you don't like do exist. People study them. Your opinion of the thing does not negate its existing in society.
I personally don't like motorcycles. That doesn't mean no one is allowed to use the word "motorcycle" anymore.

Alexander had no religion, he took their religion and applied it to him.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5330 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Divinity is the easiest claim to disprove, there simply is no such thing.
Then you should have no problem disproving it then. Don't forget to describe in detail the scientific experiment you performed that falsified it. Me though I maintain that the concept is non-falsifiable and therefore is simply non-scientific.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Secondly have you know anyone who could demonstrate supernatural or magical powers?
Not personally.
Aura Mytha wrote:
It's pretty easy to dismiss all claims of demigods , because they are really attempts to justify that someone is above and better than everyone else. That's why we have elections , and limit the power of government.
Only with a rabid Imperialistic cult can you have a demigod in charge and it violates all measure of human rights.
Uhuh.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Why do you think so many aristocrats lost their heads?
Probably because the priesthood gave themselves the power to behead any and all percieved heretics.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5331 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, still overestimating your intelligence.
Or more to the point, over estimating yours.

Tried to treat you like an adult, guess that was a waste of time.

So, which is it this time? "Liar!" or "Penis!"

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5332 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Nope absolutely wrong.
We invaded them for non compliance with UN weapon inspectors.
ROFL.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

What are you, 12? Were you just completely unaware of what the White House was saying during the run up to the war?

You think they sold the RED STATES on sending their children to war to protect the UN's right to go into a country and inspect it?

LOL. Seriously. Get a grip

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5333 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Now you want me to argue about why a volcano isn't a god? OMFG! lol
You brought it up. I'm just asking you to differentiate between two different volcanoes.

Apparently you can't do it.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#5334 Jan 8, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should have no problem disproving it then. Don't forget to describe in detail the scientific experiment you performed that falsified it. Me though I maintain that the concept is non-falsifiable and therefore is simply non-scientific.
<quoted text>
Not personally.
<quoted text>
Uhuh.
<quoted text>
Probably because the priesthood gave themselves the power to behead any and all percieved heretics.

No it was because the people got tired of them pretending they were better than them. If you remember history classes in school it was the peasants that had serious grievances with starving while the upper classes had everything.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#5335 Jan 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Alexander had no religion, he took their religion and applied it to him.
According to the argument you've been trying to make, that's impossible.

In order to do that, Alexander would have to be able to recognize that a religion exists. You can't do that without acknowledging that the religion centers around a deity.

According to your argument, nothing can be labelled a deity by anyone outside of the specific religion.

If you aren't Christian, you have no idea what the Christians worship. If you aren't Hindu, no idea what the Hindus worship.

That is the central premise of your argument.

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) 13 min Dogen 61,351
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 23 min 15th Dalai Lama 160,303
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Dogen 28,320
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 30 min Dogen 2,687
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 31 min Aura Mytha 220,637
Curious dilemma about DNA 7 hr Subduction Zone 2
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Mar 23 Regolith Based Li... 99
More from around the web