Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

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.

Comments (Page 233)

Showing posts 4,641 - 4,660 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4707
Dec 19, 2012
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>He may be an ass but he never said that he worshiped them.
Did you think the ancient Egyptians ever stopped believing the Pharaohs were gods?

It happened more than once , but more importantly it shows that belief didn't really make a god. It only makes a belief "of" a god. That's why the status of Pharaoh as "god" is a imaginary concept. It isn't real it rests in a state of stupidity and brainwashing.

Egyptian mythology was a complicated polytheistic mythology in which you would have to be a complete moron to believe.
So since the people themselves didn't always believe Pharaoh was god , then he must have been a part time imaginary god.

I agree we call human god kings "gods" because their totalitarian rule and tyrannical law made them into larger than life and blown up to mythical proportions.

I do not agree in calling them "gods" that they actually were gods because the basis of their power rests in mythology , lies , deceit , fear , and things like genocide and murder of other cultures.

Anyone who cannot differentiate the difference in the concept of belief in a thing being something , and it actually being what some believe it to be. Is mentally bankrupt , and bedazzled by the myth.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4708
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you think the ancient Egyptians ever stopped believing the Pharaohs were gods?
It happened more than once , but more importantly it shows that belief didn't really make a god. It only makes a belief "of" a god. That's why the status of Pharaoh as "god" is a imaginary concept. It isn't real it rests in a state of stupidity and brainwashing.
Egyptian mythology was a complicated polytheistic mythology in which you would have to be a complete moron to believe.
So since the people themselves didn't always believe Pharaoh was god , then he must have been a part time imaginary god.
I agree we call human god kings "gods" because their totalitarian rule and tyrannical law made them into larger than life and blown up to mythical proportions.
I do not agree in calling them "gods" that they actually were gods because the basis of their power rests in mythology , lies , deceit , fear , and things like genocide and murder of other cultures.
Anyone who cannot differentiate the difference in the concept of belief in a thing being something , and it actually being what some believe it to be. Is mentally bankrupt , and bedazzled by the myth.
Maybe the pharaohs were appeasing their subjects with a belief system because they understood that the people liked the way it felt to believe, to transcend their mundane existence.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene" ;

I don't believe there is a god gene but I believe that thought patterns, repeated constantly can affect how a gene expresses. Desire can do some amazing things to the body.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4709
Dec 20, 2012
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No? Objectively, slavery IS an "entity". An entity IS an object....its essence exists.
No, slavery is not an entity.

If it were, you could display slavery on a table independent of any other thing.

Slavery is a condition. It's a concept. It's an economic system. Etc.

However, NONE of that makes it a physically real object that exists outside of society.

You can not have slavery without people to conduct slavery.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4710
Dec 20, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Did you ask your mummy about it yet nuttin?
Do you honestly believe that acting like Skippy makes you more credible?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4711
Dec 20, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
It happened more than once , but more importantly it shows that belief didn't really make a god. It only makes a belief "of" a god.
The belief of a god is ALL that is required.

Thor is a god because Vikings believed in him.

It does not matter that Thor was not physically real. He has the characteristics of a god. If you make a list of gods, Thor should be on that list.

Honestly, this isn't a hard concept. It's AMAZING that you still can't grasp it after conceding EVERY SINGLE POINT in the debate.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4712
Dec 20, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The belief of a god is ALL that is required.
Thor is a god because Vikings believed in him.
It does not matter that Thor was not physically real. He has the characteristics of a god. If you make a list of gods, Thor should be on that list.
Honestly, this isn't a hard concept. It's AMAZING that you still can't grasp it after conceding EVERY SINGLE POINT in the debate.
I conceded that Skippy is right about you , not that Skippy is right. The term god is imaginary in describing or assigning to anything, it isn't real and it doesn't exist except in imagination.

Pharaoh was a god in imagination. Thor was a imaginary god.
All myth , just like your cognitive reasoning skills.

The term god describes either imaginary people or people with imaginary power. Only idiots believe either actually exist.
That's about the extent of it's usefulness.

It's AMAZING that you still can't grasp it even after the most intelligent people around told you so.

So you see the list is nothing but imaginary,
Pharaoh = real man and imaginary god.
Nuggin = real goofy and imaginary brains

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4713
Dec 20, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The belief of a god is ALL that is required.
No, having supernatural powers is a criterion for being a deity.
Thor is a god because Vikings believed in him.
No, Thor was believed to be a god because he was believed to have supernatural powers.
It does not matter that Thor was not physically real. He has the characteristics of a god. If you make a list of gods, Thor should be on that list.
Thor is on the list of things people have believed to be a god. At this point, no actual gods have been verified to exist.
Honestly, this isn't a hard concept. It's AMAZING that you still can't grasp it after conceding EVERY SINGLE POINT in the debate.
I understand your concept. I simply disagree with it. We conventionally say some figure in a mythology is a god because within that mythology that figure has supernatural powers. Even if the mythology is known to be false, the godhood of the characters in the mythology is defined by having supernatural powers.

When discussing whether a Pharaoh was a god, we have to make the distinction between having supernatural powers and having people believe they had supernatural powers. It is quite possible for no Pharaoh to have actually had supernatural powers, but that they were *believed* to have such powers and so were believed to be gods, even if they were not.

Now, we can say, correctly, that Pharaohs were gods in Egyptian mythology, because in that mythology they had supernatural powers. But they were not gods in reality because they did not, in actual fact, have those powers people believed them to have.

Again, while I see your point, I think it is wrong. I think it essential to keep the beliefs people have about the world separate from what is actually happening in the world.

For example, during the Middle Ages in Europe, it was believed that miasmas from swamps caused disease by upsetting the humours of the body. This was believed, but it was wrong. To say that disease was caused by miasmas, while correct in the belief system of that society, is actually wrong. In the same way, to say Thor is a deity in the Norse mythos is correct. To say Thor is in fact a deity is wrong (non-existence makes one not a deity in reality).

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4714
Dec 20, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
The term god is imaginary in describing or assigning to anything, it isn't real and it doesn't exist except in imagination.
Again, find someone who has English as their primary language to assist you.

The term is not "god" is not imaginary. There is a real definition which is easily accessible. The term is widely used in both academics and the vernacular.

The term "glieepslop" is imaginary. It has no definition. It can't be found in any dictionary. No one uses it to mean anything.

Learn the difference.
Pharaoh was a god in imagination. Thor was a imaginary god.
The rank of god, like EVERY other title or rank is part of a non-physical, subjective societal norm.

Obama is president in imagination. He's not ACTUALLY a "president" because there is not physical thing which equates to "president".

It's a title which only means something in context. Remove all people from the equation, the title is meaningless.

That does not mean, however, that people outside of the US can not recognize the title even though it does not apply to their society.

We acknowledge the Queen of England despite having fought a war to avoid having to do so.
Only idiots believe either actually exist.
Thor did not actually exist.
Ramses did.
Egypt exists still today.

Blanket denials of such obvious facts will not get you any further today than they did six months ago.

By the way, you already concede that point twice.
It's AMAZING that you still can't grasp it even after the most intelligent people around told you so.
The fact that you think you and Skippy are "the most intelligent people" while EVERYONE ELSE on the forum is stupid in comparison tells the rest of us a great deal about the limit of your mental capacity.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4715
Dec 20, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, having supernatural powers is a criterion for being a deity.
Not according to the dictionary definition. Not according to common usage. Not according to every list of gods/deities that anyone has ever put together.

You alone are setting this criteria, the rest of the world does not accept it.

Provide some basis for this claim.

Show me that the majority of academic would not understand a term like "Greek gods" or "Hindu gods".
No, Thor was believed to be a god because he was believed to have supernatural powers.
That's like saying: "This rock is believed to be a rock because it's believed to be a rock."

The definition of god is:
"A person/place/thing which people BELIEVE has supernatural powers and requires worship."

Plugging that definition into your sentence:
"Thor was believed to be _a person who people believed had supernatural powers and required worship_ because he was believed to have supernatural powers."

Redundant much?
Thor is on the list of things people have believed to be a god. At this point, no actual gods have been verified to exist.
No one uses the term "god" to mean an entity which has been verified to exist.

Without having checked, I'm going to now open another tab and google search "Hindu gods".

Let's see....
3 million + hits

Now let's do "unverified Hindu gods"...
That's weird. Zero hits.

What does that tell you?
I understand your concept. I simply disagree with it. We conventionally say some figure in a mythology is a god because within that mythology that figure has supernatural powers. Even if the mythology is known to be false, the godhood of the characters in the mythology is defined by having supernatural powers.
No. Superman has supernatural powers. Flash has supernatural powers. These are characters from a mythology. No one thinks they are a god.

There are talking animals in Aesop's fables. Not gods.

There are talking animals in North American Indian religions. They are gods.

The difference is, people don't BELIEVE Aesop's fables. They DO/DID believe in the NA religion.
It is quite possible for no Pharaoh to have actually had supernatural powers, but that they were *believed* to have such powers and so were believed to be gods, even if they were not.
If they were believed to be gods, then they were gods.

Belief is the requirement.
Now, we can say, correctly, that Pharaohs were gods in Egyptian mythology, because in that mythology they had supernatural powers. But they were not gods in reality because they did not, in actual fact, have those powers people believed them to have.
If you want to make that distinction, then please provide me with a single example of a "real god" from your religion.

If, as I suspect, you are going to admit that there are no "real gods" that fit your criteria, then you are dividing a group into two sets - one of which has no members.

That's worthless.

That's like saying: "There are two kinds of people in the world. Everyone."

What's the other kind? Oh, there isn't.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4716
Dec 20, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the dictionary definition. Not according to common usage. Not according to every list of gods/deities that anyone has ever put together.
You alone are setting this criteria, the rest of the world does not accept it.
Provide some basis for this claim.
Show me that the majority of academic would not understand a term like "Greek gods" or "Hindu gods".
<quoted text>
That's like saying: "This rock is believed to be a rock because it's believed to be a rock."
The definition of god is:
"A person/place/thing which people BELIEVE has supernatural powers and requires worship."
Plugging that definition into your sentence:
"Thor was believed to be _a person who people believed had supernatural powers and required worship_ because he was believed to have supernatural powers."
Redundant much?
<quoted text>
No one uses the term "god" to mean an entity which has been verified to exist.
Without having checked, I'm going to now open another tab and google search "Hindu gods".
Let's see....
3 million + hits
Now let's do "unverified Hindu gods"...
That's weird. Zero hits.
What does that tell you?
<quoted text>
No. Superman has supernatural powers. Flash has supernatural powers. These are characters from a mythology. No one thinks they are a god.
There are talking animals in Aesop's fables. Not gods.
There are talking animals in North American Indian religions. They are gods.
The difference is, people don't BELIEVE Aesop's fables. They DO/DID believe in the NA religion.
<quoted text>
If they were believed to be gods, then they were gods.
Belief is the requirement.
<quoted text>
If you want to make that distinction, then please provide me with a single example of a "real god" from your religion.
If, as I suspect, you are going to admit that there are no "real gods" that fit your criteria, then you are dividing a group into two sets - one of which has no members.
That's worthless.
That's like saying: "There are two kinds of people in the world. Everyone."
What's the other kind? Oh, there isn't.

So should we define you as a dictionary thumper?

Your belief is stronger that fact.
Please provide an example of a real god with real god powers.

Otherwise you have nothing a promise of something non-existent.
Belief is nothing, performance is EVERYTHING!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4717
Dec 20, 2012
 
Or you're missing the bigger picture.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2008112...

Hmmmmph?

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4718
Dec 20, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No, slavery is not an entity.
If it were, you could display slavery on a table independent of any other thing.
Slavery is a condition. It's a concept. It's an economic system. Etc.
However, NONE of that makes it a physically real object that exists outside of society.
You can not have slavery without people to conduct slavery.
No?

" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entity" ;

As long as it exists in the mind it is real, it exists as information that can be retrieved from it.

BTW, there are ants that enslave other ants.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4719
Dec 20, 2012
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No?
" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entity" ;
As long as it exists in the mind it is real, it exists as information that can be retrieved from it.
BTW, there are ants that enslave other ants.
What you are saying is the if people think that a god(s) exist then they do, at least as information?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4720
Dec 20, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
So should we define you as a dictionary thumper?
Your belief is stronger that fact.
Please provide an example of a real god with real god powers.
Otherwise you have nothing a promise of something non-existent.
Belief is nothing, performance is EVERYTHING!
You're attempt to reverse position in this debate is unsuccessful.

I have never claimed that any god has real powers.
Having real powers is not a requirement for godhood.
Actually existing is not a requirement for godhood.
What is required is BELIEF by the people.

Every god of every religion from every culture in the history of the world has had that one criteria met: People believed.

Can you name a single god in which there was never a believer? No. That wouldn't be a god.

Now, the fundamental difference between a god like Thor and a god like Ramses is this: Thor was never a physical person. Ramses was.

So the claim that there was never a real flesh and blood god is factually incorrect. Ramses was a god. He really existed. Believe believed in him.

Those facts have not changed since my first post on this subject.
You yourself have conceded those facts on a number of occasions.

You insist on arguing because you are immature and can't simply admit that you've been wrong _even though_ you concede the argument weeks ago.

It's pretty sad.

Now, demonstrate your level of maturity by misspelling my name and claiming that I am the source of all slavery in the world. That should REALLY convince the rest of the posters.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4721
Dec 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No?
" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entity" ;
As long as it exists in the mind it is real, it exists as information that can be retrieved from it.
BTW, there are ants that enslave other ants.
A couple of things:

First, your link provides definitions which are the opposite of your claim. You should read your link.

Second, the term "slave" does not apply to the ants. There are species of ants which raid other ant hives and steal the larvae. Those larvae hatch and those ants work for the colony even though they are technically a different species.

There are not slaves because -
- They are not a different social status than the other worker ants they are with
- They are not the same species, it would at best be a form of domestication
- All ants save the queen and a few males are non-reproductive drones. These are not "multi-generational" .
- Ants lack an economic system, there is no trade in slaves, no term of service. They could be considered "captives" and it's true that some human societies have captured slaves, however those slaves are not equal members of that society, they are property.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4722
Dec 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>What you are saying is the if people think that a god(s) exist then they do, at least as information?
No, I was trying to establish slavery as being a type of entity, like the concept of "government" is an entity. You can't put either in a box but each exists, objectively, in the mind of the master, slave or someone contemplating the subject. I suppose that is where the idea of a god gene also comes from though. Someone feeds someone else the concept and it turns into a self evident high that forces a gene to express in a way that allows it to continue in the future without conscious effort, IOWs, the next generation finds no problem believing what the last one did. If addiction can be prevalent because of this then so can religion. The question I would ask is how did thinking about transcending the mundane become pleasurable the very first time? Why would early man need anything more than the orgasm to feel good?

It reminds me of the placebo effect. ;)

Sugar pills are amazing things, aren't they? That faith that they will do exactly what the label on the bottle says they will......

aw, crap, my mind is off on too many tangents tonight. I need a drink and a hot bath.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4723
Dec 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No, I was trying to establish slavery as being a type of entity, like the concept of "government" is an entity. You can't put either in a box but each exists, objectively, in the mind of the master, slave or someone contemplating the subject. I suppose that is where the idea of a god gene also comes from though. Someone feeds someone else the concept and it turns into a self evident high that forces a gene to express in a way that allows it to continue in the future without conscious effort, IOWs, the next generation finds no problem believing what the last one did. If addiction can be prevalent because of this then so can religion. The question I would ask is how did thinking about transcending the mundane become pleasurable the very first time? Why would early man need anything more than the orgasm to feel good?
It reminds me of the placebo effect. ;)
Sugar pills are amazing things, aren't they? That faith that they will do exactly what the label on the bottle says they will......
aw, crap, my mind is off on too many tangents tonight. I need a drink and a hot bath.
Great, now I got that in my head.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4724
Dec 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple of things:
First, your link provides definitions which are the opposite of your claim. You should read your link.
Second, the term "slave" does not apply to the ants. There are species of ants which raid other ant hives and steal the larvae. Those larvae hatch and those ants work for the colony even though they are technically a different species.
There are not slaves because -
- They are not a different social status than the other worker ants they are with
- They are not the same species, it would at best be a form of domestication
- All ants save the queen and a few males are non-reproductive drones. These are not "multi-generational" .
- Ants lack an economic system, there is no trade in slaves, no term of service. They could be considered "captives" and it's true that some human societies have captured slaves, however those slaves are not equal members of that society, they are property.
Just because the abducted ants don't know that they are laboring to ensure the survival of an "alien" species does not make them less of a slave. The abductors "know" the abducted are slaves, so slavery is an entity in that society. The profit is in the survival of the abductors' spawn/colony.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4725
Dec 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Great, now I got that in my head.
Me too. You bring the saran wrap and I'll get the rubber bands and spatula.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4726
Dec 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You're attempt to reverse position in this debate is unsuccessful.
I have never claimed that any god has real powers.
Having real powers is not a requirement for godhood.
Actually existing is not a requirement for godhood.
What is required is BELIEF by the people.
Every god of every religion from every culture in the history of the world has had that one criteria met: People believed.
Can you name a single god in which there was never a believer? No. That wouldn't be a god.
Now, the fundamental difference between a god like Thor and a god like Ramses is this: Thor was never a physical person. Ramses was.
So the claim that there was never a real flesh and blood god is factually incorrect. Ramses was a god. He really existed. Believe believed in him.
Those facts have not changed since my first post on this subject.
You yourself have conceded those facts on a number of occasions.
You insist on arguing because you are immature and can't simply admit that you've been wrong _even though_ you concede the argument weeks ago.
It's pretty sad.
Now, demonstrate your level of maturity by misspelling my name and claiming that I am the source of all slavery in the world. That should REALLY convince the rest of the posters.

Nope , you are blowing your myths up again.

Your Pharaohs inflation nozzle is turning red .
You should give it a rest you might pop your pharaoh!
No real supernatural power no real god.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,641 - 4,660 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••