Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 Full story: Washington Times 6,103

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.

Full Story

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#5516 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Anybody can give charity, what matters is the act, not the motivation.
Here's a scenario:

Mitt Romney is facing a 5 million dollar tax bill.
However, due to some tax trickery, he can escape paying 5 million if he instead gives 2 million to his church.

So he does that. The church gets 2 million. Romney keeps 3 million. The government gets zip.

Was that an act of charity or greed?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#5517 Jan 13, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
AGain, you link without reading.
"building blocks of DNA"
"DNA precursors"
Look at the words and get a friend or parent to explain what the big ones mean.
To make myself perfectly clear, I quoted the author and in fact did read the articles in question. I also understood exactly what they said . But the buzz is still the same Nuggin, it is that life may indeed all be alien. With this thought comes the ramifications in the realization, there could be life in places elsewhere . This is evidence of merit of the possibility.

No amount of stealth theism can rob it away , it to theists is the poison that whittles away at the thought of divine creation. At least in the lesser mind , who have not thought it out completely. This is a threat the theist mind believes.

Just the same that the theist mind believes , a pharaoh could be a god. But this was discussed before with Darwin the Baptist.
We will never eliminate the theism in thinking because.
"What if" here is something you can relate to.

What if life and the building blocks necessary were a equation purposely mixed into the big bang itself? Hmm divinity no information transferred from the inanimate to create innate matter... possibly.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5518 Jan 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I don't know whether there is alien life out there or not. But you already said there is a certain probability. Are you now taking that back.
I've never posted anything like saying extraterrestrial life "is a certain probability", can you provide a quote? I've always posted there is no evidence for extraterrestrial life so belief in aliens is like belief in God; based on faith and not science.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
All I am saying that if we develop the technology for travel even within our own solar system we can look and see and that is a better chance than looking for evidence of the existence of a god. Are you claiming to know where a god hangs out that we can look and see? You get very riled up about these speculative things. Don't take it so seriously.
I favor all science; looking for alien life is a good idea. Belief in alien life is like belief in dragons, elves and magic.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5519 Jan 13, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
One of hundreds such articles:
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/artic...
The author of your "article" isn't a journalist. Sanal Edamaruku has a vested interest in defaming the Catholic Church because he offers an opposing philosophy.
Edamaruku has been active in the Rationalist Association from the age of 15. Before becoming the President of Indian Rationalist Association(IRA)in 2005, he has been its General Secretary of the IRA since 1983, and has been the editor of its mouthpiece Modern Freethinker/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku

.
Nuggin wrote:
All morality is subjective anyway. It is not "more" moral to apply Mosaic law than it is to apply Utilitarianism. All you change is the presuppositions upon which the "morals" are based.
.
Nuggin wrote:
Is it "moral" to stone someone to death because she was raped? According to Mosiac law - yes. According to concepts of autonomy - no.
It's moral to stone the rapist to death. I don't promote Mosaic law, I promote capital punishment for aggravated rape.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Well, too bad your view was not shared by the "charitable churches" you are applauding.
Please cite any "charitable church" that doesn't teach the value of good works.

.
Nuggin wrote:
I'm responding after about 3 hours absence. I'm gonna assume someone already gave you this list. If they haven't I'll come back to it.
I guess this is your way of conceding, actions are important and intent is immaterial.

.
Nuggin wrote:
And yet their actions are not for the benefit of the poor, but rather the benefit of themselves. None of the people participating in these charities are doing so without hope of reward in Heaven for the "good deeds".
I don't see into other people's minds or souls; I don't judge people on their thoughts. I judge people by what they do.
If someone does a good deed for reward that's better than any bad deed, no matter the intention. Liberals care about how policy makes them feel; conservatives ask, "Will it do more good than harm?" The minute you stop thinking about how it feels and think about consequences, you stop being a liberal and become conservative.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5520 Jan 13, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
You are claiming that atheists can not be charitable and that Christians can, BUT you are saying that the REASON for their action is irrelevant.
I've never said atheists can not be charitable.

.
Nuggin wrote:
That's a contradiction.
That's a strawman concept N. introduced; I reject it. Intent, thoughts and soul are immaterial, I don't judge them. N. does judge intentions and I judge actions; this is where we differ.

.
Nuggin wrote:
How is it that Christians can be charitable and atheists can't if the fact that they are Christians and atheists is completely irrelevant to your argument?
I never claimed only Christians can be charitable because it's untrue; anyone from any religion or philosophy can do good works. Anyone can do evil; intent doesn't matter - only actions matter.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Further, this argument is: "The ends justify the means". That's the opposite of what you are trying to express.
I've never written, "The ends justify the means"; I've written that consequences matter more than motivation.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5521 Jan 13, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Here's a scenario: Mitt Romney is facing a 5 million dollar tax bill. However, due to some tax trickery, he can escape paying 5 million if he instead gives 2 million to his church.
So he does that. The church gets 2 million. Romney keeps 3 million. The government gets zip. Was that an act of charity or greed?
If you give away money or work, that's charity. If you pay taxes, that's not charity. Charity is voluntary giving.

Don't blame Romney for bad tax law; blame Congress and the President that signed the bill.

I don't judge intent; if you do good work for reward that's a better act than doing bad for good reasons. Belief can't be directly observed; only deeds and words matter objectively.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5522 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
So in other words you were lying when you claimed they taught evolution, because what they're really teaching is creationist religious apologetics. Once again Brian is caught supporting creationist apologetics in a scientific context. Tut tut, Brian. The 9th Commandment mean nothing to you then?
I wrote they taught evolution and provided the course title and class number from their catalog. I also note, they aren't an accredited college.

They have a right to teach what they want; they teach faith, not science. They are irrelevant and don't represent conservatives.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5523 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
No you don't. Which is why you were a Ricky Santorum fan and promoted religious apologetics in public schools. Though that may have just been a means to an end cuz your real problem is gays having equal rights, right? And who cares if science education goes out the window in the meantime.
The laws they offer support critical thought; I support critical thought to.

Two men or two women are fundamentally different from the union of a man and a woman. Gays have equal rights to marry under current law; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Gays have always married; I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples.

Belief in a special right to redefine marriage for everyone is based on faith; not science or consideration of the social consequences of radical change to a fundamental cultural institution.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5524 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Bingo. This IS where we differ. There's goodness for the sake of it, or goodness done merely for personal gain. In my view that is not "good".
That's right; I can't judge the heart or the soul of an actor; I can only judge the act. In my view, doing good for personal gain is better than doing bad for good reasons or doing nothing at all. Motivation isn't important; consequences are the only thing that matters.

.
The Dude wrote:
Since atheism is mere statement of a lack of belief for something which there is no evidence it lacks motivation to do good works "in the name of atheism".
Therefor, religious organizations that build hospitals, orphanages, food distribution centers and homeless shelters are better than atheists that do nothing but vote for higher taxes and wasteful government spending.

.
The Dude wrote:
To do so would merely be to want to take credit, which appears to be the Christian motivation.
Motivation can't be measured but actions can; if somebody gives so they can have their name on a hospital that's a better act than somebody who does nothing because they have a 'pure heart'.

.
The Dude wrote:
So in effect the numerous non-religious charitable organisations could be described as "atheistic", as they are doing good works without a need for religious motivation.
Theology doesn't interest me; good works do. Religious organizations have done tremendous good and should be recognized for that good. Atheists, like the communists in China and the exSoviet Union have murdered hundreds of millions and should be recognized for the evil they did.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5525 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The author of your "article" isn't a journalist. Sanal Edamaruku has a vested interest in defaming the Catholic Church because he offers an opposing philosophy.
Just as you have a vested interest in defaming atheists for offering an opposing philosophy. Hmmm.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5526 Jan 13, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
That isn't a very sound basis for a science curriculum, but it does fit with the anti-science stand of many fundamentalists of today.
You say "many fundamentalists" but cite a small, insignificant unaccredited University. No mainstream politician is taking an anti-science stance but many atheists posting here object to teaching critical thought in every discipline.

Whether evolution is taught with a critical view and an acknowledge faith based bias; the teaching is still valuable. Science and faith differ; the religious understand that but some atheists don't.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5527 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Unfortunately for you bub, aliens have one distinct advantage - they are a potentially falsifiable concept. Scientifically speaking that puts them light years ahead of your baseless religious beliefs.
You can no more prove the nonexistence of alien life than you can prove the nonexistence of God. The difference is; religious people understand belief in God is based on faith and not science but many atheists posting here think their belief in alien life is based on science, not faith.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5528 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I wrote they taught evolution and provided the course title and class number from their catalog.
If they are teaching a creationist caricature then they are not teaching evolution.
Brian_G wrote:
I also note, they aren't an accredited college.
Yes you did. LATER. Either because you at first didn't realise they taught creationist claptrap and are being disingenuous now or you did and you were being disingenuous then.

Makes no difference to me though, as we already know you're disingenuous.(shrug)
Brian_G wrote:
They have a right to teach what they want; they teach faith, not science. They are irrelevant and don't represent conservatives.
Which is irrelevant to the original point that it's a religious Christian institution that DOESN'T teach evolution. It teaches BS. However you DID represent them and their supposed "right" to teach BS in public school science classes when you were evangelizing Santorum/Jindal's "science" laws.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5529 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The laws they offer support critical thought; I support critical thought to.
Since they supported creationist apologetics this claim has been, is, and always will be false.
Brian_G wrote:
Two men or two women are fundamentally different from the union of a man and a woman. Gays have equal rights to marry under current law; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Gays have always married; I cite Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples.
Belief in a special right to redefine marriage for everyone is based on faith; not science or consideration of the social consequences of radical change to a fundamental cultural institution.
Belief in a special right to dictate whom others marry based on orientation is based on faith. Allowing same sex marriage does not take away the rights of those who want to marry someone of the opposite sex.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5530 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Religions help teach how all those who do not share their beliefs are lesser people.
I don't agree; religions teach followers how to be better people and are proud of their good works. Most mainstream religions understand people of other religions have other theology.

.
The Dude wrote:
Atheism can't teach you how to be a better cook either. So what's the problem?(shrug)
There is a benefit from religion; instruction in morality and self control. Atheists don't teach the same values. That's why I support my neighbor's right to practice their religions without government interference.

There's a difference between teaching someone how to be a better person and teaching someone how to be a better cook.

.
The Dude wrote:
Don't criticize spoons for not helping us carry battleships.
Just note the difference between the two.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5531 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's right; I can't judge the heart or the soul of an actor; I can only judge the act. In my view, doing good for personal gain is better than doing bad for good reasons or doing nothing at all. Motivation isn't important; consequences are the only thing that matters.
.
<quoted text>Therefor, religious organizations that build hospitals, orphanages, food distribution centers and homeless shelters are better than atheists that do nothing but vote for higher taxes and wasteful government spending.
.
<quoted text>Motivation can't be measured but actions can; if somebody gives so they can have their name on a hospital that's a better act than somebody who does nothing because they have a 'pure heart'.
Well done for continuing the caricature and ignoring previous points.

Aaaand it continues here:
Brian_G wrote:
Theology doesn't interest me; good works do. Religious organizations have done tremendous good and should be recognized for that good.
So theology doesn't interest you but theology interests you. Got it.
Brian_G wrote:
Atheists, like the communists in China and the exSoviet Union have murdered hundreds of millions and should be recognized for the evil they did.
Man, I must be a prophet. Right, Sheila?

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5532 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Whether evolution is taught with a critical view and an acknowledge faith based bias; the teaching is still valuable. Science and faith differ; the religious understand that but some atheists don't.
You're right, some atheists don't - like Skippy. But then some religious people don't, like all the fundies currently pushing for religious apologetics in public schools. Something which you yourself support under the straw-man guise of "critical thinking".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5533 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You say "many fundamentalists" but cite a small, insignificant unaccredited University. No mainstream politician is taking an anti-science stance but many atheists posting here object to teaching critical thought in every discipline.
Actually it's only really Skippy who objects to critical thinking. However here's some pseudo-science pretending to be "critical thinking", plenty of which has had great political support:

http://www.tfn.org/site/News2...
(creation education materials examples)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronom...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5534 Jan 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
WITH religion, all morality is subjective. Christians are better than other religions? Subjective. Muslims better than other religions? Subjective. BOTH claim that their religions are "righteous" in the eyes of God. Either way, it involves an invisible sky-daddy up there which claims certain things are right and wrong because it SAYS so - that's subjective.
Judge actions, not theology. An act of charity is better than the murder of innocents in the name of religion. The results can be objectively measured and intent is immaterial.

.
The Dude wrote:
Uhuh, the mother can DIE first before you right-wing nutbags will consider paying taxes to fund that abortion.
The unborn baby ALWAYS dies where there is an abortion. Forcing taxpayers to pay for your abortion is an act of evil, not an act of good.

.
The Dude wrote:
[]Which ignores his criticism of Teresa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Cr...
Also bear in mind that they do not necessarily have to do what they say on the tin. Kinda like the DI laughably claiming to support science and without religious bias.
What did Mother Teresa do that outweighs all the good? Her work saved thousands of lives and provided a better life and inspiration for millions of people. Tell us; what do you have against Mother Teresa?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5535 Jan 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You can no more prove the nonexistence of alien life than you can prove the nonexistence of God. The difference is; religious people understand belief in God is based on faith and not science but many atheists posting here think their belief in alien life is based on science, not faith.
Actually despite your claims, fundies DON'T understand the difference. However you completely avoided the point that one concept is potentially scientific, one isn't.

You keep railing against atheists. I couldn't care less about atheism. You betray your bias.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min KiMare 232,696
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Richardfs 2,183
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 7 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 7 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 8 hr Geezerjock 1
Australia: black magic pervert retard 9 hr Thinking 4
Evidence for God! 11 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web