Religious Beliefs/nutters Going To Screw Up First Contact?
Discussion
Are Religious Beliefs (nutters) Going To Screw Up First Contact?
http://io9.com/are-religious-beliefs-going-to-scre...
http://io9.com/are-religious-beliefs-going-to-scre...
Halb said:
Are Religious Beliefs (nutters) Going To Screw Up First Contact?
http://io9.com/are-religious-beliefs-going-to-scre...
Interesting you added the "(nutters)" tag... much as it pains many religious people (and a few scientists) to admit it the overwhelming majority of Science and Religion do not in any way cancel each other out! Scientists have never disproved any of the major religions and those same religions don't disagree with anything* science has found. http://io9.com/are-religious-beliefs-going-to-scre...
(* Ok, a few minor, obscure exceptions more likely related to the available language of the time the religious texts are from)
As an example, the Christian Bible is a dialogue between Humankind and God, it does not mention ET as they are not germane- it also doesn't say there aren't any. As such a religious "nutter" has nothing to fear from First Contact.
Equally a scientist has nothing to fear as many regard first contact (or at least detection) as inevitable.
That's not to say generic nutters won't run around like Headless chickens when Martians land on the front lawn of the White house with a box chocolates and a nice bottle of plonk for the Obamas.
scubadude said:
Scientists have never disproved any of the major religions.....
Nor any of the minor ones, nor the existence of dragons, trolls, tyranids, superman etc etc etc.The fact that an assertion has not been disproved does not validate the assertion.
The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion to prove that assertion - not on others to disprove it. Life would get rather complicated if any assertion not disproven were taken to be valid.
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 13th May 17:17
You really do have to laugh at the religious types. There's not one shred of physical evidence, whatsoever, of any kind of greater being. Nothing to support any creator or divine being.
Their beliefs, to a man, are what another man has told them. Their only 'proof' of their belief is that scientists can't readily disprove it. The delusion extends further as there are so many trains of religious thought, yet each believes that theirs is the correct fairy tale. There's only one place to go from this kind of 'logic', and that's the IPU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicor...
Their beliefs, to a man, are what another man has told them. Their only 'proof' of their belief is that scientists can't readily disprove it. The delusion extends further as there are so many trains of religious thought, yet each believes that theirs is the correct fairy tale. There's only one place to go from this kind of 'logic', and that's the IPU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicor...
scubadude said:
Halb said:
Are Religious Beliefs (nutters) Going To Screw Up First Contact?
http://io9.com/are-religious-beliefs-going-to-scre...
Interesting you added the "(nutters)" tag... much as it pains many religious people (and a few scientists) to admit it the overwhelming majority of Science and Religion do not in any way cancel each other out! Scientists have never disproved any of the major religions and those same religions don't disagree with anything* science has found. http://io9.com/are-religious-beliefs-going-to-scre...
(* Ok, a few minor, obscure exceptions more likely related to the available language of the time the religious texts are from)
As an example, the Christian Bible is a dialogue between Humankind and God, it does not mention ET as they are not germane- it also doesn't say there aren't any. As such a religious "nutter" has nothing to fear from First Contact.
Equally a scientist has nothing to fear as many regard first contact (or at least detection) as inevitable.
That's not to say generic nutters won't run around like Headless chickens when Martians land on the front lawn of the White house with a box chocolates and a nice bottle of plonk for the Obamas.
scubadude said:
Scientists have never disproved any of the major religions
That is a fine example of non-logic. I could say to you that I have a diving helmet on my head. You cannot disprove it. Does that mean I'm wearing a diving helmet?No. The onus of proof is on those who say 'There's a big magic bloke behind that cloud, I know there is 'cos it says so in this old book'. They are the ones who need to prove that their assertion is true. But oddly, millions and millions of people over 2,000 years have been unable to prove anything.
rhinochopig said:
It doesn't mention kangaroos either. That's why Australia is one of the most secular countries on the planet - they're surrounded by proof that the bible was slapdash when it came to Noah's exploits. Either that or Kangaroos are really Aliens!
Indeed. In fact why don't any of the religious texts of any religion tell us something that was outside of what was known at the time? Why do none of them say something that was later found to be true but unknown at the time.The Earth revolves around the Sun. The existence of 4 entire continents (North America, South America, Antarctica, and Australia. Prehistoric Animals. The list is endless.
SlipStream77 said:
KareemK said:
Indeed. In fact why don't any of the religious texts of any religion tell us something that was outside of what was known at the time?
There are plenty of fulfilled Messianic prophecies in the Bible.Sadly those prophecies regarding the Messiah which were then apparently fulfilled (ie The Messiah would be borne in Bethlehem) were all written with hindsight as was the bible and yet still give us no scientific facts or truths concerning anything that was unknown at the time.
Here's a few of the Messianic prophecies:
Messiah would be a prophet.
Messiah would be declared the Son of God.
Messiah would be praised by little children.
Messiah would be forsaken by God.
Messiah would resurrect from the dead.
Messiah would ascend to heaven.
etc etc etc.
There's 44 of them here: http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlist...
Where's the meat?
scubadude said:
Scientists have never disproved any of the major religions and those same religions don't disagree with anything* science has found.
(* Ok, a few minor, obscure exceptions more likely related to the available language of the time the religious texts are from)
Evolution versus Creationism, the age of our planet and human civilisation, dinosaurs... not much agreement between science and religion on any of those, or are they also 'minor, obscure exceptions'?(* Ok, a few minor, obscure exceptions more likely related to the available language of the time the religious texts are from)
KareemK said:
Teehee, that's just a list of facts from the bible's text! Honestly, it's laughable.Simpo Two said:
KareemK said:
Teehee, that's just a list of facts from the bible's text! Honestly, it's laughable.Do you have an alternative list I can peruse please?
budfox said:
You really do have to laugh at the religious types. There's not one shred of physical evidence, whatsoever, of any kind of greater being. Nothing to support any creator or divine being.
You do understand what faith is?
They don't NEED proof, their beliefs aren't based on proof. It's not a theory.
Eric Mc said:
Are humans supposed to be 100% rational, logical beings?
Should there be space in our hearts and minds for abstract concepts?
There is a difference between being able to appreciate abstract concepts and believing they are real.Should there be space in our hearts and minds for abstract concepts?
There have been studies into the brain which link the ability to have faith and the way you are wired. Iirc there was evidence that being able to believe in supernatural powers actually had benefits for life expectancy. A little ironic that faith may be an evolutionary advantage.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff