A question for aethists (and Sklansky)

[dr_venkman]

What kind of aliens? Human visitors from another planet? Or some type of horrible reptillian beast with acid for blood?

If it's the latter, and they are expressly advertising some Earthly religion, then I'll be happy to cut them all into smoking ribbons with my 12 gauge, because right now there are no laws on the books regarding the murder of aliens, and I'm planning on keeping score until there is. Not because they are horrible reptile monsters, but because they are religious.

Call it payback for all those times someone said "god bless you" when I sneezed.

How you like it if I said "you're mother's a filthy whore" every time you had an uncontrollable body function?

Well I'm offended too. Keep your blessings to yourself, I don't want them.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
What if aliens landed on earth tomorrow and they also turned out to be Christian (or the same as any other religion currently worshiped on earth).

How would you feel about that? Would it change your views? Of course this is only in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
what if i told you these very same aliens came to earth once upon a time and dropped off adam and eve?? and they also, artificially inseminated(sp?) mary? and helped out with all the other not necessarily believable things in the bible? that he who we worship as God, the one who created us in his image, was in fact an alien? would you believe in God in the same way, or would you believe more in the scientific explanations of life?

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of aliens? Human visitors from another planet? Or some type of horrible reptillian beast with acid for blood?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone knows from watching Star Trek that all aliens look just like humans, except they have funny looking foreheads, noses and ears.

[toots]

What if Aliens landed on Earth tomorrow and revealed that they're all scientologists?

[Mayhap]

Yes, and let them be perhaps pedantic and possibly douchebags but let them NOT be misanthropic.
/M [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Mayhap]

Hollywood would become the new Mecca.

/M

[akudlac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you have this whole thing backwards?

Christians as a group ignore evidence due to their strong beliefs. Unless they can fit aliens into the Bible somehow(reinterprete an parable maybe?).

Atheists are the group open to convincing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your wrong. Hard-core aethists are just as bad as hard-core Christians these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

By definition I'm right. Show some evidence and you'll get believers, it wouldn't be too hard.

Those that have so much invested in a belief system, those are the tough sells.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
What if aliens landed on earth tomorrow and they also turned out to be Christian (or the same as any other religion currently worshiped on earth).

How would you feel about that? Would it change your views? Of course this is only in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would only change my views if they arrived with proof of the existence of god.

I am not an atheist btw. I am agnostic.

[akudlac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, your beliefs are so strong that you would still not believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you have this whole thing backwards?

Christians as a group ignore evidence due to their strong beliefs. Unless they can fit aliens into the Bible somehow(reinterprete an parable maybe?).

Atheists are the group open to convincing.

[ QUOTE ]
But your right, now that I think about it more the evidence would be pretty overwhelming.


[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence would help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no religious type, but to say that Atheists as a group are open to convincing is a broad generalization that is just not true. I will grant that there's a huge number of folks that will close their ears at any insinuation that the Bible is false (it's well, extremely short of possible to deny this), but there's also a huge number of folks who profess staunch Atheism with reasoning along the lines of "The Bible is a fairytale," or "I listen to Tool."

[/ QUOTE ]

How does saying listening to Tool demonstrate close mindedness? Actually sounds like you're agreeing with me that they could be swayed, if their position comes from a song.

[ QUOTE ]
I compare it personally to the political "debate" these days. Find me an ignorant neo-con, and an ignorant neo-lib, and while I'll probably agree a good deal more with what the liberal says, they're both morons.

I think really that the problem with the whole religious "debate" is that the most powerful weapon either side uses is the shameless thrusting of the burden of proof onto their opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What burden of proof do atheists need?

1. They're making no claim.
2. You can't prove a negative.

Try this: Prove to me invisible pink unicorns don't exist.


You seem to confuse a lack of a belief with a belief.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, your beliefs are so strong that you would still not believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you have this whole thing backwards?

Christians as a group ignore evidence due to their strong beliefs. Unless they can fit aliens into the Bible somehow(reinterprete an parable maybe?).

Atheists are the group open to convincing.

[ QUOTE ]
But your right, now that I think about it more the evidence would be pretty overwhelming.


[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence would help.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no religious type, but to say that Atheists as a group are open to convincing is a broad generalization that is just not true. I will grant that there's a huge number of folks that will close their ears at any insinuation that the Bible is false (it's well, extremely short of possible to deny this), but there's also a huge number of folks who profess staunch Atheism with reasoning along the lines of "The Bible is a fairytale," or "I listen to Tool."

[/ QUOTE ]

How does saying listening to Tool demonstrate close mindedness? Actually sounds like you're agreeing with me that they could be swayed, if their position comes from a song.

[ QUOTE ]
I compare it personally to the political "debate" these days. Find me an ignorant neo-con, and an ignorant neo-lib, and while I'll probably agree a good deal more with what the liberal says, they're both morons.

I think really that the problem with the whole religious "debate" is that the most powerful weapon either side uses is the shameless thrusting of the burden of proof onto their opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

What burden of proof do atheists need?

1. They're making no claim.
2. You can't prove a negative.

Try this: Prove to me invisible pink unicorns don't exist.


You seem to confuse a lack of a belief with a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

My line about Tool was more in jest than anything, but it was illustrating a complete lack of individual thought on the part of a good deal of Atheists these days: a lack of individual thought that is almost as alarming as the intellectual void a lot of zealots demonstrate.

My main point however was that any time either side of the argument tries to make a convincing case, they can only do so by operating under assumptions that force the burden of proof on the other side, which is precisely what you have done.

I'm not arguing about any specific deity, or God in the personal form: just some sort of "intelligence" or "force" that put the universe into motion. Now, a specific God, or religion perhaps? Here I will agree with you that the non-believers clearly have the upper-hand, just by the very nature of the argument.

I have never heard somebody explain sufficiently why any claim about the actual origin of the universe should be assumed, and that the opposition should be the ones that have the burden: rather, I've seen moderately convincing claims for both the existence of a Creator, and the lack thereof, both being the "simplest" or "most logical" conclusion. None convincing enough for me to take either as having sufficient enough evidence to force the burden of proof to the opposition, but it's quite possible I just missed it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

On the other hand. it's quite clear why somebody who professes that a man was born without a father, and that He is God, and that he turned water into wine, etc. should take on the burden of proof.

I think this is where our wires got crossed, so to speak. The existence of a Personal God with a beard chucking thunderbolts at Masturbators and Gamblers, or any specific claims like that: I agree that here, a simple non-belief due to lack of evidence is quite logical. My points about the burden of proof in my previous post were mostly concerned with first cause, etc.

And if I'm incorrect in this being where the mix-up was, please let me know. I may come off as arrogant, because I am, but this has been a topic that has long fascinated me, and I thoroughly enjoy discussing it with people from all angles.