fett on 19/1/2007 at 04:45
Quote Posted by Convict
I've wondered about alien intelligent lifeforms and Christianity. The Bible appears to be saying that humans are the ones God will save so that would mean that intelligent aliens wouldn't be saved surely? :confused: I'm still very skeptical about the existence of intelligent aliens even in our large universe (although I may obviously have some bias here).
I'm pretty sure that you aren't very clear on what the Bible appears to be saying. :D
Convict on 19/1/2007 at 08:04
Please clarify for me fett? :confused: The Bible talks about Man so I took that to mean humans not animals (or low intelligence alien animals). :confused:
st.patrick on 19/1/2007 at 08:11
I seriously doubt that a book written by man and spread by man towards his fellow men with the purpose of enlightening man would necessarily contain references to BEMs or super-intelligent shades of color blue.
paloalto on 19/1/2007 at 08:57
Quote Posted by Shug
dawkins? more like dorkins
on a related note, perchance the discovery of recognizable life / intelligence of some sort on planets other than our own would disprove the existence of God and make it a more likely explanation that everything "just happened"
Since the odds of life happening by chance are astronomical I would say it argues for the opposite.If by chance then the rarer life should be.
hopper on 19/1/2007 at 09:34
Quote Posted by paloalto
Since the odds of life happening by chance are astronomical
This is completely unfounded. You have absolutely no idea what the odds of life happening by chance are, nor does anybody else.
shadow rodent on 19/1/2007 at 10:18
Apologies for taking part in the continuation of this thread, but it has kept me entertained for a couple of days :ebil:
A dominant stance taken by many critics appears to be such as follows:
While Dawkin's work is able to make sense from a purely scientific or quasi-logical standpoint, he comes across as preachy, often as much as evangelists from the very religions he seeks to discredit. It seems unfair for him to place the blame for the world's wrongs squarely with religion, as people throughout this thread have echoed.
I would like to foward the discourse that what Dawkins is trying to say, is that it is Faith which is the root of society's ills, and not JUST religion, in any of its forms.
To understand the nature of this specific argument, one must consider the accepted meaning of faith, seperate from religion.
Faith: belief, trust, or confidence, not based upon logic, reason or empirical data.
Religion thus stems as a result of faith, in various religious texts passed down through history, or faith in a prophetic figure and so on.
anyways...
The valid point has been made that atheists, marxists and fascists have been responsible for injustices, without needing the vanguard of religion as a tool. But what Dawkins is (should be?) saying, is that Faith, the prime cause of religion, is the vehicle that allows teachers and dictators alike to peddle dogma to the masses (at least initially, and before long it becomes too late to resist), without it being questioned by cold unbiased logic.
Dawkins is fowarding the agenda that Faith needs to be recognised for what it is, an abandonment of the very principles of reality, after which there can be no boundary to limit any delusions, any whim.
It seems like a noble ambition in itself, but one that would seem ultimately futile, in accordance with Dawkin's very own belief that Faith is an ingrained part of Human biology (a survival trait) as a result of the scientific process he subscribes to.
Mortal Monkey on 19/1/2007 at 10:43
Quote Posted by paloalto
Since the odds of life happening by chance are astronomical
That would explain a few things in my refrigerator.
steo on 19/1/2007 at 11:52
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
There are a lot of problems with this... etc. etc. etc.
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Steo does not win the thread because his axioms are not solid enough.
It amazes how some people simply refuse to get a joke.
hopper on 19/1/2007 at 11:55
Indeed.
Vivian on 19/1/2007 at 12:12
I think this thread has not seen anything like the usage of terms like FLAMING RETARD COCKWIG that such an august topic deserves.
