Atheism, a new look at things.

[king_of_movies_316]

Well, this is a bit odd as i haven't been posting on this site in about two years, but i randomly had the impulse to see what a forum i spent many hours on is up to. I also found some of my 16 year old self posts funny and an insight into how much and little i have changed since two years ago when i first was on this site (eg. my tastes in movies). I swear the internet can be like a time capsule.

Anyway, i was on a random tumblr before and i discoverd this rant. I shared it with my friends and they found it somewhat intresting, so i thought it would be intresting to see people out side my imediate social circles thoughts to it.

http://castro****freetrade.tumblr.com/post/2698060941/aitheists-are-****s

Its a new way of seeing aithiests, that i haven't looked at before and i some what agree with the guy.

Anyway, theres heaps of swearing so be warned. But what are your thoughts on it.

btw, if this doesn't need it's own thread, feel free to move it who ever the admins are these days.

[Yoda]

Hey king, nice to see you around again. :)

Obviously the censor mucked up that link, but I found the actual version. Weird that he misspells "atheist" in the title but not anywhere else. Anyway, for those who'd rather not find and/or read it, it basically amounts to "religion has done plenty of good and it makes lots of people happy, so there's no reason for us atheists to try to talk people out of it." He makes an exception for really fringe, dangerous fundamentalists.

I suppose I agree with the basic premise in that I'm not sure true atheism or materialism is compatible with a militant desire to talk other people into it (or out of something else).

[Sedai]

If anything, I have relaxed my Agnostic views a bit, approaching all schools of thought with a more open mind. I'm not a believer, but I certainly leave open the possibility at this point.

[John McClane]

Yeah, that was a...really inspiring rant. :laugh:

Yoda, he does misspell atheist elsewhere besides the title, but that's irrelevant, as I got his basic argument. Basically, he has a very care free idea of how the world/society operates in which he can just kick back and not care. I commend him for his ability to do that and I must say, in my opinion anyways, it is much more common among non-believers to have such an attitude. So yeah, if the guy ascribes to that sorta thing, then right on.

I could go on some more about the "well, religion makes people happy" sorta thing, but I don't feel like thinking this early. ;)

[rufnek]

Anyway, for those who'd rather not find and/or read it, it basically amounts to "religion has done plenty of good and it makes lots of people happy, so there's no reason for us atheists to try to talk people out of it." He makes an exception for really fringe, dangerous fundamentalists.

I suppose I agree with the basic premise in that I'm not sure true atheism or materialism is compatible with a militant desire to talk other people into it (or out of something else).

I've always said self-styled atheists who go around issuing commandments as to what is or isn't acceptable are practicing a nihilistic "religion" of their own to which they are just as dedicated as any member of any of the major religions. I would think a true atheist would totally dismiss religion and therefore would have no reason to argue over it. But I wonder why that guy would make an exception for "really fringe fundamentalists?" I also wonder where that fringe would start? How far out does a fundamentalist have to get before he's beyond the fringe?

[nebbit]

Nice to see you King :king:

[rufnek]

I could go on some more about the "well, religion makes people happy" sorta thing, but I don't feel like thinking this early. ;)

You're right, religion makes some people happy; religion can also comfort them in hard times, so why take that from them? If a guy thinks wearing a certain shirt while he watches a game on TV will help his team win, what's the point of denouncing that as superstition and trying to get him to trash the shirt? If something works for someone, who am I to put them down for it.

I don't think exposure to religion does any harm to people and sometimes it can even do 'em some good, even if they don't accept everything about it. It's only when they take their twisted interpretation of it and try to apply it to someone else that it goes bad. But to me, the Ten Commandments make sense no matter who came up with 'em. People don't necessarily have to adhere to any certain religion, but good morals and manners apply to everyone.

[mack]

And then there's me - pissing people off telling them that an unproven belief in alien life is alarmingly similar to a religion. I make no bones about the search for other intelligent life forms, but I find believing in it and attempting unsuccessfully to prove it real to be awfully close to .....faith. after all, a "religion" is just an organized system of beliefs. just saying! :D

[John McClane]

Bit different, but alright.

[planet news]

Completely different in terms of "mapping". Phenomenologically, it's probably about the same.

I suppose I agree with the basic premise in that I'm not sure true atheism or materialism is compatible with a militant desire to talk other people into it (or out of something else).In other words... "true atheists" shouldn't really have a desire to do anything, since there is no inherent meaning and whatnot? That seems strange since most of "us" claim that we are naturally filled with desires as part of our intrinsic biology. And our desire for power is probably the most fundamental. Desire is not an intellectual stance.

[Yoda]

In other words... "true atheists" shouldn't really have a desire to do anything, since there is no inherent meaning and whatnot?
I dunno about "anything," but yeah, that's roughly what I mean.

That seems strange since most of "us" claim that we are naturally filled with desires as part of our intrinsic biology. And our desire for power is probably the most fundamental. Desire is not an intellectual stance.
No, but it is something which we can overcome with our intellect, usually by recognizing it for what it is. The meta-battle of ideology takes place over a longer time frame than any current human's lifespan, so they won't see the fruits of winning converts, if indeed there ever is any.

Even if we were slaves to our own biology, it would still make militant atheism pointless because the people who believed would be just as much slaves to whatever influence had made them that way.

Also, while the idea that truth is inherently beautiful and valuable is something I happen to agree with, it's very rooted in theism. If we're all just particles reacting to one another, there really isn't much basis from which to value truth inherently. Truth can either be useful, or not, so any militant atheist not only has to contend with whether or not what they say is true, but whether or not something being true is reason enough to argue for it to begin with. To my mind, this is one of many assumptions that materialists/atheists unconsciously "borrow" from the thing they're arguing against in order to undermine it.

[John McClane]

Also, while the idea that truth is inherently beautiful and valuable is something I happen to agree with, it's very rooted in theism. If we're all just particles reacting to one another, there really isn't much basis from which to value truth inherently. Truth can either be useful, or not, so any militant atheist not only has to contend with whether or not what they say is true, but whether or not something being true is reason enough to argue for it to begin with. To my mind, this is one of many assumptions that materialists/atheists unconsciously "borrow" from the thing they're arguing against in order to undermine it.This is the greatest response ever.

[rufnek]

Hey king, nice to see you around again. :)

Obviously the censor mucked up that link, but I found the actual version. Weird that he misspells "atheist" in the title but not anywhere else. Anyway, for those who'd rather not find and/or read it, it basically amounts to "religion has done plenty of good and it makes lots of people happy, so there's no reason for us atheists to try to talk people out of it." He makes an exception for really fringe, dangerous fundamentalists.

I suppose I agree with the basic premise in that I'm not sure true atheism or materialism is compatible with a militant desire to talk other people into it (or out of something else).

That's been my basic view all along. If we were talking about a Superman comic book instead of the Bible, would I try to dissuade anyone who thought Superman were real? I had a strong and frequent exposure to the Baptist church in my youth, and it never did me any harm. In fact, that's where I learned to start questioning things instead just being told it's true. Seems to me that unquestioning acceptance of faith is just a house built on sand, but that's just my opinion. But even if you don't accept the religious aspects of it, the Bible as a whole (not just cherry-picking and warping certain parts) won't do anyone real harm and could make them a better person if one takes some of the lessons to heart.

[planet news]

Also, while the idea that truth is inherently beautiful and valuable is something I happen to agree with, it's very rooted in theism.Agreed.

If we're all just particles reacting to one another, there really isn't much basis from which to value truth inherently. Truth can either be useful, or not, so any militant atheist not only has to contend with whether or not what they say is true, but whether or not something being true is reason enough to argue for it to begin with.Agreed.

To my mind, this is one of many assumptions that materialists/atheists unconsciously "borrow" from the thing they're arguing against in order to undermine it.Materialism is not synonymous with Atheism. Idealists can also be Atheists. Materialists get all their "motivations" from material things like labor for Marx or "creativity" (propagation of difference) for Deleuze. Generally, materialists always have their own reasons for valuing truth, at least those that do value it in the way that you're speaking of. Take a look at Deleuze's conception of philosophy:

"A book of philosophy should be in part a very particular species of detective novel, in part a kind of science fiction. By detective novel we mean that concepts, with their zones of presence, should intervene to resolve local situations. They themselves change along with the problems. They have spheres of influences where, as we shall see, they operate in relation to "dramas" and by means of a certain "cruelty". They must have a coherence among themselves. They must receive their coherence from elsewhere."

In other words, philosophy for Deleuze is the creation of concepts, which fits in with his grand view of material as "univocally speaking through creation". His is a philosophy of the creative---in Spinozan terms "expressive"---qualities of the material universe and how we are to live within it and express ourselves through it. There is really not a huge valuing of "truth", as it is simply just the self-consistency of certain representations, which are always fundamentally wrong for Deleuze.

But if one looks at Marxist materialism and you have yet another principle univocality: the class struggle or the exploitation of human energy. Notice however that human energy is a material and not a concept like "truth". Why freedom of human energy is a good thing is justified solely by the nature of the material itself. Marx takes Hegel's idea of a material process called dialectic that "speaks" the direction of progress in its becoming. Material itself, you find, often has an arrow or a "motivation".

Knowing how much is on your plate, you don't really even need to reply to this. There's nothing to argue really.

[DexterRiley]

Not sure if this will help or hurt the thread. I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact i get a couple of negs of every thousand pos, so what the hell either way.

having said that, I found the following interesting. Its from "The Hour" easily my fave interview based show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNHo00gjHRk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFChwyJEc4g&feature=fvwrel

And then a week or so later they had this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBRKY8Qx9YQ


then this guy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thn9Hnu__pU

[planet news]

"For me what matters is... the truth".

See, the main problem I have with Dawkins is that he has a mistaken view, or rather non-view, of what relation religion and science with "the truth" or, for that matter, what "the truth" is.

I think there are two vital aspects about religion/science that he doesn't address.

1) What belief is---i.e. what does it mean to believe and how people who claim to believe in religion actually express this belief. 2) What science is---i.e. what does it mean for something to be true in science, how this scientific truth relates to reality, and how people should relate to this truth.

It seems to me that 1) irrational belief is much more complex, ingrained into our very being, and difficult to escape than he gives credit to and that 2) the space that remains when religion is taken away cannot be adequately filled by scientific truth, since it is rather mysterious exactly what scientific truth is.

In other words, science is not a replacement for religion and religion might be more formal than literal.

[DexterRiley]

You have read his God Ilusion then PN i presume?

[Yoda]

I think it's The God Delusion, though at this point he's made it pretty clear what's in the book, so you don't need to read it to disagree with its core premises. He's talked at length about his philosophy, obviously.

Anyway, I agree; Dawkins' worldview is kind of naive, in a way, about humanity's needs. As a theist, he doesn't "worry" me at all because his ideology will never, ever catch on much as long as people are people.

[planet news]

@Dexter: I not only read his book, but also his The Selfish Gene, an excellent exegesis of evolutionary theory I would continue to recommend to anybody. In addition, I also read God is not Great by Hitchens, The End of Faith by Harris and Breaking the Spell by Dennet. this was all around freshman year of high school back when these guys were really huge and all over the media. You could say that I was, back then, their biggest fan. However, it is obvious from your botching of the title that you yourself are not familiar with the book or its arguments. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the relevant texts before engaging with me any further in your typically hostile, condescending manner. I'm happy for you and your infinite wisdom culled from decades of life experience and that you actually think you just discovered New Atheism.

[DexterRiley]

No
PN as obvious as it may be to you, i jus happen to be a crappy typer.

but thanks for playen

[honeykid]

As a theist, he doesn't "worry" me at all because his ideology will never, ever catch on much as long as people are people.
Sadly, I have to agree completely. It appears the we may've evolved to need to believe in something and, until a combination of generations and education breed it out of us, we'll continue to do so. :( Of course, we may not make it that far.

[Yoda]

I'm not sure how being a crappy typist would explain using "Il" instead of "De." But regardless, I think the point, Dex, is that you seemed to be asking somewhat rhetorically. You may have meant the question in a perfectly literal, perfectly benign way, but the phrasing makes it sound a bit like a challenge.

Sadly, I have to agree completely. It appears the we may've evolved to need to believe in something and, until a combination of generations and education breed it out of us, we'll continue to do so. :( Of course, we may not make it that far.
What's incredible about this realization is that it should completely disarm any militant atheist, but it almost never does. If we evolved to need something like theism, then it has had great evolutionary benefit, which renders impotent all the standard atheist talking points about religion's dangerous effects. It doesn't really make sense to try to talk people out of something that you've conceded we have evolved to believe.

In arguing for evolution as the source of human life, an atheist simultaneously removes any properly thought-out motive for arguing against religion. Not that this seems to actually happen or anything.

[DexterRiley]

I think i'll just stick to sports topics when i stray from movie talk.

The babysitten routine with your pet planet is tiresome.

[Yoda]

Yeah, you say that kinda thing a lot, and it still doesn't make any sense to me. To me, trying to explain away every such interaction this way is the tiresome thing.

I'm saying what I think, same as always. If this seems to put me at odds with something you've said fairly regularly, then it probably just means we think differently about many fundamental things.

[John McClane]

@Dexter: I not only read his book, but also his The Selfish Gene, an excellent exegesis of evolutionary theory I would continue to recommend to anybody. In addition, I also read God is not Great by Hitchens, The End of Faith by Harris and Breaking the Spell by Dennet. this was all around freshman year of high school back when these guys were really huge and all over the media. You could say that I was, back then, their biggest fan. However, it is obvious from your botching of the title that you yourself are not familiar with the book or its arguments. I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the relevant texts before engaging with me any further in your typically hostile, condescending manner. I'm happy for you and your infinite wisdom culled from decades of life experience and that you actually think you just discovered New Atheism.I also read those books when they were released, except I was in my junior and senior year of high school at the time. Man, I latched on like a leech. But let me tell you something, no amount of coercion could make me read those texts again.

What's incredible about this realization is that it should completely disarm any militant atheist, but it almost never does. If we evolved to need something like theism, then it has had great evolutionary benefit, which renders impotent all the standard atheist talking points about religion's dangerous effects. It doesn't really make sense to try to talk people out of something that you've conceded we have evolved to believe.

In arguing for evolution as the source of human life, an atheist simultaneously removes any properly thought-out motive for arguing against religion. Not that this seems to actually happen or anything.I agree, and there are atheists who agree as well. I've heard several people say that religion was an evolutionary advantage at one time but not anymore. In which case, your argument is moot. Of course, you're right again if you say that most atheists will not take this route as it's, once again, counter to their claims.

[Yoda]

I think the argument would be moot if we simply assume that "it's not an evolutionary advantage any more" is correct, yes, but that's a massive assumption to make, and it's not really one that can be supported by anything resembling hard evidence. And it's certainly not up to rigorous scientific standard that many atheists claim as their sole ideology/test of belief.

It's more in the realm of fanciful speculation. It takes more than a little chutzpah to claim that "yeah, this major part of our collective worldview that has a dramatic effect on how we live has been beneficial to us for millions of years...but NOW it's not any more. I figured it out, and it's stopped being useful." It's an inherently ridiculous claim to make, I think.

[DexterRiley]

millions of years?

i thought the bible is 5000 yrs old max?

Collective folklore is very similar throughout cultures from all over the globe though. This is true.

I like the ancient astronaut theory myself.

[Yoda]

millions of years?

i thought the bible is 5000 yrs old max?
Aye, but since an Atheist rejects all conceptions of God -- not just the Christian conception of God -- the timeline they'd have to contend with would be millions of years, or however long ago it was that humans achieved the level of intelligence necessary to speculate about such things, even a bit.

I like the ancient astronaut theory myself.
Is that the "life on Earth was seeded by a higher intelligence from somewhere else in the Universe" thing? If so, I don't have any major logical problems with it, but it's not really an answer. It just punts the question back a level so that it goes from "What created us?" to "What created the beings that created us?" All the same questions about God, morality, and the Universe are ultimately still floating around.

[DexterRiley]

Oh, i'm not arrogant enough to be Aetheist. I call myself an Agnostic. I don't believe in God in so far as an existing entity that has a plan for us all, and answers prayers and such, while at the same time think its plausible that primitive man got a push from beings away back when.

The old testament details it somewhat. Some refer to it as the Fallen Angel Interpretation.

From Bible.org (http://bible.org/seriespage/sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-61-8)
View 3: The Fallen Angel Interpretation
According to this view, the ‘sons of God’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12).

My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture.87 The reason for rejecting the fallen angel interpretation is that such a view is said to be in violation of both reason and Scripture.

The primary passage which is said to be problematical is that found in Matthew’s gospel, where our Lord said, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).

We are told that here our Lord said that angels are sexless, but is this really true? Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as was man.

When we find angels described in the book of Genesis, it is clear that they can assume a human-like form, and that their sex is masculine. The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Surely angels must be convincingly like men. The homosexual men of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality. They were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (cf. Genesis 19:1ff, especially verse 5).

In the New Testament, two passages seem to refer to this incident in Genesis 6, and to support the angel view:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

These verses would indicate that some of the angels who fell with Satan were not content with their ‘proper abode’ and therefore began to live among men (and women) as men. God’s judgment upon them was to place them in bonds88 so that they can no longer promote Satan’s purposes on earth as do the unbound fallen angels who continue to do his bidding.

The result of the union between fallen angels and women is rather clearly implied to be the Nephilim. While word studies have produced numerous suggestions for the meaning of this term, the biblical definition of this word comes from its only other instance in Scripture, Numbers 13:33:

There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.89

This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ‘sons of God,’ it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the godly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ‘in Satan’s pocket,’ Satan knew from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood.

Genesis 6 describes a desperate attempt on the part of Satan to attack the godly remnant that is named in chapter 5. So long as a righteous seed is preserved, God’s promise of salvation hangs over the head of Satan, threatening of his impending doom.

The daughters of men were not raped or seduced as such. They simply chose their husbands on the same basis that the angels selected them—physical appeal. Now if you were an eligible woman in those days, who would you choose? Would you select a handsome, muscle-bulging specimen of a man, who had a reputation for his strength and accomplishments, or what seemed to be in comparison a ninety-pound weakling?

Women looked for the hope of being the mother of the Savior. Who would be the most likely father of such a child? Would it not be a ‘mighty man of renown,’ who would also be able to boast of immortality? Some of the godly Sethites did live to be nearly 1000 years old, but the Nephilim did not die, if they were angels. And so the new race began.



the missing link if you will.

I got the paperback of Chariots of the Gods for my birthday or Christmas i can't recall, but yeah that def. planted the seed.

[will.15]

I read that Chariot of Gods book in high school. A lot of hooey. The "evidence" to support the theory has all been discredited.

[planet news]

World religions are so totally different I can't see how the "evolutionary advantage" thing makes any sense.

Most religions seem like rather straightforward efforts of attempting to explain things through common sensical type models.

It relies on evidence just as much as anything. The earliest spirit-type religions are basically personifications of natural forces. We merely "personify" these natural forces through mathematics today.

We just have a lot of more kinds of evidence and ways of knowing today that allow us to both falsify those much less powerful models and hypothesize new, more comprehensive, more consistent models that work a lot of better at explaining phenonema and enable the creation of technologies and such.

Modern religions however, especially Christianity, have an interesting constituent irrationality about them that sets them apart from the models of the past. In this sense Christianity, the religion Dawkins comes from likes to attack the most, is probably the least suitable religion to be "debunked" by science. And, since Dawkins likes to put God as a "hypothesis", I'd agree with you that he'll never win, at least against Christianity's logic.

What is even more interesting though is how the kind of anti-common sense ontology of Christianity is mysteriously paralleled by the equally modern anti-common sense ontologies of quantum physics or relativity. In some way, you could even say that Christianity opened up the path to thinking in this irrationalist way. Christianity itself opened up the space for modern science's grand theories which, amazingly, depend on astounding feats of---experimentally successful, of course---anti-intuitive mathematical expression (phenomenologically identical with the impossible itself).

Still, as always, I think Chesterton himself put it best:

Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus, he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus, he believes that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.

[DexterRiley]

I read that Chariot of Gods book in high school. A lot of hooey. The "evidence" to support the theory has all been discredited.

it has? when was that?

links to source plz.

[John McClane]

Great quote, planet news.

And you answered your very own objection over how world religions could be an evolutionary advantage. Explanation of the modern world, sanity, etc.

[will.15]

it has? when was that?

links to source plz.

There is quite a bit on the web that discusses the evidence. The most damning was the Nova documentary I saw many years ago with a squirming Von Daniken admitting he faked a photo, mentioned in this link. The rest of the documentary also did a good job refuting his evidence.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc131.htm

[planet news]

And you answered your very own objection over how world religions could be an evolutionary advantage. Explanation of the modern world, sanity, etc.Possibly. The whole idea sits wrong with me since, evolution is a genetic filtering process. Moving beyond genetics into memetics is a bit more difficult, since the terms of engagement are no longer limited to base pairs and sexual reproduction but a near infinite amount of cultural data and their near infinite amount of horizontal and vertical proliferation.

There is also the road where you can simply not attempt to represent anything at all and remain in a state of pure being without representing anything as anything, fulling embracing what Deleuze would call the pure difference of the world.

[DexterRiley]

There is quite a bit on the web that discusses the evidence. The most damning was the Nova documentary I saw many years ago with a squirming Von Daniken admitting he faked a photo, mentioned in this link. The rest of the documentary also did a good job refuting his evidence.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc131.htm

Nova exposed the pottery as a hoax, this i knew.

you said all the evidence had been refuted, and posted a blog as your source?

lol

Anyway, as an non theist i accept i may be pre-disposed to seeking out alternate archeology and such.

I read Sitchin for a while, the Summerian stuff was really neat, now i'm hooked on Graham Hancock.

[will.15]

I have no problem with anybody believing anything. Believing in ancient astronauts is as credible as believing in God.

[DexterRiley]

its an option.

at the end of the day, i don't know. but the search is fun.

[honeykid]

What's incredible about this realization is that it should completely disarm any militant atheist, but it almost never does. If we evolved to need something like theism, then it has had great evolutionary benefit, which renders impotent all the standard atheist talking points about religion's dangerous effects. It doesn't really make sense to try to talk people out of something that you've conceded we have evolved to believe.

In arguing for evolution as the source of human life, an atheist simultaneously removes any properly thought-out motive for arguing against religion. Not that this seems to actually happen or anything.
If the theory's right, then, through science and education, we're now passed needing it, which we either have or are close to doing (personally I think we have), then as this continues and our knowledge builds and spreads throughout the population, we'll evolve to no longer need it. Much like the appendix, it's going to take a long time and there may always be a small number, but eventually we'll be done with it.

[Yoda]

If the theory's right, then, through science and education, we're now passed needing it, which we either have or are close to doing (personally I think we have), then as this continues and our knowledge builds and spreads throughout the population, we'll evolve to no longer need it. Much like the appendix, it's going to take a long time and there may always be a small number, but eventually we'll be done with it.
But this doesn't follow at all. You're just saying we're "past needing it," but that's based on...what? As far as I can tell, it seems to be based on the assumption that the only possible evolutionary purpose of religion could be to explain away certain unexplained phenomena (the claim would be wrong even if that were true, but we'll leave that aside for now). But I don't think that's why it's so overwhelmingly popular, and it sure isn't why it's useful. Quite the contrary.

And, again, it strikes me as kind of absurd to say "oh yeah, useful for millions and years across the overwhelming majority of history AND humanity...but I'm sure that NOW it's not useful." That's exactly the kind of purely speculative hubris that atheists usually rail on religion for.

[DexterRiley]

I know how much you guys love wall of text as opposed to the posting of videos, however not only is this interesting stuff, with both sides equally represented, but it removes the grammar police from making dubious points.

http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collision.jpg
COLLISION carves a new path in documentary film-making as it pits leading atheist, political journalist and bestselling author Christopher Hitchens against fellow author, satirist and evangelical theologian Douglas Wilson, as they go on the road to exchange blows over the question: “Is Christianity Good for the World?”.
The two contrarians laugh, confide and argue, in public and in private, as they journey through three cities. And the film captures it all. The result is a magnetic conflict, a character-driven narrative that sparkles cinematically with a perfect match of arresting personalities and intellectual rivalry.
In May 2007, leading atheist Christopher Hitchens and Christian apologist Douglas Wilson began to argue the topic “Is Christianity Good for the World?” in a series of written exchanges published in Christianity Today. The rowdy literary bout piqued the interest of filmmaker Darren Doane, who sought out Hitchens and Wilson to pitch the idea of making a film around the debate.
In Fall 2008, Doane and crew accompanied Hitchens and Wilson on an east coast tour to promote the book compiled from their written debate titled creatively enough, Is Christianity Good for the World?. “I loved the idea of putting one of the beltway’s most respected public intellectuals together with an ultra-conservative pastor from Idaho that looks like a lumberjack”, says Doane. “You couldn’t write two characters more contrary. What’s more real than a fight between two guys who are on complete opposite sides of the fence on the most divisive issue in the world? We were ready to make a movie about two intellectual warriors at the top of their game going one-on-one. I knew it would make an amazing film.”

The doc has been uploaded onto youtube in parts, which i've organized into a playlist that has been embedded here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gr9nNsMeZs&playnext=1&list=PLA76FCD43AB505095

[Yoda]

Looks interesting, I'll almost definitely see it.

My only skepticism about this sort of thing is that Hitchens is often paired up poorly with someone, so that it's equal in a technical sense, but not in a meaningful one. Granted, people of Hitchens' intellectual capacity are probably in short supply, but they always seem to pair him with someone who is operating on some fundamentally different level; some Priest or Cardinal or amateur theologian or something who is decent enough at making his own case, but often either does not (or cannot) spar back and forth with the specific accusations made against their faith. It's very frustrating.

It's also more than a little annoying that Hitchens always seems to confuse (willfully or not) Christianity's usefulness or effectiveness with its truth. He often speaks as if demonstrating its moral failings somehow carries over into its veracity, and the way the question of the film is phrased ("Is Christianity good for the world?") plays right into this.

Re: walls of text and videos. It's not that I like walls of text and dislike videos: I like specifics and don't usually like or trust arguments that can't engage specific things. Videos are usually blunt instruments; I prefer the scalpel.

[DexterRiley]

Douglas James Wilson (born 18 June 1953) is a conservative Reformed and evangelical theologian, pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, faculty member at New Saint Andrews College, and prolific author and speaker. He is featured in the documentary film Collision documenting his debates with anti-theist Christopher Hitchens on their promotional tour for the book "Is Christianity Good for the World?"

Wilson earned a B.A. in classical studies and a B.A. and an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Idaho. In addition to his role as pastor of Christ Church, he is a founder and Senior Fellow in Theology at New Saint Andrews College, founder and editor of Credenda/Agenda magazine, and founder of Greyfriars Hall, a three-year ministerial training program. He also serves on the governing boards of New Saint Andrews, Logos School (a Christian private school), and the Association of Classical and Christian Schools. Wilson was instrumental in forming the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilson_(theologian)

[planet news]

Looks good. Hitchens is probably the least starry-eyed out of all them, which is good for Atheism. But what Atheism really needs is another Nietzsche; not more Sagans or Shaws. That being said, religion really needs another Chesterton. Though, he would have probably crushed Nietzsche in debates out of sheer personality alone.

Still, in terms of the written page, I cannot think of a better pairing of equally-matched opponents (who were alive at the same time).

[will.15]

I used to listen to the Dennis Prager radio show, what a pompous ass he is, and he would debate Hutchens. Prager is a jerk.

[rufnek]

And then there's me - pissing people off telling them that an unproven belief in alien life is alarmingly similar to a religion. I make no bones about the search for other intelligent life forms, but I find believing in it and attempting unsuccessfully to prove it real to be awfully close to .....faith. after all, a "religion" is just an organized system of beliefs. just saying! :D

Alien life, "new wave thinking" (whatever that is), crystals, pyramids, people claiming to be witches or druids, back-to-nature environmentalists --these are all religious substitutes for those who have turned from the Bible to Sci-fi and folktales. Like most religions, they are seeking an all-powerful being who can explain and take care of things, regulate their world and be a person (or thing) they can call on for help in times of need. Is a crash of an alien spacecraft in Roswell, N.M., any less of a miracle than the Son of God being born in a manger in Bethlehem?

[rufnek]

Sadly, I have to agree completely. It appears the we may've evolved to need to believe in something and, until a combination of generations and education breed it out of us, we'll continue to do so. :( Of course, we may not make it that far.

If we are "evolved to need to believe in something" why do we generally believe in the same things as our parents, our family, our peers? If there is an evolutionary need to believe in something--anything then why would a person born into a Christain family, a Christain neighborhood not have at least a good if not equal chance to grow up to have the Muslim or Jewish or Shinto faith as to be a Christian? Or if a person were born into a family who were all Catholic, shouldn't he have a 50-50 chance of becoming a Protestant if the only evolutionary need was to believe in something no matter what?

Although there are exceptions--more today in our more open, less religious society than in the past--kids of Christian parents are more likely to describe themselves as Christian; those born in Muslim families usually adopt a form of the Muslim faith. Jews become Jews, Catholics become Catholics, Protestants become Protestants. My point being that religion is learned, not an evolutionary need. I mean at what age do kids begin hearing and later repeating "Now I lay me down to sleep/ I pray the Lord my soul to keep ..." or singing "Jesus loves the little children ... Red or yellow, black or white/ They are precious in His sight." I'm sure there are similar things in the Muslim and Jewish or any other faiths that channel a child into a certain religion practically from birth.

How many times have you seen decorations of a religious nature in a newborn's nursery--maybe needlework saying, "Bless our little Angel." A baby is not going to be able to read that, of course, but it's symbolic of the total emersion into a religious concept that we're subject to from birth. In Christianity, the main subject of religion are referred to in family terms that a small child will immediately understand--"Our Father, who art in Heaven...," The Son of God," "Holy Mary, mother of God . . . "

Basically a newborn needs food and drink and shelter to live. He needs someone to clean and clothe him and tend him when he's sick or injured. And he needs human contact in order to develop physically, mentally, and socially. He learns to be a Democrat or Republican growing up around his parents and listening to their political beliefs. He learns to smoke if born into a family of smokers, but is less likely to smoke he he grows up among non-smokers. He learns to prefer initally his city and state over others from his peers. And he learns his religious identity early on from parents and family. I once read our whole personality is pretty much established by age 5, certainly before we enter school. So there are a great many things we learn from parents and family. And I think that includes a "need" for religion that is more highly developed in some than in others. Which explains the basic difference between the Pope and me.

[rufnek]

Believing in ancient astronauts is as credible as believing in God.

Not really. One can trace the historic figures and writings and other connections documenting the evolution of belief in various gods and who worshiped which, whereas the very concept of "astronauts" is Johnny-come-lately supposition that people then try to force to fit ancient artifacts. I remember one thing in the "ancient astronauts" where some Aztec or Mayan carving was supposed to look like an astronaut lying in his reclining seat and possibly manipulating a control, but to get it to look that way involved turning the artifact some 90 degrees from the way it was set up originally; plus the supposed "astronaut" in that depiction was a figure that showed up in many other carvings and was supposed to be some Aztec chief or diety and the controls were common objects from that period. I remember also those giant drawings on a plateau in Peru (or whereever) were supposed to be "landing strips" for space ships that apprently landed like aircraft rather than our moon rockets, except that the true size of those "landing strips" when measured on the ground were hardly big enough for a bird to land on.

What the "ancient astronauts" and ET proponents have never explained is from where these out-of-space visitors came and how they managed to survive the hundreds of years it would take them to make the trip from another galaxy at the speed of light.

Moreover, archeologists have found in tombs colorful garments made of delicate feathers or hair that have survived for hundreds of years or more, yet never the material or metal from an astronaut's suit from the same period. They have found ancient pottery still intact but never an astronaut's helmet, ancient straw sandals but never moon boots. They have found sunken Viking boats they have raised and buttons and trash from Roman battlegrounds, but never one piece of an ancient spaceship.

And as someone else said before--even if you could find evidence of ancient astronauts, then you're stuck with the question of who made the astronauts?

[DexterRiley]

Not really. One can trace the historic figures and writings and other connections documenting the evolution of belief in various gods and who worshiped which, whereas the very concept of "astronauts" is Johnny-come-lately supposition that people then try to force to fit ancient artifacts. I remember one thing in the "ancient astronauts" where some Aztec or Mayan carving was supposed to look like an astronaut lying in his reclining seat and possibly manipulating a control, but to get it to look that way involved turning the artifact some 90 degrees from the way it was set up originally; plus the supposed "astronaut" in that depiction was a figure that showed up in many other carvings and was supposed to be some Aztec chief or diety and the controls were common objects from that period. I remember also those giant drawings on a plateau in Peru (or whereever) were supposed to be "landing strips" for space ships that apprently landed like aircraft rather than our moon rockets, except that the true size of those "landing strips" when measured on the ground were hardly big enough for a bird to land on.



Moreover, archeologists have found in tombs colorful garments made of delicate feathers or hair that have survived for hundreds of years or more, yet never the material or metal from an astronaut's suit from the same period. They have found ancient pottery still intact but never an astronaut's helmet, ancient straw sandals but never moon boots. They have found sunken Viking boats they have raised and buttons and trash from Roman battlegrounds, but never one piece of an ancient spaceship.

And as someone else said before--even if you could find evidence of ancient astronauts, then you're stuck with the question of who made the astronauts?

What the "ancient astronauts" and ET proponents have never explained is from where these out-of-space visitors came and how they managed to survive the hundreds of years it would take them to make the trip from another galaxy at the speed of light.

Interesting point. They can't explain that because that knowledge isn't known. We can't do it, therefore it isn't believable. Unlike say..the Viriginal birth. Artificial Insemmination is standard today, would be considered fantastical fiction a hundered years ago much less in the days the bible and other texts of the day.

The Dogon Tribe a primitive people knew of star formations that "we" didn't discover until the hubble telescope could peer into the heavens. How is that possible? Were they just really good guessers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNy9wJvV9dU&feature=related




What the ancient astronaut theory does do, is make some of the writings in the bible seem at least plausible.

taken at face value, its ridiculous.

There are always going to be more questions than answers.

for instance :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZ3obK00pY

I maintain that legends, myths and religion could be the same.

Frankly I don't know.

And neither do you.

[John McClane]

This is why talking about metaphysics sucks.

[will.15]

Theoretically it is scientifically posible to travel faster than the speed of light. But there is another theory there used to be intelligent life on Mars and the ancient astronauts could have come from there.

[DexterRiley]

the stargate theory is pretty cool.

can you imagine talking about the hardon collider with academics a couple of hundereds years ago?

what will it be like in a 1000 years?

[rufnek]

I maintain that legends, myths and religion could be the same.

Frankly I don't know.

And neither do you.

Religion is accepted on faith, not proof. Legends and myths, if you chose to believe them, also involve a show of faith since there is no proof. Fortunately, we have free will, which gives us the choice to believe or not. When it comes to UFOs, I chose not to believe because no one yet has suggested how anything can travel faster than light or how "spacemen" could survive hundreds or thousands of years traveling at the speed of light. I also chose not to believe in werewolves, vampires, unicorns, bigfoot, and other such creatures. Don't believe in virgin birth or rising from the dead or the sun standing still while Josuah fit the battle of Jerico. Not believing in such things, I'm not seeking "proof" of any of these events,

However, most people nowdays chose not to worship Thor because they now know what causes lightning and thunder. Few believe in similar legends and myths for the same reasons and even fewer worship them, which is what separates legends and myths from any of the religions on earth.

Bottomline, if you truly believe something you don't need proof. If you don't believe something (like ancient astronauts), you still don't need proof especially when convinced there are logical explanations for those so-called "mysteries." The difference between your not knowing and my not knowing is that I also don't care, so it doesn't bother me a bit, which for all practical purposes is very similar to knowing such stories are all bull chit. :)

[will.15]

You didn't clap to show you believe in fairies when Tinkerbell was dying?

[rufnek]

Theoretically it is scientifically posible to travel faster than the speed of light. But there is another theory there used to be intelligent life on Mars and the ancient astronauts could have come from there.

I haven't heard that theory of anything being faster than light--only that Einstein claimed there was nothing faster and no one has yet been able to track anything at a faster speed.

There probably was life on Mars--maybe still is--but nothing we would call intelligent then or now. The "ancient astronaut" theory I like best is that simple life-forms like mold and viruses existed in Martian rocks and soil that were shattered and cast out of the Martian atmosphere by the many meteor strikes on that planet, creating new meteors or comets carrying those same life-forms that eventually crashed into earth and jump-started life on this planet. That I could see as a possibility, but the probabilty is likely much simpler--it would have been as easy, perhaps easier, for those simple life-forms simply to have formed on earth rather than Mars.

[rufnek]

You didn't clap to show you believe in fairies when Tinkerbell was dying?

Naw, I've been a cynic all my life. Besides when I first saw Disney's Peter Pan in one of its periodic rereleases, I was old enough--9 or 10--to be more interested in whether Hook's bomb blew off her little dress. "Dying, hell--is she nude??" Hm, she was one shapely little firefly.

[Sedai]

I love how Disney completely flipped the moral play around from the original book, which warned against letting go of childhood too late. Peter pan, the Heartless he was called in that...

[will.15]

Naw, I've been a cynic all my life. Besides when I first saw Disney's Peter Pan in one of its periodic rereleases, I was old enough--9 or 10--to be more interested in whether Hook's bomb blew off her little dress. "Dying, hell--is she nude??" Hm, she was one shapely little firefly.
You were more more advanced than me if you were thinking about Tinkerbell that way at nine or ten.

[wintertriangles]

You could write a volume of books about the non-morality of Disney compared to their source material

[rufnek]

You were more more advanced than me if you were thinking about Tinkerbell that way at nine or ten.

Ah, I've been crazy for the ladies all my life!

[planet news]

Theoretically it is scientifically posible to travel faster than the speed of light.First of all, what does this even mean? What is "scientifically possible"? Science is a method. It's weird to cast it as an adjective other than to say something like "Robert Fripp's songs sound like they were scientifically composed" in that they seem carefully and methodically written. So yeah, I think you just meant "theoretically". In which case, yes it is theoretically possible to travel faster than the speed of light, but the current physics requires that you have a negative mass and be traveling backwards through spacetime. If you view the speed of light as a barrier for positive energies---let's say, you and I---then it's simply the logic of symmetry to assume that something past that barrier would have "bizzaro" properties. I think of it like this and because I know that the math verifies it---but it's just math.

I haven't heard that theory of anything being faster than light--only that Einstein claimed there was nothing faster and no one has yet been able to track anything at a faster speed.Again, it's just math. Nothing has been identified to travel faster than light although light can be slowed down to below the speed of light so that particles can then travel faster than the slowed down light producing a kind of light Doppler effect called Cherenkov radiation. This effect is seen a lot in nuclear reactors, so if you hear about things going faster than light, this is what they're talking about.

But theoretically speaking, tachyons have been in the mix long enough to have become a rather common bit of pop culture technobabble on sci-fi shows and films. But again, they are only mathematically "predicted", and we don't know at all if they exist in nature. I also fail to see how we could produce them with technology.

[planet news]

I love how Disney completely flipped the moral play around from the original book, which warned against letting go of childhood too late. Peter pan, the Heartless he was called in that...Do you actually love it, or do you mean "I love how" in the ironic sense that you find it laughably stupid?

Because I really do love how Disney turned it around if that's true. What a horrible message that is: to let go of childhood too late... why should we ever in the sense of Peter Pan and being a free spirit? I definitely think Disney got it right on that one.

You were more more advanced than me if you were thinking about Tinkerbell that way at nine or ten.Hey, did you guys hear the one about how many fairies it takes to screw in a lightbulb?

Two.

[will.15]

Clap if you believe in God.

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypmI-heWqF8

[will.15]

Or want the lights out.