All Y’all Atheists.

[Raumm]

Derogatory.... isn't it?

What? Deism? Not really. It's basically saying the Universe is God, in a sense of saying that Almighty God is another term for the all encompassing, awe inspiring nature of the universe. At least, this was my understanding from Einstein's belief. However, I don't see it practical to make the comparison from God to the Universe, as it is easily misconstrued, as seen with the God Particle and common folk.

Atheist tend to get riled up, I cut them the slack. Deism is not the god is the Universe, that is the new thought movement's ideology, Deism is the belief that god created the universe and set it in motion i.e. the big bang etc. and that other than that original creation god is absent from the materiel world. It isn't a religion and deist discourages theology and congregations, they breed stratification and fundementalism.

[Nature-Spirits]

Bet you thought that title would lead you to a topic where someone would yell at you based on a book written 2,000 years ago, huh?

Actually, no. I was simply expecting an Atheist who couldn't speak the English language properly and was new to NS.
Now, I am Theist (Eclectic Pagan to be exact; I'm not a fan of Christianity either), but I'm friends with Christians, Agnostics, one or two Atheists, an Agnostic Buddhist, etc. Most of my family is Christian (though my mother [I have only one legal parent] is Agnostic Gaean), and while very few family members know of this, all of my friends know. And they don't care. So, while I sometimes argue against the credibility of the Bible on NSG, IRL it's not really an issue, and I don't judge people on their religious beliefs (hell, I even have a Christian friend who doesn't accept evolution).

[Condunum]

What? Deism? Not really. It's basically saying the Universe is God, in a sense of saying that Almighty God is another term for the all encompassing, awe inspiring nature of the universe. At least, this was my understanding from Einstein's belief. However, I don't see it practical to make the comparison from God to the Universe, as it is easily misconstrued, as seen with the God Particle and common folk.

No I was talking about the "drug" comparison..... same thing you accused me for, depreciation.

Anyway, name it as you want. Universe is universe and is here to stay (at least for now).

T'was a joke. They are common here.

What? Deism? Not really. It's basically saying the Universe is God, in a sense of saying that Almighty God is another term for the all encompassing, awe inspiring nature of the universe. At least, this was my understanding from Einstein's belief. However, I don't see it practical to make the comparison from God to the Universe, as it is easily misconstrued, as seen with the God Particle and common folk.

Atheist tend to get riled up, I cut them the slack. Deism is not the god is the Universe, that is the new thought movement's ideology, Deism is the belief that god created the universe and set it in motion i.e. the big bang etc. and that other than that original creation god is absent from the materiel world. It isn't a religion and deist discourages theology and congregations, they breed stratification and fundementalism.

That I understand, but it just adds an extra layer of complication.

What? Deism? Not really. It's basically saying the Universe is God, in a sense of saying that Almighty God is another term for the all encompassing, awe inspiring nature of the universe. At least, this was my understanding from Einstein's belief. However, I don't see it practical to make the comparison from God to the Universe, as it is easily misconstrued, as seen with the God Particle and common folk.

So what you're saying is if it looks like a universe (and IS a universe) why not call it a universe?

Yes, that's what I was saying.

Because religion. *nod*

No, really it's because we're still a minority in a sea of humans who would be offended and otherwise outraged if their religions were to be openly and widely discredited based on conventional thinking. Of course, they are often by many, (Dawkins comes to mind,) and their obvious distaste is example for the outcome of discrediting their beliefs. I can sympathize with that, surprisingly. It's hard having your core beliefs being shown to you as wrong.

Doesn't matter. Might does not make right.

It may not make right, but right is not always the final judge on what will happen.

[Scrooge Mc Duck Company]

Bet you thought that title would lead you to a topic where someone would yell at you based on a book written 2,000 years ago, huh?

Actually, no. I was simply expecting an Atheist who couldn't speak the English language properly and was new to NS.
Now, I am Theist (Eclectic Pagan to be exact; I'm not a fan of Christianity either), but I'm friends with Christians, Agnostics, one or two Atheists, an Agnostic Buddhist, etc. Most of my family is Christian (though my mother [I have only one legal parent] is Agnostic Gaean), and while very few family members know of this, all of my friends know. And they don't care. So, while I sometimes argue against the credibility of the Bible on NSG, IRL it's not really an issue, and I don't judge people on their religious beliefs (hell, I even have a Christian friend who doesn't accept evolution).

So many names.....

[Condunum]

Because this was definitely needed.

That's nihilism. Christians can be nihilist too.

It was a joke, Norstal.

[Condunum]

Actually, no. I was simply expecting an Atheist who couldn't speak the English language properly and was new to NS.
Now, I am Theist (Eclectic Pagan to be exact; I'm not a fan of Christianity either), but I'm friends with Christians, Agnostics, one or two Atheists, an Agnostic Buddhist, etc. Most of my family is Christian (though my mother [I have only one legal parent] is Agnostic Gaean), and while very few family members know of this, all of my friends know. And they don't care. So, while I sometimes argue against the credibility of the Bible on NSG, IRL it's not really an issue, and I don't judge people on their religious beliefs (hell, I even have a Christian friend who doesn't accept evolution).

So many names.....

Things are not simple.

[Veladio]

Actually, no. I was simply expecting an Atheist who couldn't speak the English language properly and was new to NS.
Now, I am Theist (Eclectic Pagan to be exact; I'm not a fan of Christianity either), but I'm friends with Christians, Agnostics, one or two Atheists, an Agnostic Buddhist, etc. Most of my family is Christian (though my mother [I have only one legal parent] is Agnostic Gaean), and while very few family members know of this, all of my friends know. And they don't care. So, while I sometimes argue against the credibility of the Bible on NSG, IRL it's not really an issue, and I don't judge people on their religious beliefs (hell, I even have a Christian friend who doesn't accept evolution).

So many names.....

Yup, not so black and white. We live in a multi-religious universe

[Seperates]

Because this was definitely needed.

(Image)

That's nihilism. Christians can be nihilist too.

Really, what they are presenting is an utter misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the principles that can surround scientific theories and observations on reality. Nihilism, on the other hand, can be seperated into a couple distinct factions, being that either;

Existential Nihilism: There is no purpose in life, so living is therefore pointless.

Scientific Nihilism: Our senses are merely hallucinations, and therefore we can gain no actual knowledge because the world as we percieve it , because it doesn't actually exist.

Moral Nihilism: There is no such thing as morality, either subjective or objective. In essence, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted".

Value (also sometimes called Secular) Nihilism: There is no such thing as value, even created ones. No object is anymore or any less valuable than any others, irregardless of quantity or need.

I, myself, ascribe to parts of these philisophies, but to subscribe to any wholeheartedly denies basic aspects of the human condition, and ignores reality, therefore making it as illogical as religion.

[The Merchant Republics]

Wut?

How in the hell did I miss that?

Excuse me, we have found the building blocks to life in cosmic dust, there are no actual signs of it yet, though Europa has a high probability of containing bateria, and the Mars Science Laboratory should bring more conclusive evidence about the past and present potential for life on Mars in August.

Regardless, there are at least 2 more or less confirmed terresterial planets within the Kepler's vision with conditions much like Earth, with the amount being small fraction of the galaxy, and an infinteselly smaller fraction of the Universe.

Ok. There we go.

I was going to say, I have a subscription to Discover magazine that would be immediately cancelled if they neglected to mention that life on other planets had indeed been discovered.

Anyways, my point was the Fermi Paradox, not the absence of simple life, but of advanced life.


Yet, I see no one is going to play alone with my little thought experiment. Fair enough. My only point is, despite being a small spec in a massive universe, I think we should not forget how very special we are in the grand scheme of things. Even assuming advanced life exists at all in the universe like us, it is likely so infinitesimally rare that we ought to treat our existence as extraordinary. In this case, can we not look upon the massive improbability of our existence and say, what if we were created with a purpose?

I'm not going to rehash the line I'm sure you've heard before, the improbability of an event has no bearing on whether or not it was caused supernaturally. So long as it is indeed possible. My mere point is that our being a speck of the most insignificant magnitude to the vastness of the universe does not belie the possibility that our creation is indeed special or at least significant to the universe.

[Seperates]

So many names.....

Yup, not so black and white. We live in a multi-religious universe

Which one of many reasons why they are all wrong...

[The Merchant Republics]

Perhaps I'm not doing any good for arguing, it seems you're very much committed to your beliefs and the idea that mine are ridiculous.

Nonetheless, look at the vastness of the universe and explain to me how we can be the only intelligent life in it?

That is to say, if you would indulge me in flipping your argument on it's head. Supposing the universe were created with us as nothing special in it. Why then have we not found a single trace of life that did not originate on this planet?

The sheer scale, akin to the idea that some 100^100 gamblers roll their dice 100 times and only a single one rolls 1 despite billions of years.


I don't love to use the Fermi paradox, because I don't really think alien life and Christianity are mutually exclusive, but it poses serious questions to the person who presupposes an uncaused, unpurposed universe.

We haven't found much evidence of other life because we haven't found much evidence of other life, end of. It's easy to make the guess that there is other life, because of the sheer number of terra-sized planets.

Have you read much about the Fermi Paradox, I'm referencing?

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

Human life took some 150 million years to develop from simple organism to complex, right?

So assuming this is average, not long or short for the development of life there should be by mere averages at least several thousand time periods big enough for intelligent life to have sprouted on some planet and begin communicating with others. Why then do we have not a single trace in all the wide-swath of space we have observed of advanced life?

That is the Fermi Paradox.

[Condunum]

We haven't found much evidence of other life because we haven't found much evidence of other life, end of. It's easy to make the guess that there is other life, because of the sheer number of terra-sized planets.

Have you read much about the Fermi Paradox, I'm referencing?

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

Human life took some 150 million years to develop from simple organism to complex, right?

So assuming this is average, not long or short for the development of life there should be by mere averages at least several thousand time periods big enough for intelligent life to have sprouted on some planet and begin communicating with others. Why then do we have not a single trace in all the wide-swath of space we have observed of advanced life?

That is the Fermi Paradox.

Why? Because our instruments are not strong enough to detect them so far away, and, if there is intelligent life, they either have not ventured here, or realize the impracticality of traveling millions of light years.

[Scrooge Mc Duck Company]

All I see is that the idea of religion keeps dividing people instead of unite them. Like we need even more division right now. Hence the comment about the names.

And that gentlemen proves the mafunctioning idea that religion is on the first place. Divides and kills, not unites and saves.

[Farnhamia]

We haven't found much evidence of other life because we haven't found much evidence of other life, end of. It's easy to make the guess that there is other life, because of the sheer number of terra-sized planets.

Have you read much about the Fermi Paradox, I'm referencing?

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

Human life took some 150 million years to develop from simple organism to complex, right?

So assuming this is average, not long or short for the development of life there should be by mere averages at least several thousand time periods big enough for intelligent life to have sprouted on some planet and begin communicating with others. Why then do we have not a single trace in all the wide-swath of space we have observed of advanced life?

That is the Fermi Paradox.

The universe is 13 billion years and some change. Life seems to have appeared on the Earth between 3.5 and 4 billion years ago.

I was a little surprised, but there are quite a number of explanations. Special creation is just one.

[Mavorpen]

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

13.7 billion.

[Seperates]

Excuse me, we have found the building blocks to life in cosmic dust, there are no actual signs of it yet, though Europa has a high probability of containing bateria, and the Mars Science Laboratory should bring more conclusive evidence about the past and present potential for life on Mars in August.

Regardless, there are at least 2 more or less confirmed terresterial planets within the Kepler's vision with conditions much like Earth, with the amount being small fraction of the galaxy, and an infinteselly smaller fraction of the Universe.

Ok. There we go.

I was going to say, I have a subscription to Discover magazine that would be immediately cancelled if they neglected to mention that life on other planets had indeed been discovered.

Anyways, my point was the Fermi Paradox, not the absence of simple life, but of advanced life.


Yet, I see no one is going to play alone with my little thought experiment. Fair enough. My only point is, despite being a small spec in a massive universe, I think we should not forget how very special we are in the grand scheme of things. Even assuming advanced life exists at all in the universe like us, it is likely so infinitesimally rare that we ought to treat our existence as extraordinary. In this case, can we not look upon the massive improbability of our existence and say, what if we were created with a purpose?

I'm not going to rehash the line I'm sure you've heard before, the improbability of an event has no bearing on whether or not it was caused supernaturally. So long as it is indeed possible. My mere point is that our being a speck of the most insignificant magnitude to the vastness of the universe does not belie the possibility that our creation is indeed special or at least significant to the universe.

No, because there are explainable mechanisms that are behind our development and the development of our planet. We are extremly lucky, I grant you that, but the mere idea that we were created for "a purpose" disgusts me because of the sheer amount of unnessecery pain, suffering, misery, and torture that numerous of my fellow life forms have had to go though to accomplish it. In essence, if we have a purpose, the creator is not only evil and sadistic, but not worthy of my respect.

In the long run, we are no more significant than the species that came before us, or before them, or before them, or before them. In a million years time, we too, will probably be gone. But that doesn't matter, because I am glad I am here right now, and I will try to improve the world for those who will come after, whomever they are. This is the principle of Cynical Optimism.

I will admit. There is a non-zero possiblity that there is a creator, that we are special, and that the universe was made for us. And if there is a vast amount of evidence to support this claim, I would believe. But not one minute sooner.

[Furious Grandmothers]

We haven't found much evidence of other life because we haven't found much evidence of other life, end of. It's easy to make the guess that there is other life, because of the sheer number of terra-sized planets.

Have you read much about the Fermi Paradox, I'm referencing?

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

Human life took some 150 million years to develop from simple organism to complex, right?

So assuming this is average, not long or short for the development of life there should be by mere averages at least several thousand time periods big enough for intelligent life to have sprouted on some planet and begin communicating with others. Why then do we have not a single trace in all the wide-swath of space we have observed of advanced life?

That is the Fermi Paradox.

What?! 150 million years? More like at least 3.5 billion years. Where did you pull that number out from? And why this insistence on discussing 'advanced' life? Why use humans as a marker, pretty arbitrary considering how similar the DNA of most animals and even plants are to human DNA, yeah?

[Divair]

Have you read much about the Fermi Paradox, I'm referencing?

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

Human life took some 150 million years to develop from simple organism to complex, right?

So assuming this is average, not long or short for the development of life there should be by mere averages at least several thousand time periods big enough for intelligent life to have sprouted on some planet and begin communicating with others. Why then do we have not a single trace in all the wide-swath of space we have observed of advanced life?

That is the Fermi Paradox.

Why? Because our instruments are not strong enough to detect them so far away, and, if there is intelligent life, they either have not ventured here, or realize the impracticality of traveling millions of light years.

Or they have ventured nearby and we just missed the opportunity to detect them (we've only started watching and listening to space recently) or simply cannot (they could have stealth tech).

[Manahakatouki]

I was understanding that one of Jupiter's moons could support life. Was it Titan?

Europa

And Titan.

Titan was said to support methane breathing life forms perhaps, as they saw changes in the atmosphere there similar to the breathing of life on our own Earth...

[Madoka Kaname]

Have you read much about the Fermi Paradox, I'm referencing?

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

Human life took some 150 million years to develop from simple organism to complex, right?

So assuming this is average, not long or short for the development of life there should be by mere averages at least several thousand time periods big enough for intelligent life to have sprouted on some planet and begin communicating with others. Why then do we have not a single trace in all the wide-swath of space we have observed of advanced life?

That is the Fermi Paradox.

Because we can't travel there yet? That's a silly statement to make. If a European were to land in North America, see no one, and comes back, they can't ask the question, "how come no one lives in North America?" Simply because they haven't explore the place yet, they can't conclusively say "no one lives in North America."

Also, what Farn said.

[The Richard Bastion Republic]

No offense, but I really don't see the benefit of someone being atheist because atheists are infact, less happy.
Furthermore, they are more likely to commit suicide.http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

[Divair]

Have you read much about the Fermi Paradox, I'm referencing?

The Universe is approximately... what? 7 billion years old?

Human life took some 150 million years to develop from simple organism to complex, right?

So assuming this is average, not long or short for the development of life there should be by mere averages at least several thousand time periods big enough for intelligent life to have sprouted on some planet and begin communicating with others. Why then do we have not a single trace in all the wide-swath of space we have observed of advanced life?

That is the Fermi Paradox.

Because we can't travel there yet? That's a silly statement to make. If a European were to land in North America, see no one, and comes back, they can't ask the question, "how come no one lives in North America?" Simply because they haven't explore the place yet, they can't conclusively say "no one lives in North America."

Also, what Farn said.

Meanwhile in Europe, 1300:
"Nonsense, there are no other continents! How come they haven't contacted us yet, hmm?"

[Seperates]

No offense, but I really don't see the benefit of someone being atheist because atheists are infact, less happy.
Furthermore, they are more likely to commit suicide.http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

Sure they are. Go away troll.

[Mavorpen]

No offense, but I really don't see the benefit of someone being atheist because atheists are infact, less happy.
Furthermore, they are more likely to commit suicide.http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

Yes, because this definitely means that religious people are right.

[Madoka Kaname]

No offense, but I really don't see the benefit of someone being atheist because atheists are infact, less happy.
Furthermore, they are more likely to commit suicide.http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

You're religious because it's benefits you? Here I thought Christians actually believe in Jesus and not just an illusion to comfort them.

Also, if there's group A where there are 1 million adherents and 1000 people suicide and there's group B where there are 2000 adherents and 1000 of them suicide, which one has a higher proportion of suicide?

Logic, son.