do you think astronauts like buzz aldrein and gordon cooper would lie???
- Thread starter sorethumb
- Start date
Farfenugen
Well-Known Member
As for astronauts reporting strange anomalies in space or pilots reporting the same thing, it's quite clear that maybe there is something up there, but I highly, seemingly technologically advanced race of being come all this way only to crash on our planet. Makes me think they're either really dumb or that this is still a lot of nonsense driven by hysteria. And when you view those silly lights on youtube or at best sketchy grainy videos on the news, it begs to differ, why isn't there clear evidence to support these claims? It also makes me wonder why, after someone unknown views these things, they either ramp it up a bit or write a book about it, hence making more off the unidentified than say, the truth to the fact that no one has any real factual evidence.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
David Brin based much of his fiction on possible bases for the Paradox. "So then where IS everybody??" cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
When I was a kid, I'd lie on the lawn during a summer's evening and watch the airliners slowly cross the field of stars above. Some didn't blink. I learned 30 years later that the nonblinkers were satellites in LEO. The angular rate of motion matches up well. For watching satellites, i can highly (!) recommend heavens-above.com ... cn
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I remember seeing these satellites as a kid as well. My father pointed them out. He was fond of watching the sky at night for various phenomena while drinking his evening beers. "Some of the moving ones blink, and some do not", he informed. He pointed out that the blinking was a sign of human engineering, as it is a safety measure, and the others were satellites, high enough to not need the blinking.
I heard an interview with a SETI director (or some such) recently, but it was on in the background while I did housework. I recall her speaking a bit about how they changed the search methods, about trying to share some of the resource burden with idle desktop computers, and how funding is always a struggle. She was saying how they constantly have to reiterate the importance for SETI to the public. So I don't think they are getting secret funding.
I heard an interview with a SETI director (or some such) recently, but it was on in the background while I did housework. I recall her speaking a bit about how they changed the search methods, about trying to share some of the resource burden with idle desktop computers, and how funding is always a struggle. She was saying how they constantly have to reiterate the importance for SETI to the public. So I don't think they are getting secret funding.
sorethumb
Active Member
with all the computer graphics and perpetual liers its pointless to investigate vids or ppls storys even the mass siteings in mexico with thousands of ppl looking cant dont prove nothing except that until they land and start smokeing a joint on the whitehouse lawn ppl dont care ..lol that would be sweet
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
You say pilots know what they are looking at, um, wasn't it just last week a pilot nose dived his commercial jet injuring 16, because he mistook Jupiter for an oncoming aircraft?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Last year. Was just reading about it actually.
http://news.discovery.com/human/airplane-ufo-or-venus-120420.html
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
Cheers for the link. Only really heard snippets about it on the radio, for some reason the news story was being aired this week.
Rising Moon
Well-Known Member
3 theories:
These are "reflections" from the future, or "projections" from the global mind, or maybe interdimensional travelers...
For more info on the first 2, listen to hours and hours of old recordings from the late great Terence McKenna...
These are "reflections" from the future, or "projections" from the global mind, or maybe interdimensional travelers...
For more info on the first 2, listen to hours and hours of old recordings from the late great Terence McKenna...
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
It would seem that agnostic is a better fit if you are being true to your skeptical nature.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Theism is the belief in a deity. The prefix 'a', meaning non, makes atheism non-belief in a deity. Agnosticism asks/answers a different question. Can we know god. A theist could believe in god, but believe he, or aspects of him, are unknowable, which would make that person an agnostic theist. Agnosticism does not imply atheism, so it wouldn't be a better fit. 
But I don't mean to gloss over your point. Skepticism demands that we do not go as far as to say there is no god. That assertion would require a leap of faith. Skeptics do not accept faith in the argument for a deity, so to be consistent they must reject it in the argument against a deity. But, this lack of conviction against god in no way makes a person less atheist. All that is required is the absence of belief.
But I don't mean to gloss over your point. Skepticism demands that we do not go as far as to say there is no god. That assertion would require a leap of faith. Skeptics do not accept faith in the argument for a deity, so to be consistent they must reject it in the argument against a deity. But, this lack of conviction against god in no way makes a person less atheist. All that is required is the absence of belief.
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
Which immediately causes your whole thread to be shaky. If it's most it's not all, so why is it that Buzz or Gordon must have been right? Maybe they were part of this small group who don't realise what they're looking at?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Arguments against many types of deities are sound and should not be rejected out of hand. Any deity that interferes into our physical world and reads our thoughts and answers prayers and is omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent can all be dismissed for various logical reasons. Then we have inductive arguments that although not infallible are strong arguments against more vague grand designer type deities, even more deistic ones. Of course reasonable people never claim anything as absolute but I would have no problem with someone that merely says there is no god, as long as he realizes difference between high degree of certainty and absolute truth.Theism is the belief in a deity. The prefix 'a', meaning non, makes atheism non-belief in a deity. Agnosticism asks/answers a different question. Can we know god. A theist could believe in god, but believe he, or aspects of him, are unknowable, which would make that person an agnostic theist. Agnosticism does not imply atheism, so it wouldn't be a better fit.
But I don't mean to gloss over your point. Skepticism demands that we do not go as far as to say there is no god. That assertion would require a leap of faith Skeptics do not accept faith in the argument for a deity, so to be consistent they must reject it in the argument against a deity. But, this lack of conviction against god in no way makes a person less atheist. All that is required is the absence of belief.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
You mean even though we are atheists our belief systems differ? Imagine that.
I suppose if I think it through you are right. I have always felt that skepticism leads us to two possibilities. There is either no god, or god hides. A reality with a hiding god could be indistinguishable from one with no god at all, which makes a hiding god useless, yet gives both conclusions the same degree of certainty. But I suppose a hiding god would be considered superfluous by Occam's razor, which means the responsible skeptical outlook is to give more weight to the conclusion of no god.
Even so, for the sake of accurately reflecting my opinion, I would never say there is no god. I say there is probably no god. I personally feel the need to indicate the lack of absolution. When a skeptic such as in your example says there is no god, isn't he simply leaving the 'probably' part to be implied? Would a skeptic ever say, baring new evidence there is no god and I can't be wrong?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Well if aliens do show up it will certainly be a challenge to many of the current popular religions. Why would god send his only son to earth if there are other creations out there?
Didn't mean to hijack your thread with god talk.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Belief we cannot know if God exists or not but willing to accept evidence either way = agnostic. Atheist = belief God doesn't exist (not absence of belief, which I'm not sure really even exists). Theist = belief God does exist.Theism is the belief in a deity. The prefix 'a', meaning non, makes atheism non-belief in a deity. Agnosticism asks/answers a different question. Can we know god. A theist could believe in god, but believe he, or aspects of him, are unknowable, which would make that person an agnostic theist. Agnosticism does not imply atheism, so it wouldn't be a better fit.
But I don't mean to gloss over your point. Skepticism demands that we do not go as far as to say there is no god. That assertion would require a leap of faith. Skeptics do not accept faith in the argument for a deity, so to be consistent they must reject it in the argument against a deity. But, this lack of conviction against god in no way makes a person less atheist. All that is required is the absence of belief.