re: Life on other planets theorists, take a hit, scientifically

quote:

---

He will destroy this present universe and create a new heavens and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10; Revelations 21:1). All the stars and planets will be destroyed, along with the Earth.

---

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?


Sounds like a supernova. Something that is a scientific certainty for all stars. No?

quote:

---

Not wanting life on other plants is an exclusively Christian position, which is how I knew you were religious to begin with. Most people know that the article you posted was bull from the very moment you posted it.

---

Life on other planets is a relatively new concept in man's history. Propagated a great deal, by science fiction.

I guess folks like Einstein were just wrong, huh?

Science is an ever growing concept. Theories change all the time and are modified to accept new evidence. Assuming man has all the evidence and answers of the Universe, is quite the narcissistic stance.

eta - Like I said. Believe what you want. It doesn't matter to me and affects me in no way. It still baffles me, the militant way nonbelievers try to force their belief, or discredit something they don't believe in.

And being a deistic uncommitted agnostic is hardly religious.

You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."[1] According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

quote:

---

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

---

There's this separation of agnosticism and atheism that I discussed in another thread wherein a lot of higher thinkers don't want to be particularly lumped in with atheism because of the baggage that comes along with it from misconceptions.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Most people view Spinoza's God as anything other than an ambiguous entity that is no where near what we could imagine. Secular spirituality is just as good as being Atheist. Perhaps he dislikes the title, but he is one nonetheless.

quote:

---

Science is an ever growing concept. Theories change all the time and are modified to accept new evidence.

---

How can you understand the basic tenant of science, as you've shown with this statement, and still insist that it's faith at work? There's no faith necessary in empirical science. That word, along with believe and belief are religious terms. They are not at all applicable to science.

"Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" (Deus) to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."

Just sayin'.

quote:

---

I'll never understand why so many Christians and Muslims feel threatened by science. Jews, except for the Orthodox, Hindus, Buddhists and many other religions go about their religious business without the slightest fear of scientific developments

---

For Christians I think it's because of Genesis. It all starts there, and if Adam was not created that way and did not produce original sin, there was no reason for Jesus to come for sacrifice. That's pretty damning for them.

Muslims regressed pretty badly and reject outright many things that could potentially disprove their religion as it exists.

I think the difference is that there are very few "literalists" within the communities that operate within science freely. It's almost an acknowledgment that their texts don't need to be immaculate or divine to inspire certain beliefs.

This is not the case with Muslims, Christians or Orthodox Jews.

quote:

---

Christians, Muslims and Jews share the Old Testament as well.

---

I think, the difference, is that their religion doesn't necessitate that it is 100% accurate.

The whole reason for Jesus coming back is because of Adam in the beginning. Without that being true, there is literally no Christianity. He -needs- to be real for Christianity to exist.

The Jews do not -need- the old testament to be 100% accurate.

quote:

---

There's no faith necessary in empirical science

---

Yet, there is faith in intelligent life, outside of earth, despite, absolutely no evidence to support it.

And, as I said earlier, it's become a debate of creationism/evolution, instead of showing where ET can't exist, based on Scripture.