1) Would you say that salisburyboy-types are more, less, or equally justified for believing aliens visit Earth compared with religious people who firmly believe in written accounts of humans doing magic tricks (resurrection, healing the blind, raising the dead, alchemy, prophecy) and communicating with God/spirits? Explain.

2) Would you say that either are justified at all? Explain.

While it might not seem like it, I intend for this to be a serious thread. Given a recent Gallup Poll which stated a full 33% of Americans self-identify as Biblical literalists, it seems a fair question to ask. I don't think we've had a good religious barn-burner in a while, and this equivalence plays heavily into a novel I'm writing so I'm anxious to see the replies in this thread.

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 5:20 AM. Reason : ?]

9/4/2006 5:04:18 AM

Im not interested in what the dumbest third of our population thinks.

9/4/2006 5:42:04 AM

I would say less justified because major religions have been socially reinforced over centuries upon centuries of civilization. The idea of Alien intelligence is fairly modern concept and is far more outlandish if only because its not a socially accepted norm.

For instance, many of earths religions reference a supreme being but very few if any reference a superior alien civilization.

9/4/2006 6:28:39 AM

I just wonder how many people hold that view. Ultimately, like the title suggests, both come down to anecdotes in one form or another. I'm curious as to what reasons people have for viewing the anecdotes of ancient man as more believable than the anecdotes of modern man.

9/4/2006 6:49:23 AM

Well, I'm no literalist, but I do believe in several instances in which humans (not of themselves, but with help from God) have accomplished "magic"

I think the reason I am more apt to believe the one's based on my religion comes more from experiences I've had. This may sound strange and even laughable to atheists, but most religious people feel a presence of God at some point or another. For me, it comes during mass and also when studying the Bible (which I rarely do, admittedly). While stories of aliens visiting the planet fascinate me, I never have the supernatural feeling of presence that I get in a religious sense.

Now, why I feel that way could be for a number of reasons, not all of which are because I actually am experiencing God and I realize that. However, that is why I give more credit to some biblical accounts of supernatural phenomena and not to those of alien life.

Also, this is not to mean that I don't believe in the presence of alien life forms. I do not, however believe that any of the infinite lifeforms have ever paid a visit to Earth to probe humans or slaughter cattle.

9/4/2006 8:33:52 AM

i bet at least a few of those dumbasses who say they are literalists didnt even know what it meant or didnt think twice before putting it. id also wager that these same people are hesitant to say anything negative about the bible (such as certain parts are fairy tales...it is a slippery slope to them).


that said, im still not so sure about the whole feeling god thing bgmims. im not trying to hate on religion, i just think people look for higher purpose in certain physical/mental feelings. there is a certain awe inspiring aspect of going to mass or reading a very important (potentially god-written, at least inspired) book, but i dont think it is the presence of god personally.

9/4/2006 10:01:24 AM

I don't really consider myself a Bible literalist, nor can I say I've "felt God" to my knowledge, but I've been entirely too fortunate in my life to ascribe it all to sheer luck, odds, etc.

Of course I also believe in extraterrestrial life, so I guess I shouldn't be participating in this thread

9/4/2006 10:17:01 AM

Quote :

"that said, im still not so sure about the whole feeling god thing bgmims. im not trying to hate on religion, i just think people look for higher purpose in certain physical/mental feelings. there is a certain awe inspiring aspect of going to mass or reading a very important (potentially god-written, at least inspired) book, but i dont think it is the presence of god personally."

I totally understand you and I think I acknowledged the strength of such an argument in my own post. I guess its more of a Pacal's Wager for me. I mean, I already feel something special with mass and the Bible, and the penatly for not believing is stronger than the opportunity cost of belieiving.

TGD, I believe in alien lifeforms too, just not the one's that come here and assrape Cartman.

9/4/2006 10:27:39 AM

I think salisburyboy types are less justified because religion is based on something centuries old, and aliens are apparently visiting now. I think the thing that is going on currently should have more solid evidence simply because its recent, and the witnesses for aliens arent the most credible people.

That being said I'm still not convinced that aliens dont exist, I just dont think they are visiting and abducting people

9/4/2006 11:30:05 AM

That's a good point. There is a higher burden of proof for those things you say are happening now than things that have already happened.

9/4/2006 11:40:49 AM

Yeah, all we have about those "magic tricks" are accounts from people without much scientific knowledge or knowledge of the world and in many cases weren't even recorded until a lot of time had passed.

9/4/2006 11:51:38 AM

this is why im agnostic

9/4/2006 12:38:59 PM

I'm inclined to say that salisburyboy and his ilk are less justified sheerly by weight of numbers. Countless billions of people have believed in certain common magic tricks spread across the various religions, and though that proves nothing and though what I'm about to say is probably not in keeping with good logical reasoning, I have a fairly difficult time believing that such vast and disparate populations could believe in something that has absolutely no basis.

There's that, of course, and my various personal experiences, the description of which will contribute nothing to this discussion.

Salisburyboy comes from a miniscule sliver of the population that is, with little exception, mostly comprised of weirdos. I suppose that won't do for technical parlance, but you all know what I mean (although I'm certain Gamecat will ask me to go into far greater detail if he notices it ). There are millions of religious people who are fairly normal and well-adjusted. Not so many on the salisburyboy front.

And Gamecat, thank you from the bottom of my heart for not mentioning salisbury's name in the title so that he can't come in and fuck this up.

9/4/2006 8:45:14 PM

Quote :

"I have a fairly difficult time believing that such vast and disparate populations could believe in something that has absolutely no basis."

i was going to say something smartass here, but...

argh, it's really strange that people throw up their hands and go "yeah sure, i'll believe that, why not... everyone else does, it must be true"

and yet, countless numbers of people do this all the time

...

it's about as logically flawed as you can possibly get

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 8:56 PM. Reason : .]

9/4/2006 8:56:08 PM

Quote :

"yeah sure, i'll believe that, why not... everyone else does, it must be true"

It's not quite that, you know. First of all, that is not why I believe in my religion, but it is why I think my anecdotes are better than salisburyboy's. To my mind, if you've got two implausible stories and everything else is equal, I'm at least more inclined towards the one that everyone believes -- but I'm just inclined, I'm not suddenly an acolyte or anything.

9/4/2006 9:10:41 PM

why do you believe in your religion

because of coincidences, i would bet good money that's what it is

or perhaps the holy ghost... you know, I feel the holy ghost everytime I see the saturn V rocket go up in a documentary

9/4/2006 9:13:51 PM

nastoute, if you honestly experience the holy ghost when the Saturn V rocket takes off, I suggest you worship it.

However, you're most likely flaming because you're an asshole.

9/4/2006 9:46:25 PM

Quote :

"I do believe in several instances in which humans (not of themselves, but with help from God) have accomplished "magic" "

define magic please. breaking of physical laws?

9/4/2006 10:11:34 PM

Quote :

"why do you believe in your religion"

There are those subjects on which I feel a discreet silence is warranted, and this is one of them. I welcome any and all to attack religion, but some of my specific reasons for adhering to it are for me and God -- and, if you don't think He's an option, just for me.

I am also in no position to comment on which times the Holy Spirit deems fit to come upon a person, whether it be from a rocket launch, church attendance, or the arrival of a bucket of fried chicken. Hell, the last two generally work with me.

9/4/2006 10:34:55 PM

a guiding light that has prevented you from straying down the path of carnal indulgence or substance abuse.

9/4/2006 10:51:09 PM

I've regularly participated in both, so clearly that's not the answer.

9/5/2006 2:31:41 AM

Quote :

"define magic please. breaking of physical laws?"

IUf you noticed, I said "magic" in order to adhere to Gamecat's original description of biblical miracles. He even went so far as to list some

Quote :

"(resurrection, healing the blind, raising the dead, alchemy, prophecy)"

I don't think a solid definition is in order, we all know what we're talking about.

9/5/2006 6:43:20 AM

So, to summarize: Generally people would say salisburyboy-types are less justified because:

1) The popularity of the religious beliefs in question.
2) The age of the religious beliefs in question.
3) The lack of "credible" witnesses to aliens.

Am I leaving anything out?

Bonus points go to the debating crowd who refused to wuss out and try to rationalize away from believing ideas based on fallacious reasoning. There's nothing wrong with it, everyone does it about something (I'm pretty sure), I'm just hugely curious as to what justifies it in everyone's mind.

Quote :

"TGD: Of course I also believe in extraterrestrial life, so I guess I shouldn't be participating in this thread"

Sure you should. The question was whether you think believing in aliens is more, less, or equally justified compared with believing in the divinity (or ability to do magic, whichever you'd prefer) of Jesus and why.

9/5/2006 8:12:32 AM

Quote :

"I've regularly participated in both, so clearly that's not the answer."

i was hoping for a "fuck you." i thought i was bringing the funny.

9/5/2006 9:03:55 AM

I think the timeframe is a huge factor. There is little that can be done to validate or refute 2,000+ year old claims. It makes it a bit easier to believe when such a significant portion of the population believes them and that they have pretty much stood the test of time (story is the same today as it was wrtten in the first century). With UFO's and such we can readily scan for them or interrogte people involved. The fact that nearly every large-scale UFO story has later been proven or confessed to be a hoax hurts it too. I don't believe in UFO's but I can rationalize that they very easily could exist too... which I think is not far from what many agnostics might think about God.

You see this same skepticism in the modern day "healers" and "mircale" workers too. I believe in the "magic" of the bible, as described earlier, but I don't believe when I read or see of the stories from across the globe of someone performing faith-based surgeries and such.

9/5/2006 10:07:09 AM

Quote :

"It makes it a bit easier to believe when such a significant portion of the population believes them and that they have pretty much stood the test of time (story is the same today as it was wrtten in the first century)."

The story today isn't the same as it was in the first century. Plenty of pieces have been added, including the actions and words of Jesus, since the first century.

My question here is this: How does the fact that the story is old add to its credibility?

Quote :

"With UFO's and such we can readily scan for them or interrogte people involved."

As we can for people who claim to speak with God, experienced magic on his behalf, or have direct knowledge of his plan...

Quote :

"The fact that nearly every large-scale UFO story has later been proven or confessed to be a hoax hurts it too."

What about the litany of false prophets and others who've claimed to be the new messengers of God?

9/5/2006 10:35:56 AM

I don't think it has so much to do with whether or not there is a large population that also agrees in the "magic" you believe in. Personally, I think it boils down to how you are brought up.

I would say that probably 95% of people believe in what they do simply because they were brought up to believe that. Even if they claim they feel a connection with god, personal choice, etc. it mostly comes from what was reinforced to them by their parents, church, or whoever and whatever else throughout the years.

You can't just choose to believe one way or another out of convenience, just as you can't just choose to not believe what you have been taught for years without some serious questioning of its validity. I.E. Johnny Christian doesn't choose to reject that Jesus rose from the dead. He logically decides that it was not possible, and has no choice but to not believe any more.

The last paragraph was a bit off subject, but I guess my point is that salisbury, unless he was taught his beliefs his whole life, is less justified. It is incredibly hard to reject what you have been taught your whole life, even if what you were taught sounds wrong. It is much easier to reject new ideas based on the obvious flaws.

9/5/2006 12:04:57 PM

^^ recent false prophets cant be used to prove that all prophets have been false

dont fall into the bad logic trap

9/5/2006 1:37:05 PM

What're you talking about?

This is a thread about people believing in something based purely on anecdotal evidence; itself a totally illogical thing to do.

msb2ncsu suggests that since "nearly every large-scale UFO story has later been proven or confessed to be a hoax" that it hurts the validity of belief in the phenomenon. If there've been false prophets, as has been alleged by practically every major religion that professed to have prophets in the first place, how is it irrational to presume that the same wouldn't apply to religions?

I'm trying to get at the root of belief here.

We have a prevailing cultural mythology that represents acceptable beliefs, and less popular cultural mythology that doesn't. The two share many elements, not the least of which is the claim that only in the rarest of cases is anyone actually telling the truth about their improbable experiences. Yet somehow society distinguishes very carefully between them.

There are definitely drunks and hoaxers who make shit up about aliens, UFOs, ghosts, psychics, and other shit rather often, even an overwhelming majority of the time.

How do their stories discount the doctors, servicemen, pilots, weather observers, radar operators, astronauts, Senators, Presidents, and other reputable people who've reported seeing odd shit in the sky (or on the ground) more than David Koresh discounts the divinity of Jesus?

Why?

9/5/2006 3:31:27 PM

let me be more clear

Quote :

"As we can for people who claim to speak with God, experienced magic on his behalf, or have direct knowledge of his plan... "

no we cant, not for the ones that happend thousands of years ago
thats why the timeframe alone makes ufo people less justified

Quote :

"What about the litany of false prophets and others who've claimed to be the new messengers of God?"

Biblical literalists would also agree that these people are false prophets, and that they are false prophets has no bearing on those on written accounts which is what your initial question asked

9/5/2006 3:54:14 PM

^This is true

At best, you can say "Because most/all modern accounts of speaking with God and miraculous events turn out to be false, we can reasonably expect all such accounts from the past to be false as well"

But at best, its guilty by association. It might be enough for practical proof that something is fault, but certainly not theoretically.

9/5/2006 3:59:47 PM

Quote :

"e30ncsu: no we cant, not for the ones that happend thousands of years ago thats why the timeframe alone makes ufo people less justified"

What about those who don't think UFOs and aliens visit now, but did in antiquity?

Quote :

"e30ncsu: Biblical literalists would also agree that these people are false prophets, and that they are false prophets has no bearing on those on written accounts which is what your initial question asked"

There are also written accounts of humanoid gods coming out of the sea or down from the sky to teach math, science, and civilization to ancient cultures. A similar experience can be found in Genesis, when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Some people claim such angels and gods visit them in their sleep to give them messages of hope and love to spread to humanity (like this nutjob who lives in NC now: http://www.firstcryonicintradimentionalfellowship.com/).

How do their wild claims make belief in UFOs, aliens, spirits, whatever less justified than the belief that false prophets can't be distinguished from the "real" ones who lived in antiquity?

Quote :

"bgmims: It might be enough for practical proof that something is fault, but certainly not theoretically."

Exactly.

Hundreds of thousands of people at Fatima, Portugal saw something happen. Many attribute it to the BVM. Others call it mass hallucination. Some call it UFOs and aliens. Few call it a hoax.

What defines the difference between the "rational" explanation of this admittedly irrational phenomena and the "irrational" explanations of the exact same irrational phenomena?

9/5/2006 4:19:29 PM

Quote :

"What about those who don't think UFOs and aliens visit now, but did in antiquity?"

they are equally justified to have faith that aliens visited in antiquity

i believe they are wrong, but their belief relies on just as much faith as mine does



[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 5:44 PM. Reason : i assume that answers your other question]

9/5/2006 5:42:41 PM

Mathematically, believing in Extra-Terrestrial life is more justifiable because of the shear size of the universe than any creed or religious belief.

/thread

9/5/2006 6:55:56 PM

i think you mean

statistically

but close enough

9/5/2006 6:57:51 PM

I could of just said NUMBERS, and let you try and figure it out.

9/5/2006 6:59:45 PM

no, i figured it out all right

9/5/2006 7:00:30 PM

so God is restricted to a part of the universe, but aliens can run free?

9/5/2006 7:01:00 PM

Not at all.

But where does god end and speculative pseudoscience begin?

9/5/2006 7:09:50 PM

These are different questions really.

Do you believe that it is plausible that other forms of life exist in the universe, besides humans?

Statistically speaking, it is more likely than not! I have no reason to believe, based on numerical evidence, that other forms of life do not exist in our universe.

Do you believe that it is plausible that God created the universe, or that God exists at all in our universe?

This question cannot be measured, so it is a faith-based question.

9/5/2006 7:11:49 PM

so since you can only measure one, how did you arrive at the conclusion that one is mathmatically more probable

9/5/2006 7:12:53 PM

I cannot determine that one is more probable than the other.

However, I can determine something from one, and nothing from the other.

Basically, one is an answerable question, and the other is not.

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 7:14 PM. Reason : -]

9/5/2006 7:13:26 PM

not answerable... with math

9/5/2006 7:17:59 PM

Well, faith-based assertions are generally unanswerable with the scientific method.

So you have to ask yourself, what are you really asking in the first place?

I would never tell someone not to have faith, but I would recommend chosing your battles wisely.

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 7:22 PM. Reason : -]

9/5/2006 7:21:26 PM

I'd freely admit we don't have enough information to suggest one's more probable than the other. In fact, I'll go ahead with my own questions:

1) I'd go with equally justified. It comes down to whether or not you believe a single story of someone's account of the incredible, divine, or whatever. Ultimately, an anecdote.

2) I'd say both are justified because of the faculty of true experience. Sure, maybe biochemistry and psychology could tell us more about human encounters with god, angels, and other bizarre and unlikely phenomena than biblical accounts, abduction stories, and Tarot readings, and on a larger scale, it probably does. However, if even one story represents an actual experience with an angel, divine healer, alien, or whatever, both belief systems are completely justified.

9/5/2006 7:22:19 PM

Quote :

"Well, faith-based assertions are generally unanswerable with the scientific method."

thats exactly why i had objections with you trying to use math to show that aliens were more justified

9/5/2006 7:24:20 PM

this thread, like Leviathan, has an interesting point when it comes to religious stories.

also, like Leviathan, it is becomming very wordy and makes me not want to read it anymore.

9/5/2006 7:31:54 PM

Explain to me how a question that can be answered by anyone who looks into it, is just as justifiable as, a question that cannot be answered by anyone who looks into it?

To me, this seems to be counter-intuitive. It is like you are using faith as a crutch to level the playing field of logic.

9/5/2006 7:39:21 PM

no one can answer if there are aliens somewhere in the universe anymore than they can answer if god is a physical person sitting on a couch watching nc state football somewhere in the universe

9/5/2006 7:50:21 PM

The transient nature of either experience leaves its veracity questionable.

Example #1: You "see" an alien skirt across their yard, do the hokey pokey, and leave. Upon further examination, there were no other witnesses, footprints, or other physical traces of the event. You don't seek publicity or money over the matter. You have no history of mental illness and don't demonstrate any for the rest of your life.

Did it happen? Can you prove either the affirmative or negative answer?

Example #2: You feel the touch of God all of a sudden one day when "the voice" commands you to seek a life of chastity and worship of the Lord, the Father of Jesus, and spread his message. Nobody around you heard it, but you're compelled to devote the rest of your life to being a priest for the Catholic church. You have no history of mental illness and don't demonstrate any for the rest of your life.

Did it happen? Can you prove either the affirmative or negative answer?

Also...

Did I leave anything out as far as the motivations behind belief preferences in my summary above?

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ...]

9/5/2006 7:58:33 PM