I've seen nothing to convince me.Humboldt wrote:Why not?
Do You Believe In Aliens?
Hey Roody.Roody wrote:I've seen nothing to convince me.
Makes sense to me, neither have I
Kind of like the God concept, I've seen nothing to convince me.
I guess I just assume, given the unfathomable size of what's out there, that the chance of other life forms existing is high.
If it could happen on Earth it could happen somewhere else, not just one other planet but countless numbers of them.
IMO
Every normal man must be tempted at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
I often wonder if the voices in my head ever get frustrated because I'm just too damn lazy to climb that clock tower.
[IMGO]http://www.volcanoesigs.com/inferno-09- ... 200-80.png[/IMGO]
I often wonder if the voices in my head ever get frustrated because I'm just too damn lazy to climb that clock tower.
[IMGO]http://www.volcanoesigs.com/inferno-09- ... 200-80.png[/IMGO]
I thought Close Encounters of the Third Kind was based on a true story.Quote Originally Posted by Roody
I've seen nothing to convince me.
And George Lucas got the idea for Star Wars from secret govt. docs...!
No one has any right to force data on you
and command you to believe it or else.
If it is not true for you, it isn't true.
LRH
and command you to believe it or else.
If it is not true for you, it isn't true.
LRH
My best friends wife asked him if Alien Nation was based on a true story... Unfortunately, they were at a dinner party when she asked. 
Every normal man must be tempted at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
I often wonder if the voices in my head ever get frustrated because I'm just too damn lazy to climb that clock tower.
[IMGO]http://www.volcanoesigs.com/inferno-09- ... 200-80.png[/IMGO]
I often wonder if the voices in my head ever get frustrated because I'm just too damn lazy to climb that clock tower.
[IMGO]http://www.volcanoesigs.com/inferno-09- ... 200-80.png[/IMGO]
not to hijack this thread,but it's kind of related.
this rock possibly from Mercury is way cool IMO.
http://www.businessinsider.com/green-sp ... ury-2013-3
this rock possibly from Mercury is way cool IMO.
http://www.businessinsider.com/green-sp ... ury-2013-3
-
RaisinCain
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:11 pm
Memo on puported UFO discovery in New Mexico becomes most read file in FBI’s electronic reading room
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/29 ... ding-room/
---
minir
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/29 ... ding-room/
---
minir
For me the God angle doesn't work in this scenario, but I understand for some it does. As a believer God's influence or touch if you will is all over the place imo. It's not my intention to take this thread off course, but that's the biggest reason why I view the two differently.Humboldt wrote:Hey Roody.
Makes sense to me, neither have I
Kind of like the God concept, I've seen nothing to convince me.
I guess I just assume, given the unfathomable size of what's out there, that the chance of other life forms existing is high.
If it could happen on Earth it could happen somewhere else, not just one other planet but countless numbers of them.
IMO
There are no accidents. Behind every action is an intention. The word "accident" is a human invention so as to lessen one's responsibility. Life on Earth is no accident. You are all prisoners here. No guards necessary. The only necessary method of controlling a prison is the ignorance of the inmates.
No one has any right to force data on you
and command you to believe it or else.
If it is not true for you, it isn't true.
LRH
and command you to believe it or else.
If it is not true for you, it isn't true.
LRH
Science and probablility suggest very "convincingly" that we are not the only (semi)intelligent life forms in the universe.
There are many indicators to suggest this, for example:
There are countless other planets with similar conditions to Earth, such as water and temperature ranges.
When single-cell organisms developed (or landed) on Earth, the environment was very hostile (methane, lava, etc.)
Evolution suggests that life adapts to its environment and can survive even radical changes.
However, considering the vast distances and timespan of evolution, it does not seem likely for us to meet at this particluar point in space and time.
There are many indicators to suggest this, for example:
There are countless other planets with similar conditions to Earth, such as water and temperature ranges.
When single-cell organisms developed (or landed) on Earth, the environment was very hostile (methane, lava, etc.)
Evolution suggests that life adapts to its environment and can survive even radical changes.
However, considering the vast distances and timespan of evolution, it does not seem likely for us to meet at this particluar point in space and time.
Roody wrote:I wouldn't call humans an accident, but to each his own.
Just trying to keep the language relevant to you. This is the whole intelligent design debate. I believe that we rose as a result of chaos. I don't think random events imply disorder. No matter how improbable, here we are lol. Amidst the cosmic chaos, favorable conditions existed at the right time and place and here we are. Similar conditions probably existed/exist elsewhere but due to the vastness of the cosmos, we may never find evidence of other life forms.
I hope we do though. Like Mulder, I want to believe.
Randomity and chaos are both limited by viewpoint and perception. Few can really say with certainty that they were there when this universe was created, thus to most of us, it appears to have formed from chaos. However, that chaotic mass of energy and particles has a beginning, something or someone or someones created it. To say that the chaotic form "always was" is as baffling as saying "God always was", both theories have gaping holes in them. Everything in this universe has a start (creation), change (continued creation) and a stop (counter-creation).
To the aboriginal, a volcano appears to be a random event, and as such will attribute its cause to deities represented by a stone idols. His viewpoint and perception are limited by his understanding of the universe he lives in. Without an understanding of his own spiritual nature, and without the technology needed to better perceive his environments, he will become trapped by beliefs and theories which cannot be proved or worked out, which further limit his progress toward higher goals of understanding his own nature and the nature of this universe.
The modern scientist also becomes trapped, similarly to the aboriginal, when he strictly adheres to past scientific principles, such as "matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed." Or the principle, "If it cannot be perceived it does not exist". The latter may be true, but only for the person who says it, another person may actually be able to perceive what another cannot perceive.
In a sense, we are all trapped in greater or lesser degrees by our beliefs, many of which are carry overs of past mis-perceptions, incomplete theories and invented definitions of the unexplainable, not to mention the principles put forth by vested interests seeking to dominate in some fashion. And just because someone has the title of scientist does not make that person 100% rational in his thinking. He, like anyone else, has irrational patterns of thinking. The Scientific Method is an attempt to curb that irrationality, but it's not an across-the-boards fail safe. (Monsanto science is a prime example!)
I believe that man inherently knows the truth about Life and his own nature, but that truth, for the most part, is obscured by his own irrationalities which prevent his inspection of that data. Man is trapped by his own created lies, false data and beliefs. Why the hell do you think you watched The Matrix so many times!
Is there proof of life existing elsewhere in this universe? Based on my own perceptions and viewpoint, I say, for me, there is proof. I have experienced phenomena that proves it to me. Others have a similar viewpoint too. But others having a similar viewpoint is not necessary for me to maintain my own belief.
To the aboriginal, a volcano appears to be a random event, and as such will attribute its cause to deities represented by a stone idols. His viewpoint and perception are limited by his understanding of the universe he lives in. Without an understanding of his own spiritual nature, and without the technology needed to better perceive his environments, he will become trapped by beliefs and theories which cannot be proved or worked out, which further limit his progress toward higher goals of understanding his own nature and the nature of this universe.
The modern scientist also becomes trapped, similarly to the aboriginal, when he strictly adheres to past scientific principles, such as "matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed." Or the principle, "If it cannot be perceived it does not exist". The latter may be true, but only for the person who says it, another person may actually be able to perceive what another cannot perceive.
In a sense, we are all trapped in greater or lesser degrees by our beliefs, many of which are carry overs of past mis-perceptions, incomplete theories and invented definitions of the unexplainable, not to mention the principles put forth by vested interests seeking to dominate in some fashion. And just because someone has the title of scientist does not make that person 100% rational in his thinking. He, like anyone else, has irrational patterns of thinking. The Scientific Method is an attempt to curb that irrationality, but it's not an across-the-boards fail safe. (Monsanto science is a prime example!)
I believe that man inherently knows the truth about Life and his own nature, but that truth, for the most part, is obscured by his own irrationalities which prevent his inspection of that data. Man is trapped by his own created lies, false data and beliefs. Why the hell do you think you watched The Matrix so many times!
Is there proof of life existing elsewhere in this universe? Based on my own perceptions and viewpoint, I say, for me, there is proof. I have experienced phenomena that proves it to me. Others have a similar viewpoint too. But others having a similar viewpoint is not necessary for me to maintain my own belief.
No one has any right to force data on you
and command you to believe it or else.
If it is not true for you, it isn't true.
LRH
and command you to believe it or else.
If it is not true for you, it isn't true.
LRH