Why is a non-earth entity less believable than a religious entity?

Peacock's-Eye said:

As an atheist, I find inter-dimensional entities as acceptable as Jehovah, Shiva or Jesus Christ. It's all mythology to have fun with in stories.

Click to expand...

I'd even say that I believe in aliens more than in the bible-stories, since they are more based in science. But that's the problem... I don't want science-based stuff in Indy-movies

>>> As an atheist, I find inter-dimensional entities as acceptable as Jehovah, Shiva or Jesus Christ. It's all mythology to have fun with in stories.

>>the Bible can be supported by at least SOME factual evidence<<[/I]

>>> HUH?! WHAT?!?! Sorry, no. Just because a legend takes place in a real place, includes an historical character, or an oral tradition records something forgotten & later unearthed, they do not "support" it as reality. What nonsense. The Bible is every bit as 'true' as an Indy movie. Gimme a break. Magic exists in the human imagination - nowhere else.

I'd expect such a response from an atheist -- arrogant to the end. I'll not humor you with a theological debate. The Bible can be supported by factual evidence. It cannot be proven -- but it can certainly be supported. I never claimed proof, I merely claimed "supporting evidence".

Atheism, as a philosophy, is inconsistent at best. Generally speaking, atheists demand proof of the existence of God, but are happy to accept the non-existence of God without the same burden of proof. In order to have a belief on the existence of God, either way, something has to be taken on faith.

I've encountered enough evidence in my life and studies to convince me of the existence of God -- but I certainly cannot prove it. For you, the evidence leans the other way ... but, the fact remains, your level of proof is no greater than mine. For you to outright say -- "What nonsense. The Bible is every bit as 'true' as an Indy movie. Gimme a break. Magic exists in the human imagination - nowhere else" -- requires no less of a leap on your part than for me to say the Bible is absolute truth.

KBZ

KneelBeforeZod said:

the Bible is absolute truth (as I believe it is).

Click to expand...

But you've gotta admit that that's a pretty narrow-minded assumption. Edit: Oh, I see you've changed your mind

I myself wouldn't call myself an atheist, but a agnostic... more of an "everything is possible", but as long as there's no proof, I don't need to believe in it. Faith is a good thing, as long as it helps giving hope, consolation or strength. But worshipping something inexplicable? Well... not for me.

To me the existence of life-forms on other planets is very likely... as much as the existence of a single etherical being that created everything is not. It's my choice to think that way, so I'm not sure why some people try to force their religious views on me (this is not directed to you personally, KBZ).

Laserschwert said:

But you've gotta admit that that's a pretty narrow-minded assumption. Edit: Oh, I see you've changed your mind

I myself wouldn't call myself an atheist, but a agnostic... more of an "everything is possible", but as long as there's no proof, I don't need to believe in it. Faith is a good thing, as long as it helps giving hope, consolation or strength. But worshipping something inexplicable? Well... not for me.

To me the existence of life-forms on other planets is very likely... as much as the existence of a single etherical being that created everything is not. It's my choice to think that way, so I'm not sure why some people try to force their religious views on me (this is not directed to you personally, KBZ).

Click to expand...

Haven't changed my mind -- I still believe the Bible to be truth. Nonetheless, the parenthetical at the end of my paragraph wasn't the point, and was actually extraneous information ... thus, I edited it out.

I've never been of the opinion that narrow-mindedness is particularly distressing. It remains entirely impossible to remain open-minded once you've made up your mind ... particularly in a debate where proof is an absolute impossibility. What you call open-minded, I call indecisive.

Agnosticism is, at least, consistent. I believe it to be somewhat foolhearty to believe the human mind is capable of understanding all -- but, it isn't a philosophy with such glaring inconsistencies as athiesm. Honestly, I worship precisely because He is inexplicable. I believe there are certain truths in life which are unexplainable scientifically, and which the human mind is simply incapable of grasping. For instance ... creation, the vastness of space, the beginning and end of time, afterlife, etc.

Thus, I don't require proof for belief ... I require only the weight of the evidence before me. I have weighed the evidence, and decided. I am open-minded enough to change if proven wrong -- but intelligent enough to know that no man can prove that which is unexplainable, so I don't expect to be changing my mind on God's existence.

As to extraterrestrial life, I'll admit to simply not knowing. Its possible, if not likely, that there is life on other planets -- and possibly intelligent life. If God were to create a system where He could create several separate civilizations with no chance whatsoever of ever coming into contact with one another, He couldn't establish a more perfect system than the current layout of the Universe.

As to forcing views on people -- I'm not one to force my views on anyone. If asked, I'll answer. If attacked or mocked (as I was by our fellow poster), I'll argue. If help or spiritual guidance is needed, I'll offer it. If my help is refused, I've done my part.

KBZ

>>your level of proof is no greater than mine<<
WRONG.
I used to believe the way you do, but unbiased research set me straight.

Second: No, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All gods are invisible, silent & absent - the rational assumption is that they do not exist. The burden of proof is on you. Have any? Thought not.

Really, regardless if you believe in God, aliens or neither, why even argue about it here. As much as I hate the comment "It is just a movie" -it is. I don't believe in a God, and I don't think "Oh, I can't enjoy this, there is a Ark with God's power in it, and a grail Jesus has used...sorry, don't believe in this stuff, so can not enjoy it". I don't especially think aliens have visisted earth either - though I think alen life probably does live out there far away from us (I think that has been proven to a degree hasn't it, with alien microbes found in space?).

At the end of the day, all the film implied was, that a certain tribe recieved assistance from the alien race - it wouldn't mean the God's power who was housed in the Ark doesn't exist in the movie world of Indiana?

Benraianajones said:

At the end of the day, all the film implied was, that a certain tribe recieved assistance from the alien race - it wouldn't mean the God's power who was housed in the Ark doesn't exist in the movie world of Indiana?

Click to expand...

But that's not the point... the movies don't disprove each other, nobody has claimed that.

But I liked it better when the Indy-movies didn't try to "prove" anything (in their own reality). Showing the aliens and the saucer "proves" that aliens exists and it explains Roswell and the numerous UFO-sightings (again, in the reality of the movie), wheras the Ark didn't prove there was a God, but it showed that there are things that can't be explained. Two different things... and I liked the old way better.

I have heard people claiming that though (not especially here though).

And I agree - I think just seeing the 13 crystal skeletons, perhaps a telepathic "chat" with spalko and the "aliens" , and then her demise. The "chat" could have been in her mind due to how obsessed Spalko was, it could have been magic from the skull, we'd never have known really, and again would have given us the choice of wondering what the true "thing" behind it all is. To top it off, we could have seen a possible "ufo craft", werther it be buried, or just a commet in the background a bit later on, as someone suggested.

Yeah, but us speculating pretty much shows, that it wasn't presented well enough... if it was just an imagenery vision of an alien, it should've been shown as that... and not as clearly as it was.

All I said was: I don't see the difference. You can't deal with the Crystal Skulls without bringing South America, UFO mythology etc. into it, just like you can't deal with the Ark without dragging in the Old Testament mythlogy behind it. But it's all the same to me.

Peacock's-Eye said:

>>your level of proof is no greater than mine<<
WRONG.
I used to believe the way you do, but unbiased research set me straight.

Second: No, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All gods are invisible, silent & absent - the rational assumption is that they do not exist. The burden of proof is on you. Have any? Thought not.

Click to expand...

As I said, arrogant to the end -- and obnoxious as well. Evangelical atheists are a rare breed. Who's forcing their beliefs on whom here?

And where is all this unbiased research on the existence of God -- a premise that inherently defies research?

It remains a VERY convenient position for atheists to declare that they know the truth -- and then to adamantly insist that the burden of proof is on everyone else to demonstrate the falsity of their declared "truth". Sounds like a leap of faith to me.

As I noted above, it is the most logically inconsistent and entirely hypocritical philosophy I've ever encountered. Atheism is a philosophy which insists it is based on science ... but which makes factual declarations which cannot be scientifically established.

Incredible.

KBZ

I find them to be equally believable. I loved the different direction the film went with. I didn't want a carbon copy of Raiders or Crusade with some other artifact from the Bible. Been there done it twice.

"Gods head doesn't look like that!" - Mutt

"It depends on who your God is." - Indy

You put pretty well. The main thing with the aliens is that it was different from anything we've seen in an Indy movie. I thought the ending got too sci-fi, especially with the UFO, but other than that I'm ok with aliens in an Indy movie....but never again.

>>Who's forcing their beliefs on whom here?<<
YOU. I expressed my opinion & you posted a long attack/response.
And stop calling me arrogant, Godboy.

>>a premise that inherently defies research?<<
By that logic fairies & unicorns might exist!
Why don't you believe in Odin or Zues or Mithras?
Arrogance! Incredible!
Stop pushing your invisible space pixie on me.

Maybe you should try and not be so disrespectful of others' beliefs. If you don't agree with them, that's fine, but you don't need to mock their religion and God.

Sure I should! I was attacked, and I defended myself. I have a right. Why should I be tolerant of some rude jerk's primitive bronze age superstition? I'm finished, anyway. You can't reason with the deluded.

Young Indy said:

I find them to be equally believable. I loved the different direction the film went with. I didn't want a carbon copy of Raiders or Crusade with some other artifact from the Bible. Been there done it twice.

"Gods head doesn't look like that!" - Mutt

"It depends on who your God is." - Indy

Click to expand...

Although I would have liked Indy searching for another earthly, mythological artifact (people have suggested lovecraftian elements, arthurian legend, etc.) The skull and alien elements worked great for me. People complain about LC being a carbon copy of Raiders, and then bark at the fact that Indy didn't search out another religious artifact in this film, which would likely have lent itself to more of the same, tiring it out.

I thought it was fine too.

blueoakleyz said:

I get the feeling that a lot of people were like "Come on, an alien spaceship???"....
Which to me, is surprising (ok maybe not), because aliens are more believable, to me, than any religious entity.

I'll answer my own question though, it's probably because most people are raised believing religious things

Click to expand...

Well if you believe Sallah in Raiders, the Lost Ark did not come from earth, so this would be the second move to deal with things not from this planet.

Peacock's-Eye said:

>>Who's forcing their beliefs on whom here?<<
YOU. I expressed my opinion & you posted a long attack/response.
And stop calling me arrogant, Godboy.

>>a premise that inherently defies research?<<
By that logic fairies & unicorns might exist!
Why don't you believe in Odin or Zues or Mithras?
Arrogance! Incredible!
Stop pushing your invisible space pixie on me.

Click to expand...

I'll stop calling you arrogant when you stop acting like a know-it-all.

Actually -- I posted that I believed there was "some" physical evidence of the Biblical facts (which I don't even think I posted in response to you) ... and YOU attacked me, slick. The following rant was your response to my observation that there are Biblical locations and major players that verifiably existed ...

>> "HUH?! WHAT?!?! Sorry, no. Just because a legend takes place in a real place, includes an historical character, or an oral tradition records something forgotten & later unearthed, they do not "support" it as reality. What nonsense. The Bible is every bit as 'true' as an Indy movie. Gimme a break. Magic exists in the human imagination - nowhere else."

I don't care if you believe in God. I don't know you. I don't want to know you. I honestly couldn't care less. I do care when I am mocked by some atheist ***** for the mere statement that there are scientifically verifiable facts in the Bible. Thus, I took the opportunity of your obnoxious tirade to point out that your position -- that there absolutely is no God -- requires as much faith as mine does. You don't know, you can't prove your position ... and yet you take it on faith that there is no God. Fine by me -- its just an interesting position for a "faith" that presumably bases itself on science.

Ultimately, I think you're an arrogant twit ... a trait more and more common among "open minded" atheists. I'm not trying to convert you, or get you to see that Christianity is correct -- you're trying to convert me (calling me "Godboy", comparing the Christian God to unicorns and "invisible space pixies", etc). I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS. I haven't once argued that I can prove God exists, or even that you should believe God exists (the nearest I came was pointing out that you weighed the evidence differently than I). I have simply said that even atheism requires a measure of faith -- in response, you have disrespected me and my faith.

I'll say it again -- I'm not trying to convert you ... I don't care if you believe anything. I haven't even told you the specifics of what I believe ... much less what you should believe. I haven't argued theology (as I told you I wouldn't in my intial post) -- I've simply said you can no more prove your position than I can prove mine (which is as close to "agree to disagree" as I can get).

Thus, I've simply said that atheism is a religion like any other -- not based on provable science, but based on faith. You have your unproven faith, I have mine -- agree to disagree.

KBZ