208 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

First of all, I believe in extremely little of the biblical texts. The Ezekiel passage is at best a curiosity. However, I will ask you to cite a definitive debunking of it as an extraterrestrial phenomenon.

Yes, I noticed that you pick and choose what appeals to you with regards to what you regards as proof.

Already done that. Here is the link again - LINK - The Spaceships of Ezekiel by Tim Callahan

The link pertains to the Ezekiel aspect obviously, the entire Bible would require many more links. For goodness sakes, the great flood claim shows us that it is fictitious in some aspects at the very least.

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Hinduism is considered to be a religion by many in the West; an actual follower of the teachings and philosophy of Hinduism knows better.

Again it seems I need to repeat myself. Could you just read the posts and save the double ups?

I do not care for your personal interpretation, I insist that for the sake of debate at the very least that we restrict the conversation to known and accepted terminology. Your personal viewpoint means little to me no matter how "enlightened" you consider yourself to be. I am in the real world.

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

The gods are not "religious deities". You have a deplorably inaccurate knowledge of the gods. The Abrahamic religions, granted, are absurd. These believe in imaginary beings--however beings which were originally inspired by the true gods; real, tangible beings. By "work of the gods", I should thought you would have understood my meaning:

I do not find Abrahamic religions absurd, I think they have been interpreted in an absurd way. As I have said before the West uses a religious text as a historical record, and the middle east uses a historical record as a religious text.

Gods comprises a great many "advanced" species if you prefer that term. From the Christian God to the Pagans Gods at the beginning of civilisation. Every religions has at least one. If you have a preferred term, just spit it out and save all this waffle would you please?

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

the gods had it long before us, and originally taught advanced mathematics to our ancestors.

What a load of BS. Nobody owns a planet. It owns us. We are a product of it. If the human race died out tomorrow, and in say another million years some other species arises, is it stil our planet? No, it is not.

What taught man math was the need for it. The onset of agriculture and storage required mathematical practises to account for resources. Prehistoric peoples also recognised how to count abstract quantities, like time – days, seasons, years. Mathematics arises from many different kinds of problems. Not Gods. Or whatever term you wish to use. Necessity is the mother of invention, you didn't know that?

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Earth is their world--they came here long before humans existed. They did not come here for us. They gave knowledge to the ancients because they wished humanity to be educated, and to one day be integrated into their civilization.

They educated humanity yet humanity came to the same conclusions al by themselves as these aspects were broached? What a load of BS. There is no advantage to these "gifts" we have received. And they gave this information out 400 years ago, we caught up and made the calculations ourselves (which I believe was the case all along) so where are they?
Sounds more like a hippy trip to be perfectly honest. If we managed to come up with the same conclusions that the supposed Gods did, it stands to reason that no Gods existed in the first place, just the concept which did explain things like lightning bolts for a long time. Mans curiosity is his saviour from the dreamland of the gods.

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

How would they possibly have knowledge when, where, or whom would rediscover this knowledge after they bestowed it, and it was forgotten? As I have said, the gods cannot know the future any more than we humans can.

Astronomical knowledge came from observation. I will believe there is a cure to cancer when I see it. No gods are required here. Curing cancer would be convincing, when will someone be getting around to that?

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

How is knowledge of the speed of light, the ages of the universe and the Earth, the number of species living on our planet, advanced medical knowledge, astronomical prowess, genetics, technology, etc. a useless gesture? Is it useless to teach primitive Amazonian tribes of our own culture? Or to bestow knowledge of medicine and technology upon once-primitive African tribes?

Of course it is useless to give this information to one continent when another was on the verge of discovering it. Why would an alien give a primitive race the speed of light? what did these numpties actually expect Sayana to do with it? Why are these so called enlightened advanced beings so darn stupid? Yes, it is indeed useless to travel into the amazon and find a tribe and teach them quantum mechanics. How is that going to better their lives? What they need is medicine, and resources. Science will come when man can survive without having to worry about surviving. Such is the nature of mans curiosity.

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Do you really suggest that science is worthless to us? This is the insinuation of your previous post--whether intentional or not.

That is just plain insulting. How on earth pray tell did you manage to distort my post into this rubbish? I have not insinuated such at all, I have asked the value of giving out information that man canot use at the time when man was to discover this anyway (which makes these gods pretty unobservant and not very intuitive at all)  as opposed to information that man can actually use.  That man managed to come up with these calculations is impressive as I have said, but you want to take that achievement away and give it to some imaginative being. That is what I see as treating science as worthless.

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Of course we can replicate their work. Why would we be incapable of replicating the work which they themselves once had to discover as well? The cure for cancer is plain, and is present in the ancient writings. The same method which nullifies cancer also results in immensely-extended lifespans--the gods are capable of living for hundreds of thousands of years at a time. We have the technology today to cure cancer; we have simply failed to implement it.

This species is billions of years old, travels space, lived through the big bang, and the best they can give us is some information we also came up with ourselves? Such does not indicate divine intelligence, such indicates a level of technology similar to our own, this fledgling 200,000 year old species. As such, no gods are required. If they are not required I need more to go on than your assurances to accept that they so much as exist.

You say they can cure cancer, I do not believe you, all I see is that you think man is a whole lot dumber than he is. I want to see this cure for cancer and watch it implemented. When is someone going to just use this information that you say exists? Private enterprise would use it if it existed. Same with the extension of life, if man could get at the fountain of youth, man would. For some, money would be no object, yet even rich people grow old and die.

Edited by psyche101, 05 April 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

I hate the part about rich people getting old and dyeing  I have some quite wealthy chaps here and Im always dyeing there Fine Connally Hides to freshen up the seats ! Well Its another way to Look at it right ?

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

The soul is very real. Are you not conscious at this very moment? Then you have a soul.

That is the chemical machine at work. A soul transcends death. We are alive. As such, simply being alive explains naught about the mythical soul.

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

Or, perhaps if you are without a mind, then you may have some ground in saying that the soul does not exist.

Just cannot help yourself with the insults can you? It is quite common when one is backed into a corner I suppose. A losing battle tends to grasp at emoticons, bolded coloured writing and insult. Why is that pray tell?

Arbitran, on 04 April 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

I personally would like to think that you have a functional mind, and are a conscious being--therefore, you have a soul. It's very simple. And what part of this has anything to do with facing or not facing our own inner demons?
When was "Satan" ever brought up?

I find a persons "soul" is what a person is while that person is here. Did you read yesterday the thread about the Soldier who died saving a little Afghan girl? THAT is soul.  That is a man who will live on - in the memories of many. That is an existence one can be proud of. What you do here and now matters. Not in a past life, not in a future life, and not in some hazy realm. That mans "soul" was powerful and strong enough to give his life for that of a child. What greater gift could one give but the gift of life?

I believe the afterlife is a cop out to distract us form the fact that we are no more than chemical machines which merely deposit minerals back into the earth as we decompose. I mean, who the hell wants to hear that?? I also think you might be in the wrong forum for soul talk. Metaphysics or philosophy forums would be more suited to this hippy stuff. This is the ET forum. Aleinz and stuff, yaknow?

[psyche101]

DONTEATUS, on 05 April 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

I hate the part about rich people getting old and dyeing  I have some quite wealthy chaps here and Im always dyeing there Fine Connally Hides to freshen up the seats ! Well Its another way to Look at it right ?

Not only awesome posting, but impeccable timing Big D!

Even dyes die out!

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 05 April 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Yes, I noticed that you pick and choose what appeals to you with regards to what you regards as proof.

Already done that. Here is the link again - LINK - The Spaceships of Ezekiel by Tim Callahan

The link pertains to the Ezekiel aspect obviously, the entire Bible would require many more links. For goodness sakes, the great flood claim shows us that it is fictitious in some aspects at the very least.



Again it seems I need to repeat myself. Could you just read the posts and save the double ups?

I do not care for your personal interpretation, I insist that for the sake of debate at the very least that we restrict the conversation to known and accepted terminology. Your personal viewpoint means little to me no matter how "enlightened" you consider yourself to be. I am in the real world.



I do not find Abrahamic religions absurd, I think they have been interpreted in an absurd way. As I have said before the West uses a religious text as a historical record, and the middle east uses a historical record as a religious text.

Gods comprises a great many "advanced" species if you prefer that term. From the Christian God to the Pagans Gods at the beginning of civilisation. Every religions has at least one. If you have a preferred term, just spit it out and save all this waffle would you please?



What a load of BS. Nobody owns a planet. It owns us. We are a product of it. If the human race died out tomorrow, and in say another million years some other species arises, is it stil our planet? No, it is not.

What taught man math was the need for it. The onset of agriculture and storage required mathematical practises to account for resources. Prehistoric peoples also recognised how to count abstract quantities, like time – days, seasons, years. Mathematics arises from many different kinds of problems. Not Gods. Or whatever term you wish to use. Necessity is the mother of invention, you didn't know that?



They educated humanity yet humanity came to the same conclusions al by themselves as these aspects were broached? What a load of BS. There is no advantage to these "gifts" we have received. And they gave this information out 400 years ago, we caught up and made the calculations ourselves (which I believe was the case all along) so where are they?
Sounds more like a hippy trip to be perfectly honest. If we managed to come up with the same conclusions that the supposed Gods did, it stands to reason that no Gods existed in the first place, just the concept which did explain things like lightning bolts for a long time. Mans curiosity is his saviour from the dreamland of the gods.



Astronomical knowledge came from observation. I will believe there is a cure to cancer when I see it. No gods are required here. Curing cancer would be convincing, when will someone be getting around to that?



Of course it is useless to give this information to one continent when another was on the verge of discovering it. Why would an alien give a primitive race the speed of light? what did these numpties actually expect Sayana to do with it? Why are these so called enlightened advanced beings so darn stupid? Yes, it is indeed useless to travel into the amazon and find a tribe and teach them quantum mechanics. How is that going to better their lives? What they need is medicine, and resources. Science will come when man can survive without having to worry about surviving. Such is the nature of mans curiosity.



That is just plain insulting. How on earth pray tell did you manage to distort my post into this rubbish? I have not insinuated such at all, I have asked the value of giving out information that man canot use at the time when man was to discover this anyway (which makes these gods pretty unobservant and not very intuitive at all)  as opposed to information that man can actually use.  That man managed to come up with these calculations is impressive as I have said, but you want to take that achievement away and give it to some imaginative being. That is what I see as treating science as worthless.



This species is billions of years old, travels space, lived through the big bang, and the best they can give us is some information we also came up with ourselves? Such does not indicate divine intelligence, such indicates a level of technology similar to our own, this fledgling 200,000 year old species. As such, no gods are required. If they are not required I need more to go on than your assurances to accept that they so much as exist.

You say they can cure cancer, I do not believe you, all I see is that you think man is a whole lot dumber than he is. I want to see this cure for cancer and watch it implemented. When is someone going to just use this information that you say exists? Private enterprise would use it if it existed. Same with the extension of life, if man could get at the fountain of youth, man would. For some, money would be no object, yet even rich people grow old and die.

Please read each and every one of my prior posts again if you wish to continue this conversation. You have succeeded so far in misunderstanding all of them.
The gods are the owners of this planet, based on their protocols dealing with territory. Just the same as Portland is a city in the state of Oregon in the nation of the United States of America. Earth is a world in their territory. It is as simple as that.
While I am still of course skeptical that the account in Ezekiel is a genuine record of a sighting of extraterrestrials, the article you linked proved absolutely nothing. Its only conclusion was that the account was of "angels", not aliens. There is no distinction. To make a distinction is absurd. Though I do not believe that Ezekiel's account was of alien beings, I reserve judgment, rather than deem the notion to be somehow disproved: which it has not been.
As for your denial of a great flood; there is little fiction to be found. Or do you deny that sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age?
Your "real world" is one of any number of viable alternatives which are held by different cultures. Your culture however foolishly deems its own viewpoint as being the only valid option; Hinduism, to those who actually practice it, is not a religion. Of course necessity is the mother of invention, normally. But when a man says that he learned something from someone else, what right have you to try to tell him that he's lying, and actually discovered it on his own? Yes, as I have said, man could have learned these things independently; this, however, is not what the ancients said happened. They knew more about their own time than I do: I choose to believe what they said--particularly when it is not challenged by any available evidence, and in fact is harmonious with all available evidence. In Western culture, true, knowledge of astronomy came from observation--through men such as Copernicus and Galileo. However, the ancients tell of how they acquired knowledge of the stars: from the gods. Asking why the gods would teach the ancients in science is like asking why we teach science in our schools today. Would you rather science classes were left out? Is it too "impractical" for you? Indeed, I insist that the achievement of the ancients having knowledge of the speed of light be awarded to the gods; but sheerly because they themselves so insisted. It is you who insist upon awarding them an honor which they themselves denied. I am uncertain whether or not the gods lived through the Big Bang--it seems evident that they developed within our own timespan; they only know of previous incarnations of the universe through science. They have information far beyond our own, I can assure you. When you direct me to the man who discovered how to travel at super-luminal speeds, or extend the lifespan to hundreds of thousands of years, or effectively terraform a planet, or build a civilization inside of a super-massive black hole--then perhaps we can say that man is equal to the gods. I am unaware of such achievements in the catalogue of humanity. Indeed, no gods are finally required--this is not to say that they do not exist, particularly when the evidence is in support of their existence. The Spanish were not required to arrive in the New World--this is not however any indication that they did not. Is it? I have stated repeatedly that man is indeed very intelligent, and our civilization has managed to discover a great deal on our own--and can discover more. However, the ancients did not say that they discovered these things on their own.
True, the cure for cancer in the texts has not yet been used--not since the gods' departure has it been used, because the level of technology was insufficient in their absence to effectively utilize the knowledge. Again, the knowledge of life-extension technology has been available (in some parts of the world, at least) for millennia. However, due to the cultural and technological regression of the Middle Ages, the capacity to make use of the information was unavailable. Only in our modern times are we beginning to recover the adequate technological and intellectual level necessary to utilize the advanced knowledge of the gods left in the ancient texts.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 05 April 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

That is the chemical machine at work. A soul transcends death. We are alive. As such, simply being alive explains naught about the mythical soul.



Just cannot help yourself with the insults can you? It is quite common when one is backed into a corner I suppose. A losing battle tends to grasp at emoticons, bolded coloured writing and insult. Why is that pray tell?



I find a persons "soul" is what a person is while that person is here. Did you read yesterday the thread about the Soldier who died saving a little Afghan girl? THAT is soul.  That is a man who will live on - in the memories of many. That is an existence one can be proud of. What you do here and now matters. Not in a past life, not in a future life, and not in some hazy realm. That mans "soul" was powerful and strong enough to give his life for that of a child. What greater gift could one give but the gift of life?

I believe the afterlife is a cop out to distract us form the fact that we are no more than chemical machines which merely deposit minerals back into the earth as we decompose. I mean, who the hell wants to hear that?? I also think you might be in the wrong forum for soul talk. Metaphysics or philosophy forums would be more suited to this hippy stuff. This is the ET forum. Aleinz and stuff, yaknow?

I apologize if you found my previous post insulting; I did not intend it to be offensive. It was simply an (apparently failed) attempt at humor.
Indeed our bodies are chemical machines, our minds are not. Consciousness is not a chemical substance. Consciousness does indeed transcend death, because consciousness is grounded in the quantum realm--which is unaffected by, and indeed creates--the tangible realm we inhabit. Indeed, the man who saved the girl had a certain compassion which will be remembered by some. He however, also possesses a soul. A soul which doubtless was the source of his decision to do what he did. A lifeless chemical process does not choose of its will and mind to act. Life cannot be found in chemicals alone; quantum mechanical processes must be factored-in. A conscious mind is the basis of reality, as quantum mechanics shows. Without a mind, there is no reality, and without reality, of course there are no chemicals or processes which might produce beings such as humans or gods.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Please read each and every one of my prior posts again if you wish to continue this conversation. You have succeeded so far in misunderstanding all of them.

No, there is a difference between not agreeing and not understanding. That is the distinction you are failing to make.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

The gods are the owners of this planet, based on their protocols dealing with territory. Just the same as Portland is a city in the state of Oregon in the nation of the United States of America. Earth is a world in their territory. It is as simple as that.

BS, no they are not and I refuse to believe that this galactic territory nonsense exists. Nobody owns space. Some proof please. Who is here an now are the inhabitants of a planet. Your Gods seem to be at odds with Indigenous Australian Gods who say nobody owns anything, the earth is to be respected in it's own right.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

While I am still of course skeptical that the account in Ezekiel is a genuine record of a sighting of extraterrestrials, the article you linked proved absolutely nothing. Its only conclusion was that the account was of "angels", not aliens. There is no distinction. To make a distinction is absurd. Though I do not believe that Ezekiel's account was of alien beings, I reserve judgment, rather than deem the notion to be somehow disproved: which it has not been.

Had you read the entire link you would have read that the "angels" were depicted in many Churches. It's art, not Gods.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

As for your denial of a great flood; there is little fiction to be found. Or do you deny that sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age?

I deny that the earth was ever completely covered in water. If all the ice in the arctic circles was to melt, the highest extrapolation depicts a rise of 65 meters globally. That is a long way from covering the earth.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Your "real world" is one of any number of viable alternatives which are held by different cultures. Your culture however foolishly deems its own viewpoint as being the only valid option;

No, you have that wrong to, my "real world" is one where empirical knowledge is taken to be the truth, not fanciful tales with no proof.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Hinduism, to those who actually practice it, is not a religion.

Am I Hindu? Is this a Hindu forum? No, so lets stick with recognised definitions and leave your spiritual self at the door thanks.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Of course necessity is the mother of invention, normally. But when a man says that he learned something from someone else, what right have you to try to tell him that he's lying, and actually discovered it on his own? Yes, as I have said, man could have learned these things independently; this, however, is not what the ancients said happened. They knew more about their own time than I do: I choose to believe what they said--particularly when it is not challenged by any available evidence, and in fact is harmonious with all available evidence. In Western culture, true, knowledge of astronomy came from observation--through men such as Copernicus and Galileo. However, the ancients tell of how they acquired knowledge of the stars: from the gods.

And I know that man uses allegory to explain concepts. Why is this definitely not the case here? Because you believe an old myth? Such is one of mans achievements, being able to investigate claims for truth.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Asking why the gods would teach the ancients in science is like asking why we teach science in our schools today. Would you rather science classes were left out? Is it too "impractical" for you? Indeed,

No it is not at all, it is like introducing quantum mechanics in pre school. That is indeed impractical. You need to give a student the capabilities to understand what you have given him, and what to do with it. You know, providing the tools to work with what you have. That all comes under teaching. You do not provide a snippet of information and say "here - do something with this!"

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

I insist that the achievement of the ancients having knowledge of the speed of light be awarded to the gods; but sheerly because they themselves so insisted. It is you who insist upon awarding them an honor which they themselves denied. I am uncertain whether or not the gods lived through the Big Bang--it seems evident that they developed within our own timespan; they only know of previous incarnations of the universe through science. They have information far beyond our own, I can assure you. When you direct me to the man who discovered how to travel at super-luminal speeds, or extend the lifespan to hundreds of thousands of years, or effectively terraform a planet, or build a civilization inside of a super-massive black hole--then perhaps we can say that man is equal to the gods. I am unaware of such achievements in the catalogue of humanity. Indeed, no gods are finally required--this is not to say that they do not exist, particularly when the evidence is in support of their existence. The Spanish were not required to arrive in the New World--this is not however any indication that they did not. Is it? I have stated repeatedly that man is indeed very intelligent, and our civilization has managed to discover a great deal on our own--and can discover more. However, the ancients did not say that they discovered these things on their own.

If the Gods insist they take the credit, I want to hear it from the gods, not some bloke who heard it from some blokes mothers uncles aunt who found a book that someone thinks is something that it is not.
Once again, you assurances fall a long way from a convincing mark. I do not believe in the afterlife, I do not believe in reincarnation, I do not believe in Gods. You seem to think I should. It is your conviction, and god speed to you, it is not mine, and I see no reason to adopt it. The information that I have seen is not beyond our own, and as I have pointed out, man has equaled the achievements that you claim were given to India, for whatever reason that seems to escape us both. Provide empirical proof and we will be going somewhere. That a man in India provided close calculations that were repeated on other continents is in no way proof of outside assistance. It impresses you, that is great, personally, I see man doing what you claim is the work of the gods all on his own. If we do not need these Gods and can mirror their "gifts if knowledge", I see no reason to believe in them. Bet hey, knock yourself out, just don't drag me down with you. Just let me know when the Gods arrive here so you can then validate your ideals.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

True, the cure for cancer in the texts has not yet been used--not since the gods' departure has it been used, because the level of technology was insufficient in their absence to effectively utilize the knowledge. Again, the knowledge of life-extension technology has been available (in some parts of the world, at least) for millennia. However, due to the cultural and technological regression of the Middle Ages, the capacity to make use of the information was unavailable. Only in our modern times are we beginning to recover the adequate technological and intellectual level necessary to utilize the advanced knowledge of the gods left in the ancient texts.

We do not use the cancer cure, but we all marvel over how the Gods gave us the speed of light 200 years before man did it all by himself.
Can you explain the logic in that? I do not see that there is any. If the record is there, the record is there, we have nanotechnology, lets start curing cancer shall we?

Edited by psyche101, 05 April 2012 - 02:09 AM.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

I apologize if you found my previous post insulting; I did not intend it to be offensive. It was simply an (apparently failed) attempt at humor.

I just find jokes about ones mind to be somewhat distasteful in particular when you keep saying that "I do not understand". Fact is I do, I simply disagree with you. That is my right.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

Indeed our bodies are chemical machines, our minds are not. Consciousness is not a chemical substance. Consciousness does indeed transcend death, because consciousness is grounded in the quantum realm--which is unaffected by, and indeed creates--the tangible realm we inhabit. Indeed, the man who saved the girl had a certain compassion which will be remembered by some. He however, also possesses a soul. A soul which doubtless was the source of his decision to do what he did. A lifeless chemical process does not choose of its will and mind to act. Life cannot be found in chemicals alone; quantum mechanical processes must be factored-in. A conscious mind is the basis of reality, as quantum mechanics shows. Without a mind, there is no reality, and without reality, of course there are no chemicals or processes which might produce beings such as humans or gods.

I believe that chemicals allow our super computer brain to function efficiently enough to achieve sentience.  Just consciousness existing is not enough to convince me that it is above death. The above is your belief, and you are entitled to it. It is not mine. I see not proof for an after life, I do see animals and people die never to be seen or heard from again. I have seen animals decompose. We are all made of star stuff. That tells me that if there is more to life than the here and now, that absolutely no indication of afterlife exists outside of imagination. To me a soul is a persons morals, their fortitude and their character. The here and now. The brain works on electricity, we know this, we generate our own electricity, we know this. We do not know that this life extends beyond he here and now. You believe that. Such is the great difference. I need to know. Someones idea is just not good enough for me.  And neither are assurance, no matter how sincere. If you have a link that shows how consciousness is a quantum process, I would be much obliged if you would share it.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 05 April 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

No, there is a difference between not agreeing and not understanding. That is the distinction you are failing to make.



BS, no they are not and I refuse to believe that this galactic territory nonsense exists. Nobody owns space. Some proof please. Who is here an now are the inhabitants of a planet. Your Gods seem to be at odds with Indigenous Australian Gods who say nobody owns anything, the earth is to be respected in it's own right.



Had you read the entire link you would have read that the "angels" were depicted in many Churches. It's art, not Gods.



I deny that the earth was ever completely covered in water. If all the ice in the arctic circles was to melt, the highest extrapolation depicts a rise of 65 meters globally. That is a long way from covering the earth.



No, you have that wrong to, my "real world" is one where empirical knowledge is taken to be the truth, not fanciful tales with no proof.



Am I Hindu? Is this a Hindu forum? No, so lets stick with recognised definitions and leave your spiritual self at the door thanks.



And I know that man uses allegory to explain concepts. Why is this definitely not the case here? Because you believe an old myth? Such is one of mans achievements, being able to investigate claims for truth.



No it is not at all, it is like introducing quantum mechanics in pre school. That is indeed impractical. You need to give a student the capabilities to understand what you have given him, and what to do with it. You know, providing the tools to work with what you have. That all comes under teaching. You do not provide a snippet of information and say "here - do something with this!"



If the Gods insist they take the credit, I want to hear it from the gods, not some bloke who heard it from some blokes mothers uncles aunt who found a book that someone thinks is something that it is not.
Once again, you assurances fall a long way from a convincing mark. I do not believe in the afterlife, I do not believe in reincarnation, I do not believe in Gods. You seem to think I should. It is your conviction, and god speed to you, it is not mine, and I see no reason to adopt it. The information that I have seen is not beyond our own, and as I have pointed out, man has equaled the achievements that you claim were given to India, for whatever reason that seems to escape us both. Provide empirical proof and we will be going somewhere. That a man in India provided close calculations that were repeated on other continents is in no way proof of outside assistance. It impresses you, that is great, personally, I see man doing what you claim is the work of the gods all on his own. If we do not need these Gods and can mirror their "gifts if knowledge", I see no reason to believe in them. Bet hey, knock yourself out, just don't drag me down with you. Just let me know when the Gods arrive here so you can then validate your ideals.



We do not use the cancer cure, but we all marvel over how the Gods gave us the speed of light 200 years before man did it all by himself.
Can you explain the logic in that? I do not see that there is any. If the record is there, the record is there, we have nanotechnology, lets start curing cancer shall we?

Once again, your replies hold no bearings whatsoever on the meaning of mine. From your posts, all I can gather with certainty is that you have failed to understand any of what I have said. Yes, you've misunderstood, not merely disagreed. You don't seem to grasp any of the concepts I've introduced to you, which is perhaps why I've been forced to repeat the bulk of what I've said. Your faith is disturbing to me. Yes, faith. You have at least enough faith to state that my claims are "BS", as you say--despite the fact that if you had actually studied the evidence, and read the ancient texts, you would quite plainly find that the ancients were correct. You claim that I am belittling mankind by saying that their claims of the gods teaching them instead of learning themselves are truth; I say that you are belittling mankind far more by claiming that all that they said was imaginary.

I was hoping at the start that this conversation would be enlightening, or at the very least somewhat informative. Indeed, perhaps it is. It has informed me that those who subscribe to the religion of orthodoxy cannot be reasoned with any more than a Christian zealot. Hinduism is not a religion--religion relies on faith and miracles. The Hindu thought is however a scientific theory. And a theory which has not been debunked, even after millennia--and in fact has only been confirmed over and over again. At the very least I should have expected that you would believe in gods the same as the eminent Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan--it is from them that I got my start. Even NASA today is beginning a search for physical artifacts of the gods on Earth, and in our solar system. I however choose, at this time, to study their records, their information, and their culture. If you choose to believe that your ancestors were primitive ignoramuses who conjured up imaginary deities to explain the world, I will not try to sway you any further. Faith like that can seldom be repaired. I simply choose to believe that my ancestors were, for the most part, intelligent, honest human beings.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Once again, your replies hold no bearings whatsoever on the meaning of mine. From your posts, all I can gather with certainty is that you have failed to understand any of what I have said. Yes, you've misunderstood, not merely disagreed. You don't seem to grasp any of the concepts I've introduced to you, which is perhaps why I've been forced to repeat the bulk of what I've said.

Is it just me, or are the teaching if Hinduism failing to help you with the inner peace required to support your position here? Ohh, yes, good example you are showing there LOL.

You can believe what you want, so as such you are entitled to believe that I fail to understand. The only failure to understand that I am witnessing here is that you are struggling to understand that this is a two way conversation. I have as much right to protest your claims of gods as you have to make them, and no matter how much you wish to appear thoughtful, knowledgable and caring, it is plainly obvious that it is your way or the highway. Hrrmz, those gods did not leave you with the tools to deal with skepticism at all. Kinda let you all down there I think.
I refuse your concepts, that is the problem here. You seem to think refusal is misunderstanding. Face it, your argument is not as strong as you believe it to be.

What do I get from you? Some ancient texts speak of higher beings, so that is game over. If it is mentioned somewhere it must be completely true and human interpretation is just not to be considered as far as you are concerned. Your interpretation is the be all and end all, and you struggle with rejection.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Your faith is disturbing to me. Yes, faith. You have at least enough faith to state that my claims are "BS", as you say--despite the fact that if you had actually studied the evidence, and read the ancient texts, you would quite plainly find that the ancients were correct. You claim that I am belittling mankind by saying that their claims of the gods teaching them instead of learning themselves are truth; I say that you are belittling mankind far more by claiming that all that they said was imaginary.

You really just canot wrap your head around the concept of empirical proof can you? You think even repeated results are faith? I state your claims are BS because I do not believe the gods referred to are alien beings.

Well and good, you say I am belittling mankind, I say you most definitely are. Feel better now? That will not change my mind, evidence will. What you have provided in bulk is your assurances. Such is worthless. And I can see that upsets you. I really think it is something you should start to get used to. Surely I am not the first person who thinks your ideal of Gods is completely incorrect? You have provided no references or reasons why another should accept your word, and asking someone to accept your version is a big ask. Once you realise that, your debates will be more fruitful.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

I was hoping at the start that this conversation would be enlightening, or at the very least somewhat informative. Indeed, perhaps it is. It has informed me that those who subscribe to the religion of orthodoxy cannot be reasoned with any more than a Christian zealot. Hinduism is not a religion--religion relies on faith and miracles. The Hindu thought is however a scientific theory. And a theory which has not been debunked, even after millennia--and in fact has only been confirmed over and over again.

You thought you would change the way I think and make me agree with you. It is harder work to do that than assure someone that you are right and hold the answers.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

At the very least I should have expected that you would believe in gods the same as the eminent Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan--it is from them that I got my start.

I think you might be best refresh yourself with Hawking. He says he does not oppose the concept of God, but God is not necessary for the Universe and everything in it.


LINK - Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

You have his quote from A Brief History of Time confused where he said:

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”

As for Sagan ever seen this quote?


The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. [Carl Sagan]


Or from his book Contact?

What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 164.]


You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition. [Sol Hadden in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 285.]

Now about this not understanding bit, I am just going to have to pass the ball over to you

Yes the quotes refer to the Christian Gods.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Even NASA today is beginning a search for physical artifacts of the gods on Earth, and in our solar system.

Really now? Can you offer a link to one of these missions?

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

I however choose, at this time, to study their records, their information, and their culture. If you choose to believe that your ancestors were primitive ignoramuses who conjured up imaginary deities to explain the world, I will not try to sway you any further. Faith like that can seldom be repaired. I simply choose to believe that my ancestors were, for the most part, intelligent, honest human beings.

You still think empirical proof is faith? Again, that lack of understanding falls upon yourself. What I choose to believe is man is a brilliant creature that fought his way to the apex predator on this planet and through his ingenious process developed intelligence that sends his species to the moon. Actual real time achievements, not tales from the pages of a book. I also recognise that man is imaginative, and that has served him well on his path to intelligence and that man is a product of natures evolutionary processes detailed in the fossil record.

And really, I would rather not be saved from that, you are welcome to your path, I will continue to go with empirical evidence. I think believing in stories is a diservice to this remarkable achievement. Man discovered the speed of light, man is still struggling to cure cancer. The Gods are superfluous and have had no noticeable impact on human evolution. If I do not need them, and they left me no proof, I see no reason to pursue this fruitless pursuit. It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but I do not need that.

Edited by psyche101, 05 April 2012 - 04:44 AM.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 05 April 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

Is it just me, or are the teaching if Hinduism failing to help you with the inner peace required to support your position here? Ohh, yes, good example you are showing there LOL.

You can believe what you want, so as such you are entitled to believe that I fail to understand. The only failure to understand that I am witnessing here is that you are struggling to understand that this is a two way conversation. I have as much right to protest your claims of gods as you have to make them, and no matter how much you wish to appear thoughtful, knowledgable and caring, it is plainly obvious that it is your way or the highway. Hrrmz, those gods did not leave you with the tools to deal with skepticism at all. Kinda let you all down there I think.
I refuse your concepts, that is the problem here. You seem to think refusal is misunderstanding. Face it, your argument is not as strong as you believe it to be.

What do I get from you? Some ancient texts speak of higher beings, so that is game over. If it is mentioned somewhere it must be completely true and human interpretation is just not to be considered as far as you are concerned. Your interpretation is the be all and end all, and you struggle with rejection.



You really just canot wrap your head around the concept of empirical proof can you? You think even repeated results are faith? I state your claims are BS because I do not believe the gods referred to are alien beings.

Well and good, you say I am belittling mankind, I say you most definitely are. Feel better now? That will not change my mind, evidence will. What you have provided in bulk is your assurances. Such is worthless. And I can see that upsets you. I really think it is something you should start to get used to. Surely I am not the first person who thinks your ideal of Gods is completely incorrect? You have provided no references or reasons why another should accept your word, and asking someone to accept your version is a big ask. Once you realise that, your debates will be more fruitful.



You thought you would change the way I think and make me agree with you. It is harder work to do that than assure someone that you are right and hold the answers.



I think you might be best refresh yourself with Hawking. He says he does not oppose the concept of God, but God is not necessary for the Universe and everything in it.


LINK - Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

You have his quote from A Brief History of Time confused where he said:

"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”

As for Sagan ever seen this quote?


The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. [Carl Sagan]


Or from his book Contact?

What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message, and ancient writings were the only way he could think of doing it, he could have done a better job. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 164.]


You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition. [Sol Hadden in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 285.]

Now about this not understanding bit, I am just going to have to pass the ball over to you

Yes the quotes refer to the Christian Gods.



Really now? Can you offer a link to one of these missions?



You still think empirical proof is faith? Again, that lack of understanding falls upon yourself. What I choose to believe is man is a brilliant creature that fought his way to the apex predator on this planet and through his ingenious process developed intelligence that sends his species to the moon. Actual real time achievements, not tales from the pages of a book. I also recognise that man is imaginative, and that has served him well on his path to intelligence and that man is a product of natures evolutionary processes detailed in the fossil record.

And really, I would rather not be saved from that, you are welcome to your path, I will continue to go with empirical evidence. I think believing in stories is a diservice to this remarkable achievement. Man discovered the speed of light, man is still struggling to cure cancer. The Gods are superfluous and have had no noticeable impact on human evolution. If I do not need them, and they left me no proof, I see no reason to pursue this fruitless pursuit. It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but I do not need that.

I believe what I do solely on evidence. Firstly.
Hawking and Sagan have made it clear that they are atheistic; as am I. I do not believe in the fanciful "God" of the Abrahamic faiths. The gods which have been misunderstood by our culture though, those I accept. I have studied their culture, and their history, and science. I will explain, as I have had to explain to everyone here: I have a great deal of evidence (my theses are based solely upon evidence), however, due to this fact, I can share only very small portions of it by memory (I'm not compiling it all in books for no reason). In any case, much of the evidence which I display here will be found in sources which can easily be located and overlooked (as I have also said, I am regrettably inadequate with computers, and cannot link directly to relevant articles).
The gods did not create the universe. They had no part in its creation. Nothing created it.
For the record, of course I have seen those quotes by Sagan and Hawking. They are two of my greatest heroes in science.
As for your allegations that I am given a poor example of Hinduism, perhaps I am; but I see no reason for inner peace to conflict with knowledge, or discussion. I have not claimed to have attained inner peace in any case.
Actually, as a note, the gods did have a noticeable impact on the origin of the human race: the origin of those anomalous 223 genes in our genome which are responsible for our enhanced brains, speech, etc. These same 223 genes are discussed specifically in the ancient texts, which state that they came from the gods, who implanted them from their own DNA into ours. It does not give me any comfort that the gods exist; it may well be far more comforting to think that man was a sheer product of evolution. This however is not supported by the evidence. Man might have come about by evolution: if it were not for those inexplicable genes. Also, would you care to explain how multiple ancient writings spoke of these 223 genes? Millennia before the genome was "discovered" by modern science?
I think I've already predicted your answer: they guessed?

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

I believe what I do solely on evidence. Firstly.

Lets be a little more direct. You believe in your accepted interpretation of evidences. Not to say the interpretations are yours alone.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Hawking and Sagan have made it clear that they are atheistic; as am I. I do not believe in the fanciful "God" of the Abrahamic faiths. The gods which have been misunderstood by our culture though, those I accept. I have studied their culture, and their history, and science. I will explain, as I have had to explain to everyone here: I have a great deal of evidence (my theses are based solely upon evidence), however, due to this fact, I can share only very small portions of it by memory (I'm not compiling it all in books for no reason). In any case, much of the evidence which I display here will be found in sources which can easily be located and overlooked (as I have also said, I am regrettably inadequate with computers, and cannot link directly to relevant articles).

So you kicked a God and went with one you chose?

If you wish to post a ink, just copy the http://www. bit from the address bar and post that. I can work with that much. If you have writing on pdf to share, upload them to Picassa or such and share them from there. if you need help, do not hesitate to ask, I shall do my best to help you.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

The gods did not create the universe. They had no part in its creation. Nothing created it.

To an extent, a process that ignited inflation created the Universe. If that is what you mean we are agreed on this point.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

For the record, of course I have seen those quotes by Sagan and Hawking. They are two of my greatest heroes in science.

And mine too. A Brief History of Time had quite an impact on me when I first read it over a decade ago. However you seem to be saying something quite differnt now. Only two posts ago you said:

At the very least I should have expected that you would believe in gods the same as the eminent Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan--it is from them that I got my start.

Now you say:

Hawking and Sagan have made it clear that they are atheistic; as am I.

Which is it??

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

As for your allegations that I am given a poor example of Hinduism, perhaps I am; but I see no reason for inner peace to conflict with knowledge, or discussion. I have not claimed to have attained inner peace in any case.

Indeed, it is more likely my perception. I always imagine Hindu scholars to be very meek by nature, and not argumentative at all. But carry on, I apologise to be insulting, the comment was intended to be a touch "tongue in cheek". I guess we do not share humour well across seas, but that is to be also expected to an extent.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Actually, as a note, the gods did have a noticeable impact on the origin of the human race: the origin of those anomalous 223 genes in our genome which are responsible for our enhanced brains, speech, etc. These same 223 genes are discussed specifically in the ancient texts, which state that they came from the gods, who implanted them from their own DNA into ours. It does not give me any comfort that the gods exist; it may well be far more comforting to think that man was a sheer product of evolution. This however is not supported by the evidence. Man might have come about by evolution: if it were not for those inexplicable genes. Also, would you care to explain how multiple ancient writings spoke of these 223 genes? Millennia before the genome was "discovered" by modern science?
I think I've already predicted your answer: they guessed?

No, this prediction you did not get right.

I have not seen the claim outside of UFOlogy and new age books. Not very solid sources to say the least. Could you please offer a solid source so that I may familiarise myself with the claim better?  It might pay to have a look at this link as well.

Researchers Challenge Recent Claim That Humans Acquired 223 Bacterial Genes During Evolution


Others in the field now say that the original number of 223 human proteins acquired from bacteria is probably too high. Recent refinements in the sequence data had already eliminated some protein candidates prior to this week's publication of the reanalysis in Science Express.

In a commentary that accompanies this study, W. Ford Doolittle, of Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and two colleagues say the original number of 223 human proteins "is probably overenthusiastic." They do not exclude the possibility that lateral gene transfer has occurred between bacteria and vertebrates and provide evidence for one "probable case," a protein called N-acetylneuraminate lyase.

For evolutionary biologists working on lateral gene transfer, Doolittle and colleagues write: "The most exciting news from the human genome sequencing project has been the claim by the 'public effort' that between 113 and 223 genes have been transferred from bacteria to humans over the course of vertebrate evolution."

The claim implies that humans can acquire genes through bacterial infection and pass them to offspring. This is the kind of thing people remember, observes Martin. "The concept of lateral gene transfer is so simple that the person on the street can understand it," he says. "But straightening out the misconception created by the original report is so complex that the same person might not understand it."

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 05 April 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Lets be a little more direct. You believe in your accepted interpretation of evidences. Not to say the interpretations are yours alone.



So you kicked a God and went with one you chose?

If you wish to post a ink, just copy the http://www. bit from the address bar and post that. I can work with that much. If you have writing on pdf to share, upload them to Picassa or such and share them from there. if you need help, do not hesitate to ask, I shall do my best to help you.



To an extent, a process that ignited inflation created the Universe. If that is what you mean we are agreed on this point.



And mine too. A Brief History of Time had quite an impact on me when I first read it over a decade ago. However you seem to be saying something quite differnt now. Only two posts ago you said:

At the very least I should have expected that you would believe in gods the same as the eminent Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan--it is from them that I got my start.

Now you say:

Hawking and Sagan have made it clear that they are atheistic; as am I.

Which is it??



Indeed, it is more likely my perception. I always imagine Hindu scholars to be very meek by nature, and not argumentative at all. But carry on, I apologise to be insulting, the comment was intended to be a touch "tongue in cheek". I guess we do not share humour well across seas, but that is to be also expected to an extent.



No, this prediction you did not get right.

I have not seen the claim outside of UFOlogy and new age books. Not very solid sources to say the least. Could you please offer a solid source so that I may familiarise myself with the claim better?  It might pay to have a look at this link as well.

Researchers Challenge Recent Claim That Humans Acquired 223 Bacterial Genes During Evolution


Others in the field now say that the original number of 223 human proteins acquired from bacteria is probably too high. Recent refinements in the sequence data had already eliminated some protein candidates prior to this week's publication of the reanalysis in Science Express.

In a commentary that accompanies this study, W. Ford Doolittle, of Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and two colleagues say the original number of 223 human proteins "is probably overenthusiastic." They do not exclude the possibility that lateral gene transfer has occurred between bacteria and vertebrates and provide evidence for one "probable case," a protein called N-acetylneuraminate lyase.

For evolutionary biologists working on lateral gene transfer, Doolittle and colleagues write: "The most exciting news from the human genome sequencing project has been the claim by the 'public effort' that between 113 and 223 genes have been transferred from bacteria to humans over the course of vertebrate evolution."

The claim implies that humans can acquire genes through bacterial infection and pass them to offspring. This is the kind of thing people remember, observes Martin. "The concept of lateral gene transfer is so simple that the person on the street can understand it," he says. "But straightening out the misconception created by the original report is so complex that the same person might not understand it."

I am firstly aware of the theory that the genes were acquired through horizontal bacterial insertion. I don't personally accept it. Possible. Very improbable. There are many sources which discuss this topic. From memory I can think only of the Sefer Yetzirah. You might start there.
I should also say that I hope that I'm at least a little meek! I don't wish to be overtly argumentative, but yes, I suppose debate with me can become rather heated.
To clarify, I am a Hindu atheist. Hinduism is ultimately an atheistic philosophy; I do not accept the Abrahamic conception of "God". Or anything with any semblance of it. Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan are both noted atheists, and they each have expressed great enthusiasm in their insistence that the gods exist. The gods to which I refer are of course not so-termed by either Sagan or Hawking: they refer to them as extraterrestrials. I suppose I am rather partial to the term "god". In Sanskrit, the two words have the same meaning--thus I use them interchangeably. Carl Sagan also devoted time in his masterpiece Cosmos to discussing the possibility that the ancient accounts of gods were in fact extraterrestrial beings. I am not a proponent of Erich von Daniken (insofar as many of his theories are sheer conjecture--I mostly agree with him on his essential premise).
I will also say that there is the possibility that my theses are to some extent based on my interpretation of the evidence. However, I have fortunately catalogued my study, and the formation of my thesis, and I would suggest that in fact I began with the evidence, and simply created a thesis based on the collective information supplied by my many sources. It has been called a "from-the-ground-up" thesis: insomuch as I began with nothing more than the evidence available, and determined through research and reflection what that evidence indicates occurred historically, as a whole.
I was raised as a Christian. My father was a Hindu and my mother and her family were Christians--vehement ones. I converted to Christianity at age seven--under the pretense of course that I was terrified out of my rational mind by the thought of hell. At around age twenty though I gave it up. I began to study science and history, and it simply became clear that the worldview presented by Christianity was/is utterly impossible. I then studied really all other religions, before finally coming back to my father's roots: Hinduism. I have so far found not a single fact or piece of evidence which refutes the Hindu knowledge in the slightest--on the contrary, I have compiled in all my study an immense collection of evidence which can attest to the accuracy and insight of the information given in the ancient texts.
And to clarify on the creation of the universe: the universe was not created by anything--unless one considers the quantum mechanical consciousness which sparked the Big Bang to be a "creator".

[Sensible Logic]

Arbitran, on 25 March 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

To answer each of your allegations:

1 ~ The human race is the result of genetic experimentation--and I already cited one vital piece of evidence to support such a notion.

2 ~ You grossly underestimate the versatility of life. Life can exist in virtually any environment: regardless of what would suit us. Life adapts to suit its environment. As Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking have already shown mathematically, our galaxy should be almost entirely populated by extraterrestrial races--the selection of Earth as a planet is not unlikely, rather an inevitability.

3 ~ I do not deny that physical evidence of civilization on Mars is as-of-yet slim. But then, we have only explored an extremely limited amount of its surface. The evidence for nuclear devastation is all that I stated is present--no cause is decided-upon.

4 ~ Your willingness no out-of-hand discredit elves and dwarves is hardly surprising--however I must note that in doing so you are wantonly discarding all of the evidence which points to their reality.

5 ~ Your problem is that your suggestion, quote "that man needed to put their Gods in a place where humans couldn't reach", is utterly unfounded. If you can show otherwise, please display evidence. Admittedly, my theses are radical to some, but regardless of what your biased opinion might be, it is you who holds the burden of evidence now: having posited an alternative, no-less-absurd explanation.

1 - Your "Vital piece of evidence" is nothing more than a reference to religious texts which, despite your belief, are not evidence of genetic experimentation.

2 - It has nothing to do with the versatility of life.  If we were going to other worlds, we would concentrate on those with an atmosphere that we could breathe not go to worlds with toxic atmospheres and try to adapt.  The same would be true of travelers from other planets.  

Mathematically should be populated and factually are populated are different things.  That difference among other factors can radically affect whether a planet that can support life does or doesn't.  Even if everything lines up and they are a space faring race and most of the other systems that can support life have space faring races, if we consider only 1% of the systems in our galaxy of having planets that can support life it remains a one in three billion chance Earth would be selected.  Not inevitable.

3 - Evidence of civilization and nuclear devastation on Mars is non-existent.  With no evidence of nuclear devastation there can be no cause.

4 - Your willingness to add fantasy races into your thesis is not surprising in light of the evidence you have put forward to support genetic experimentation on humans.

5 - If the gods were meant to be reachable, they wouldn't have been placed on mountain tops, the depths of the oceans or in the heavens.  They would have been in a local hollow or cave or similar location that humans of the time could reach.    

It is well known that one religion will borrow from another and include what they have borrower in the written text and ceremonies.

If we look at the various gods we find in most cases the gods look like the people in the region their worshipers exist.  Does this mean that aliens performed genetic experimentation on all the races of the Earth?  No.

What it does mean when you consider it all is that we, through our writings, created the gods in our image, not the other way around and we placed them in those unreachable locations.

I find it interesting that you have attempted to place the burden of proof on me when all of your assertions to this point (your post I am replying to) have remained unevidenced.

Biased opinion...hmmmm.. I'm biased against fantasy and unsupported conjecture and for fact and evidence.  Yep I am biased but it's a type of bias you may want to try.

[Rlyeh]

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

Indeed our bodies are chemical machines, our minds are not. Consciousness is not a chemical substance.

Yet chemical substance can switch it off.

Quote

Consciousness does indeed transcend death, because consciousness is grounded in the quantum realm--which is unaffected by, and indeed creates--the tangible realm we inhabit. Indeed, the man who saved the girl had a certain compassion which will be remembered by some. He however, also possesses a soul. A soul which doubtless was the source of his decision to do what he did. A lifeless chemical process does not choose of its will and mind to act. Life cannot be found in chemicals alone; quantum mechanical processes must be factored-in. A conscious mind is the basis of reality, as quantum mechanics shows. Without a mind, there is no reality, and without reality, of course there are no chemicals or processes which might produce beings such as humans or gods.

You've been listening to too many idiots like Masaru Emoto.

Quantum mechanics shows an "observer" does not even need to be alive.

http://www.scienceda...80227055013.htm

http://journalofcosm...ousness139.html

Edited by Rlyeh, 05 April 2012 - 03:55 PM.