And I mean what the title says. You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine, so (as it is only fair, since I will be doing so throughout the entire introduction) be as truthful as possible. I'm not here for you to agree, or even to change your view on the world. Instead, I am here to help you realize a common mistake that every human makes and doesn't realize enough to fix.
Separating faith and reality.
Before I go any further, I feel it is incredibly necessary for me to put my opinionated definitions of each faith and reality. Because I explain things hoirribly, I will add examples
:FAITH-something that cannot be proven into existence, but is still thought to be extremely real, despite the fact that you cannot touch or see them. Jesus is an example. Religion is an example, in general. Faith is basically a human version of what I call the "stubborn mule" attitude--we simply refuse not to believe in it because it is real to us.
REALITY-something that is perceieved by our brains to be touchable, feelable, or otherwise recognized by our senses, or something that is recognized through common sense, deductive reasoning, and observation. Otherwise, if we can TOUCH glasses, and we assume through deductive reasoning that the average pair of glasses will not bounce, we become what is called "realistic" (I know, some people didn't even know that existed) and further assume that glasses are real and they will not bounce.
In retrospect, reality is just a form of faith, isn't it? We're relying on our brains to depict these things, and we already know that our brain changes our senses as it processes information. However, our brains are the closest to reality we can come, and so, using that, we will in this forum assume that reality and faith are two different things.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I want to start on the essence of the topic--sorting realism from faith.
It is very rare that I see a good (and oh, so quite often that I see a bad) forum on religion or aliens or some outerwordly or extraterrestrial being. This is because there's two types of humans living in this world: The ones that love the human race, and the ones that hate it. There's usually just two main arguments, and it goes kind-a somethin like this:
Superhuman009: OMG humans r00l dere's no wai dat aliens kan exist mans.
Eeewhumans: Excuse me, but humans are selfish, and I will therefore generalize your human actions to all other humans and stereotypically say that we are committing a vain act when we say that we are the only worthy beings of the universe.
Instead of telling superhuman they are bigoted and mrs. anti-human that they are ignorant, I wallow off in a corner (or eat some peanut butter, srsly) thinking of how much easier it would be to debate about things if we were more realistic about it. I have two things to say right now:
- You cannot blame a non-believer for not believing.
- You cannot blame a believer for believing.
Neither is in the wrong or the right. They are basing their "facts" off of faith, which is neither proven nor unproven. Think realistically: Not everyone will have been raised exactly the same way as you, will have had the same experiences as you, will have had the same influences or opinions, and if all of these things revolve around the way you think, then it is only realistic to say that not everyone thinks the same way as you. Going further, we can assume that it is possible that someone that has developed completely opposite of you will believe in completely opposite of what you do. Therefore, if you are a non-believer, there's a surefire way that person is a believer.
We've gotten everything I've wanted to cover out of the way now. Taking these things in mind, I'd like to start an open discussion that non-believers and believers alike can respond, through faith. The topic, however, will be made from realism.
Look Here for Actual Topic
Area 51. OMGWAMOMH (oh, my gawd, with a monkey on mai head). This thing has been dragged out to oblivion. People talk of how not ALL of the crop-circles in the world can't be hoaxes, and how ALL of the alien encounters can't be hoaxes, but they never considered an alternative for Area 51. I have a theory, a realistic one, that can prove that Area 51 can't really be all that of a secret base that hides alien secrets from us:
Have you ever considered a rebellion? By the people OF Area 51? Well, it's never happened. Now, I may be incorrect, but rebellion is a big trait of humans. We are egotystical by instinct, quick to react to disagreement, and hell, we even have an amendment on rebellion in the U.S. Constitution: the right to protest. Now, the government isn't filled with bad, lying people. There are good people in the government, they just don't make it very far because the evil schemers are overtaking them. Every once in a while, the good overturn the bad, however. U.S Government Intelligence overturned Bush by basically humiliating him in front of the whole world (I wont go into detail). I'm sure that if there were some huge big secrets that could effect the earth going on in Area 51, there would have at least been some leaked information. I don't mean gossip turned into fable--I mean REAL information.
Think of how long Area 51 has been around without a rebellion or a LIVE report from the nearest news team on the "Real Area 51." It just seems pretty unrealistic that people insist something big is being hidden while there has been no leak or rebellion from the, I'm sure, thousands of people that work at the base. Do you think this is unrealistic?
And please, be truthful. Thanks
.