Does finding life on another planet disprove religion?
- Thread starter Valentino
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
uneducated manner? id say sarcastic manner tbh. its not me that ignores evidence that clearly disproves these dreamy fantasies. there isnt any evidence that god created life, there is evidence of evolution and life creating itself.
science > religion
That's the point that I made earlier in the thread. Religion tends not to rely on evidence, but relies on faith. In fact, in certain cases, religion can answer questions that science can't
What stupid posts, why not discuss rather than making pointless jibes.
"does finding life on another planet disprove religion?"
You respond
"It does unless the other life forms believe in God too, and that they think they were made in his image, or look just like us."
This is wrong as if they look different to us, that does not disprove religion. For example in the bible it says we are made in his image. Nothing about other civilisations being made in his image.
You then go on to say
"if there is life on another planet, that is the same as us, believe in GOD and that they were made in his image, then there must be a god."
This means something else, you have moved from disproved unless, to proving religion.
Again this is wrong as there are plenty of other theories. Such as us being seeded or helped by an alien life form.
What are you going on about?
The two post say the same thing, have the same meaning.
the only difference is the order of the reasons.
That's the point that I made earlier in the thread. Religion tends not to rely on evidence, but relies on faith. In fact, in certain cases, religion can answer questions that science can't
There are not many questions that don't have a scientific answer, religion may give answers but anyone is a fool for taking them seriously if they don't have any evidence.
I have no disrespect for Deists, but Organized religion causes a lot of suffering on other peoples life's, if religion is managed responsibly it can be fine but I feel that tolerance should be the only thing that is taught in the classroom.
It's well explained read it.
In one post you say religion is disproved if the other life form is not like us, in the other you say nothing about disproving. But you do say if they are like us and with same beliefs then religion is proved. It's clear they do not mean the same, it is also clear that they are both wrong.
In one post you say religion is disproved if the other life form is not like us, in the other you say nothing about disproving. But you do say if they are like us and with same beliefs then religion is proved. It's clear they do not mean the same, it is also clear that they are both wrong.
In fact, in certain cases, religion can answer questions that science can't
Can you give examples?
Last edited:
WHERE DID I SAY THIS
Maybe in these two quotes, you know the ones I've been using all the way through.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
It doesn't mean a physical image, we're made in the image of his character, to live and function in the same way God does.
Also
Where did you get that from, what do you mean?
Last edited:
They really do.
the same as us. which is another term for identical.
look like us. which again is identical.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
How was the Universe created?
Science
Christianity - God created the Universe
I know that Christianity isn't representative of all religions, but it's one example where a religion can answer a question that science cannot.
For religion (well at least for Christianity) , God is a necessary being. For science, the universe is the necessary being.
It has nothing to do with identical, it's about what you are saying proving or disproving, they take a different angle and are not the same.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 1,015
- Location
- Surrey, UK
OP's question implies that currently religion CAN be proven. Which of course it can't. Finding ETI won't 'disprove' religion.
All mainstream religions were 'made' when humanity's knowledge of the true cosmos was nil, so the thinking applied to 'create' these religions belongs in a bygone era. Not many religions attempt to describe the physical universe on technical terms, and as such most scientific discoveries - that of Copernicus, Galileo, Hubble etc - are incorporated into religious thinking and everyone gets on with their life. Religion's concepts of creation are widely accepted, given the sleuth of discoveries that contradict them, as being symbolic and poetic; they are not and never claimed to be factual.
The issue for Christianity is thus: Christ took the form of a human to save us. A human. He didn't take the form of a cat to save the cats, or a parrot to save the parrots, he became a human as Christianity's main focus is on our race; it doesn't seem to be able to account for other intelligent races.
Christianity does have an escape clause, however, in claiming that there may be multiple saviors for multiple alien races. Precisely one 'Jesus' per deserving alien race. However the bible states that our Jesus is God's only son, and many devout Christians would call the idea of there being more than one heresy. However the discovery of ETI, still won't be a problem and certainly won't 'end' religion; in fact it probably won't even make a dent.
This survey shows that almost all people who identify themselves as being of one of the mainstream religions aren't concerned at all about the implications of finding ETI and the effect they would have on their belief. The biggest possible blow to religions that herald humanity as being unique was evolution. Evolution was a harder pill to swallow for theologists than finding ETI will be, as it took their view of humans being saintly and unique and threw it in a blender. Religion, most notably western Christianity, struggled - and still is struggling - to assimilate evolution into their theology. But they keep on. They take the awkward scientific discovery, look at what it disproves, and then say that part of their religious text is symbolic or metaphorical and isn't to be taken verbatim.
Most religions will keep adapting to the point that their texts are essentially just 'guides' to living a decent, morally sound life. However, I believe some will become very unnerved when repeated scientific discoveries seem to disprove part after part of their religion and it will become harder for younger generations to accept the theology of their ancestors and a lot of religions will disappear, probably within a few thousand years. However some will stick around, probably forever.
All mainstream religions were 'made' when humanity's knowledge of the true cosmos was nil, so the thinking applied to 'create' these religions belongs in a bygone era. Not many religions attempt to describe the physical universe on technical terms, and as such most scientific discoveries - that of Copernicus, Galileo, Hubble etc - are incorporated into religious thinking and everyone gets on with their life. Religion's concepts of creation are widely accepted, given the sleuth of discoveries that contradict them, as being symbolic and poetic; they are not and never claimed to be factual.
The issue for Christianity is thus: Christ took the form of a human to save us. A human. He didn't take the form of a cat to save the cats, or a parrot to save the parrots, he became a human as Christianity's main focus is on our race; it doesn't seem to be able to account for other intelligent races.
Christianity does have an escape clause, however, in claiming that there may be multiple saviors for multiple alien races. Precisely one 'Jesus' per deserving alien race. However the bible states that our Jesus is God's only son, and many devout Christians would call the idea of there being more than one heresy. However the discovery of ETI, still won't be a problem and certainly won't 'end' religion; in fact it probably won't even make a dent.
This survey shows that almost all people who identify themselves as being of one of the mainstream religions aren't concerned at all about the implications of finding ETI and the effect they would have on their belief. The biggest possible blow to religions that herald humanity as being unique was evolution. Evolution was a harder pill to swallow for theologists than finding ETI will be, as it took their view of humans being saintly and unique and threw it in a blender. Religion, most notably western Christianity, struggled - and still is struggling - to assimilate evolution into their theology. But they keep on. They take the awkward scientific discovery, look at what it disproves, and then say that part of their religious text is symbolic or metaphorical and isn't to be taken verbatim.
Most religions will keep adapting to the point that their texts are essentially just 'guides' to living a decent, morally sound life. However, I believe some will become very unnerved when repeated scientific discoveries seem to disprove part after part of their religion and it will become harder for younger generations to accept the theology of their ancestors and a lot of religions will disappear, probably within a few thousand years. However some will stick around, probably forever.
No, you are wrong.
You have tried to pick up on something in those two posts that doesnt exist.
and are now trying vigorously trying to defend yourself and your mistake, its bordering on trolling now.