That depends on the size of 'thought' packets you want to divide the day into. If it's a time thing, then you could say I get paid once a day to think for 8 hours - maybe you'd break that up into individual 1 hour increments so that I get paid to think at 8 separate times per day. Then again, you may choose to break up time spent thinking into individual problems which require tackling, in which case I would get paid an average of ~5-10 times per day. That's not including the time I spend thinking about things during which I don't get paid.
Alien Existence?
- Thread starter ilikeballs
- Start date
Do you believe all of its contents? If so - then :dead: , if not - then how much of it do you believe (expressed as a percentage). Could you highlight the statements which you believe most strongly in.
I'm not denying the existence of aliens - I believe that they do exist (or at least that there's a very high probability of them existing). Still, do you honestly believe that Dulce is going to be the staging ground for the final cosmic battle between galactic superpowers, or that there is currently a battle fought between the 'greys' and the 'reptilians', the prize of which is the influence or outright domination of Earth? (two of the hundreds of statements made in the Dulce book).
OK, remove the 'now' from my previous statement (Why are you all now trying to explain the existence of aliens in a religious paradigm?) and then give me an answer. If you can't be bothered explaining it to me, post some links to your previous posts regarding the question.
I'm not denying the existence of aliens - I believe that they do exist (or at least that there's a very high probability of them existing). Still, do you honestly believe that Dulce is going to be the staging ground for the final cosmic battle between galactic superpowers, or that there is currently a battle fought between the 'greys' and the 'reptilians', the prize of which is the influence or outright domination of Earth? (two of the hundreds of statements made in the Dulce book).
OK, remove the 'now' from my previous statement (Why are you all now trying to explain the existence of aliens in a religious paradigm?) and then give me an answer. If you can't be bothered explaining it to me, post some links to your previous posts regarding the question.
I'm in the air about a lot of it's contents. I have no way to validate the claims made in the book nor can I speak from experience. Do some of the topics in the book share a resemblance to some of the things I believe in? Sure, does that mean I believe the books version? No.
However, the sections pertaining to the "spiritual" entities seem to be something I would say is very close to what I believe in, and u.s. government involvement isn't something I would rule out.
Yet you don't believe in God? What evidence do you have that aliens exist or that there is a very high probability of them existing?
If you wouldn't have attempted to poison the well, I would have actually tried to answer your question, but since you rely on such fallicies to prove your point you'll get the answer you NEED. I directed you to the book for a specific reason. The reason was caused by your statements of, "I strongly doubt whether aliens would have anything to do with demons, angels, God or Satan or even if they had anything to do with humanity" and "Why are you all now trying to explain the existence of aliens in a religious paradigm?"
The first (what you claim to doubt) is actually discussed in the book, and your claim that we are "just now trying to explain" goes down the toilet (or whatever it is you have in australia) because it is not a new idea that just came about in 2006.
People have ALWAYS equated "beings from the sky" or "beings from heaven" with Gods, demi-gods, angels and demons. However, since you made the error of jumping to conclusions and assuming we are just now talking about a concept that has been held for many years now, I'm not answering. Start getting things right the first time and maybe you'll see some results.
Are you crippled?
However, the sections pertaining to the "spiritual" entities seem to be something I would say is very close to what I believe in, and u.s. government involvement isn't something I would rule out.
Yet you don't believe in God? What evidence do you have that aliens exist or that there is a very high probability of them existing?
If you wouldn't have attempted to poison the well, I would have actually tried to answer your question, but since you rely on such fallicies to prove your point you'll get the answer you NEED. I directed you to the book for a specific reason. The reason was caused by your statements of, "I strongly doubt whether aliens would have anything to do with demons, angels, God or Satan or even if they had anything to do with humanity" and "Why are you all now trying to explain the existence of aliens in a religious paradigm?"
The first (what you claim to doubt) is actually discussed in the book, and your claim that we are "just now trying to explain" goes down the toilet (or whatever it is you have in australia) because it is not a new idea that just came about in 2006.
People have ALWAYS equated "beings from the sky" or "beings from heaven" with Gods, demi-gods, angels and demons. However, since you made the error of jumping to conclusions and assuming we are just now talking about a concept that has been held for many years now, I'm not answering. Start getting things right the first time and maybe you'll see some results.
Are you crippled?
I beleive that only those who are too arrogant or ignorant would think that we're the only life form in this universe. I strongly agree with the logic outlined in Drakes equation and even I have observed strange craft (just before the closing ceremony of the 2000 olympics), which I have captured on film. I know this doesn't prove the existence of aliens, but the evidence is far stronger than the evidence supporting the existence of God (none).
and you believe that the book refutes my statements? Um, OK.
And why do I doubt it? Because...
I'm surprised you don't share my doubt. Anyone can find a book which supports their own theories, that's not hard. Especially if you include books which are apparently full of bull shit but happen to contain small sections which support your own theories, which you then argue provides evidence in support of your position.
I am well aware of that argument. I myself have always held the belief that if Jesus did indeed exist and could perform such 'magical acts', then he is not the son of God but was instead an alien from another planet with advanced technology. That's far more believable IMO.
I was pointing out the fact that everyone on these damn boards (well, the most vociferous members anyway) are hung up on religion to the extent that every argument put forth revolves around God in one way or another. There are two potential explanations relating to the existence of aliens. The first is that they evolved on another planet and have accumulated vast scientific knowledge, enabling them to travel among the stars. The second explanation suggests that they have something to do with God and Satan - maybe they're a failed experiment of God, or maybe they're creatures born of Satans evil mind and have been sent here to destroy humanity. i.e. a bunch of stupid fucking arguments with no basis in reality. They just attempt to extend peoples ignorance and delusions even further.
and you believe that the book refutes my statements? Um, OK.
And why do I doubt it? Because...
I'm surprised you don't share my doubt. Anyone can find a book which supports their own theories, that's not hard. Especially if you include books which are apparently full of bull shit but happen to contain small sections which support your own theories, which you then argue provides evidence in support of your position.
I am well aware of that argument. I myself have always held the belief that if Jesus did indeed exist and could perform such 'magical acts', then he is not the son of God but was instead an alien from another planet with advanced technology. That's far more believable IMO.
I was pointing out the fact that everyone on these damn boards (well, the most vociferous members anyway) are hung up on religion to the extent that every argument put forth revolves around God in one way or another. There are two potential explanations relating to the existence of aliens. The first is that they evolved on another planet and have accumulated vast scientific knowledge, enabling them to travel among the stars. The second explanation suggests that they have something to do with God and Satan - maybe they're a failed experiment of God, or maybe they're creatures born of Satans evil mind and have been sent here to destroy humanity. i.e. a bunch of stupid fucking arguments with no basis in reality. They just attempt to extend peoples ignorance and delusions even further.
Yet you don't believe in the possibility of a "god".
Now how is this any different from someone claiming to have seen an angel or demon? How is this any different from catching demonic possession on film?
How do you know the evidence is far greater than the evidence supporting the existence of God? That could have been a special aircraft, light reflecting off of a building or some type of blimp. Do you see UFO's on a daily basis? No. Do you see little green or grey men running around shooting plasma beams? No, yet you believe these things exist, but you believe it is not possible for an invisible God, angels or demons to exist simply because you don't ssee them with your eye....
It does. Go and read it.
I don't know you tell me.
No, I'm not saying it supports MY position, Hutch. What I am saying is it doesn't support your accusations. Do you understand the difference? What I am telling YOU is the belief that "aliens" are demonic in nature or discussed in a religious paradigm is not something "we are just now discussing." THAT IS THE REASON WHY I AM REFERRING YOU TO THE BOOK. What I am basically saying is "Here is a book, this book talks about it in the way you say we are just now talking about it, this book is old, the concept is old, and this has actually been discussed here before."
How is this far more believable?
So? If thats the way they argue or prove their points they get an A+ for being consistant.
And this is what you believe. What is the probability of another planet with advanced technology existing? If they have been around for millions of years and have so much advanced technology why have they not made contact here to where the average Joe can say "I saw an alien"?
And how can you prove your position has a basis in reality?
You're doing the same thing.
Now how is this any different from someone claiming to have seen an angel or demon? How is this any different from catching demonic possession on film?
How do you know the evidence is far greater than the evidence supporting the existence of God? That could have been a special aircraft, light reflecting off of a building or some type of blimp. Do you see UFO's on a daily basis? No. Do you see little green or grey men running around shooting plasma beams? No, yet you believe these things exist, but you believe it is not possible for an invisible God, angels or demons to exist simply because you don't ssee them with your eye....
It does. Go and read it.
I don't know you tell me.
No, I'm not saying it supports MY position, Hutch. What I am saying is it doesn't support your accusations. Do you understand the difference? What I am telling YOU is the belief that "aliens" are demonic in nature or discussed in a religious paradigm is not something "we are just now discussing." THAT IS THE REASON WHY I AM REFERRING YOU TO THE BOOK. What I am basically saying is "Here is a book, this book talks about it in the way you say we are just now talking about it, this book is old, the concept is old, and this has actually been discussed here before."
How is this far more believable?
So? If thats the way they argue or prove their points they get an A+ for being consistant.
And this is what you believe. What is the probability of another planet with advanced technology existing? If they have been around for millions of years and have so much advanced technology why have they not made contact here to where the average Joe can say "I saw an alien"?
And how can you prove your position has a basis in reality?
You're doing the same thing.
I've never ruled out the possibility of there being a God - you can never say that anything is impossible. Who knows, one day I might be proven wrong, I just think that the chances of that happening are almost too small to calculate.
Yes, and for the simple reason that I myself have witnessed such an event. If someone claims to have seen an angel or demon, I am not calling them liars but for me to believe I do have to see it with my own two eyes. Word-of-mouth regarding such improbable events is not enough to persuade me to believe in the existence of angels and demons.
It may have been a special aircraft, I'm not denying that possibility. It wasn't light reflecting off any building or a blimp as that would go against the laws of physics. However, it was strange enough to have me invoke the possibility of aliens existing, and again I refer to Drakes equation which I consider to be very scientifically logical (and you know how I love my science). If I saw an apparition of God, or an angel or demon, then I would be forced to question my beliefs relating to their existence - I would have to entertain the possibility of God existing. That hasn't happened though - and simply because I haven't seen them with my own eyes, true.
There is so little factual (or at least testable) information in the Dulce book that it's refutation of my statements holds no strength in any argument. That's like having a crazed psycho in a mental asylum telling me that I'm fucked in the head (I may be fucked in the head, but I won't believe it coming from him!).
The answer was in the following quote taken from your previous post: "I have no way to validate the claims made in the book nor can I speak from experience". People say a lot of things, but without the ability to validate their claims (replicate their visions or experiments), it holds no water in any argument.
Yes, in part that is true. However, you are arguing against my statements, so the fact that the book doesn't support my accusations means that it supports your argument by default.
I know, again I apologise for using the word 'now' in my original post. Refer to the revised statement which reads: "Why are you all trying to explain the existence of aliens in a religious paradigm?". Again, I understand that the argument has existed for a long time but am still suprised (although I shouldn't be) that these board members didn't even toy with the possibility that aliens evolved via Darwins theory of evolution but instead went straight for the 'God did it' argument.
Special emphasis on the 'IMO' in my previous post. Based on my own convictions and beliefs regarding religion, the concept of an alien species evolving via Darwinian evolution (just like us humans) and then amassing the technical and scientific knowledge required to travel through space is more believable than an omnipitent God who we cannot see and speak to, for which there is no evidence of his existence and belief in which requires unyielding blind faith sending a messenger to Earth on his behalf. Again, In My Opinion. If you believe in God, then you're opinion will almost certainly differ.
Pretty good. I'd say the chances of another planted containing a life form with advanced technology existing somewhere in the universe is more than 99.999%. Refer to Drakes equation. There could be many reasons for aliens not making contact with people of the Earth - it could be that they don't think we're ready (I'm not a big fan of this argument because the same can be applied to God). Who knows?
I can't prove it. If I could, then it would not be a theory but would instead be a fact, one which you could not argue against (the fact that we are having this debate demonstrates the fact that my position has not been proven true).
I don't think that refusing to believe in God, angels and demons, beings that I have never seen with my own eyes and whose existence has not (and may never) be proven is in any way an expression of ignorance or delusion.
Yes, and for the simple reason that I myself have witnessed such an event. If someone claims to have seen an angel or demon, I am not calling them liars but for me to believe I do have to see it with my own two eyes. Word-of-mouth regarding such improbable events is not enough to persuade me to believe in the existence of angels and demons.
It may have been a special aircraft, I'm not denying that possibility. It wasn't light reflecting off any building or a blimp as that would go against the laws of physics. However, it was strange enough to have me invoke the possibility of aliens existing, and again I refer to Drakes equation which I consider to be very scientifically logical (and you know how I love my science). If I saw an apparition of God, or an angel or demon, then I would be forced to question my beliefs relating to their existence - I would have to entertain the possibility of God existing. That hasn't happened though - and simply because I haven't seen them with my own eyes, true.
There is so little factual (or at least testable) information in the Dulce book that it's refutation of my statements holds no strength in any argument. That's like having a crazed psycho in a mental asylum telling me that I'm fucked in the head (I may be fucked in the head, but I won't believe it coming from him!).
The answer was in the following quote taken from your previous post: "I have no way to validate the claims made in the book nor can I speak from experience". People say a lot of things, but without the ability to validate their claims (replicate their visions or experiments), it holds no water in any argument.
Yes, in part that is true. However, you are arguing against my statements, so the fact that the book doesn't support my accusations means that it supports your argument by default.
I know, again I apologise for using the word 'now' in my original post. Refer to the revised statement which reads: "Why are you all trying to explain the existence of aliens in a religious paradigm?". Again, I understand that the argument has existed for a long time but am still suprised (although I shouldn't be) that these board members didn't even toy with the possibility that aliens evolved via Darwins theory of evolution but instead went straight for the 'God did it' argument.
Special emphasis on the 'IMO' in my previous post. Based on my own convictions and beliefs regarding religion, the concept of an alien species evolving via Darwinian evolution (just like us humans) and then amassing the technical and scientific knowledge required to travel through space is more believable than an omnipitent God who we cannot see and speak to, for which there is no evidence of his existence and belief in which requires unyielding blind faith sending a messenger to Earth on his behalf. Again, In My Opinion. If you believe in God, then you're opinion will almost certainly differ.
Pretty good. I'd say the chances of another planted containing a life form with advanced technology existing somewhere in the universe is more than 99.999%. Refer to Drakes equation. There could be many reasons for aliens not making contact with people of the Earth - it could be that they don't think we're ready (I'm not a big fan of this argument because the same can be applied to God). Who knows?
I can't prove it. If I could, then it would not be a theory but would instead be a fact, one which you could not argue against (the fact that we are having this debate demonstrates the fact that my position has not been proven true).
I don't think that refusing to believe in God, angels and demons, beings that I have never seen with my own eyes and whose existence has not (and may never) be proven is in any way an expression of ignorance or delusion.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3464284902235432927&q=area+51+documentary
Roswell documentary, make sure you watch this also
this talks bout greys and even tho i believe greys exist, i think other ETs are likely to have a face with the same bone structure and unique eyes as ours, but maybe other things will be different such as head size, curve, etc, since our physical structure is perfect as our intelligence.
so for another being to be intelligent they shouldnt have to wobble around n shit yanno?
im sure thered be some ugly lookin ones tho
something similar to these funny ones, couldnt find any other.
Roswell documentary, make sure you watch this also
this talks bout greys and even tho i believe greys exist, i think other ETs are likely to have a face with the same bone structure and unique eyes as ours, but maybe other things will be different such as head size, curve, etc, since our physical structure is perfect as our intelligence.
so for another being to be intelligent they shouldnt have to wobble around n shit yanno?
im sure thered be some ugly lookin ones tho
something similar to these funny ones, couldnt find any other.
think about it. if they try to change us under submission, then we will resist any idea put forth by them. though we can still be made to follow what they say by force, if they can somehow show us their way is right, (even if its not the right way) thru lies and diception, then we would not resist because we would have thought of it being right in the first place thru our own conclusion, because our mind would have piece the pieces of information we see as true, and therefore not resist. if they simply nuked us all then the earth would be inhavitable for a long time.
It's either not possible or extremely difficult to rule the world by force - Hitler tried it and he failed miserably. The US have probably realised that it's better to make friends with everyone and run the world from behind the scenes than to openly try to take over. Even after world war two when the US were the only ones with nuclear bombs, if they had taken an aggressively subversive attitude either (a) the world would currently be experiencing a nuclear winter, or (b) America would have been wiped out. Sure, I know America is good militarily, but following world war two they did not have the capacity to wipe out the rest of the world. It's arrogant to think that the US has ever wielded that much power. Making such moves today in the current political environment would spell doom for the US itself - i.e. fuck with the world and they'll fuck with you back, everyone dies.
you said:
and im saying if they are intelligent enough to fly here, then they must have gone through a deeper level of evolution, both mentally and physically.
like you said the ape family resembles us physically the most, but notice that they are closest mentally also.
dont expect some other life form to evolve mentally and remain physically handicapped, because evolution doesnt just focus on the mind, or just the body, but the whole.
and im saying if they are intelligent enough to fly here, then they must have gone through a deeper level of evolution, both mentally and physically.
like you said the ape family resembles us physically the most, but notice that they are closest mentally also.
dont expect some other life form to evolve mentally and remain physically handicapped, because evolution doesnt just focus on the mind, or just the body, but the whole.