Mars and religion (split)

[BamaStangGuy]

I doubt the ESA is going to publish "fake" photos; they built a camera just to take these photos :) There is nothing controversial in the images, if there was a little city with green men walking around; I would be more sceptical :)

We have known there is water on Mars for a number of years; however it was previously thought to just be at the poles. The latest suggestion is that water is more widespread; but I am not sure if that is confirmed right now.
If life was discovered on Mars this world would be hell. All the religous groups of the world would be basically proven wrong. (Christians etc)

It would be interesting

[Joseph777]

If life was discovered on Mars this world would be hell. All the religous groups of the world would be basically proven wrong. (Christians etc)

It would be interesting

Nice how you list Christians, but include all other scores of religions in an "etc". Any certain group you would be interested in proving wrong.

BTW, I'm an agnostic.

[MGM]

If life was discovered on Mars this world would be hell. All the religous groups of the world would be basically proven wrong. (Christians etc)

It would be interesting
I don't see it that way... I'd be willing to bet most religions would rewrite their beliefs and ethics and expand on the universe... ie: God created all forms of beings, including aliens. I mean, technically God created dogs too right? But we dont view them as God's number 1 creation (humans are), so why would aliens be that? In a humans eye, we are number 1

MGM out

[Andrew111888]

We shoot off from discussing water on Mars to people going to hell if we discover life on Mars... crazy.

[BamaStangGuy]

We shoot off from discussing water on Mars to people going to hell if we discover life on Mars... crazy.
I never said anyone was going to hell

If life was discovered on Mars this world would be hell.

Present religous beliefs would be proven wrong and proving them wrong would upset thousands of years of beliefs.

[chrispadfield]

Present religous beliefs would be proven wrong and proving them wrong would upset thousands of years of beliefs.


Would they though? Is there anything in the bible that suggests that bacteria could not exists on Mars? For sure, Genesis denies this; but then if you take Genesis literally you have already had to discount so much science that I doubt it would be hard for you to discount evidence of life on mars.

[Jake Bunce]

Present religous beliefs would be proven wrong and proving them wrong would upset thousands of years of beliefs.

Religious beliefs do not need proof, only faith. It would not be like disproving a scientific theory, thereby discrediting it completely.

Scientific theories cannot be proven. Religious beliefs cannot be disproven.

[JPT62089]

Religious beliefs do not need proof, only faith.

AMEN! Also it doesnt say "God will never nor ever has created any other life forms on any other planet" anywhere in the Bible! so how can you say "If we find life on other planets that disproves God blah blah blah"?

[Jake Bunce]

AMEN! Also it doesnt say "God will never nor ever has created any other life forms on any other planet" anywhere in the Bible! so how can you say "If we find life on other planets that disproves God blah blah blah"?

Even if the Bible did say something like that, it is open to interpretation.

It can't be scientifically demonstrated one way or the other because creationism is a supernatural explanation for the origins of life. Science as a methodology is not equipped to deal with supernatural explanations, and so it is inappropriate to use science to prove or disprove religious beliefs.

Science can only deal with natural, demonstratable explanations.

[Joseph777]

Even if the Bible did say something like that, it is open to interpretation.

It can't be scientifically demonstrated one way or the other because creationism is a supernatural explanation for the origins of life. Science as a methodology is not equipped to deal with supernatural explanations, and so it is inappropriate to use science to prove or disprove religious beliefs.

Science can only deal with natural, demonstratable explanations.

You can tell Jake has sat through a few philosophy or logic classes...

Jeesh, I hated those classes. :p

[TruthElixirX]

I believe if there are aliens then (Coming from a Christian POV) maybe they didn't screw up as bad as we did. Maybe they didn't eat the forbidden fruit. It would also depend on if they were sentienent and if they had religion. for instance if there was a 'branch' of Islam there and no thoer religions then Islam would proably be the true religion seeing as it was started there to, that would mean a God created a true religion. This would work with any reilgion Christianity, Judaisim, or Budhism. See what I mean?

[MGM]

I believe if there are aliens then (Coming from a Christian POV) maybe they didn't screw up as bad as we did. Maybe they didn't eat the forbidden fruit. It would also depend on if they were sentienent and if they had religion. for instance if there was a 'branch' of Islam there and no thoer religions then Islam would proably be the true religion seeing as it was started there to, that would mean a God created a true religion. This would work with any reilgion Christianity, Judaisim, or Budhism. See what I mean?
But it would also make humans "the failed creation" which would cause just as much chaos as disproving religion (if that is possible)

MGM out

[cirisme]

I believe if there are aliens then (Coming from a Christian POV) maybe they didn't screw up as bad as we did.

Even if it's just some bacteria on mars? I don't think so, buddy.

And I notice that you go by "Christian POV". That is not a Christian POV, just a pov held by some Christians. (not to mention others, as well, so labelling it a Christian POV is deceptive)

Would it screw up some people's view of the universe if little purple(green is such a cliche ;)) men were found on mars? Heck yeah, but that wouldn't be limited to Christians, for one reason because it isn't a view held exclusively by Christians, nor is it a required view to be Christian.

FWIW, I know very few people who's view of anything would be screwed up by bacteria or martians found on Mars.

[legate]

Little green men in Mars you say and how it would affect religion?

If that would be true I would say that it realy wouldn't change religions on earth. There has allready been lot bigger and shocking things that could have changed religions. But that hasn't happened. People will change and religions will too, it just takes little bit longer time and when it finally happens there will be different groups calling that their way is the right one. But there realy isn't much of difference between those groups and I personally see all conflicts little bit silly when those are fought between religions. Why can't we just leave others alone?

But lets return to Mars. So we shall presume that there is life forms similar to human race. But what would happen after that? I would expect that different religius groups would sent priests and teachers of their religion to mars. But that wouldn't start rigth away, things like traveling in space and peoples opinions would slow down such things.

But who knows if little marsians would sent their priests and teachers to earth?

[patriotcow]

How do you know they are green men:D Also I do not believe in any religion.

[legate]

Well sadly I must admit that I used stereotype of little green man. I know that using stereotypes isn't nice thing to do since everything is unique, but stereotypes will help get certain idea of something. That might be god or bad thing.

[Jake Bunce]

How do you know they are green men:D Also I do not believe in any religion.

Disbelief is still a religion because you are taking it on faith that the belief in question is not true. The truly nonreligious person does not have an opinion about anything that is faith-based.

People often say they aren't religious because they don't believe in God. Wrong.

[ShadyNight]

Very good point Jake. But what would I be then? I don't belive in god, but I also don't disbelive him. I am a true fence sitter in the highest form.

I figure there MIGHT be a god or gods, and therefore (due to upbringing) will pray occasioally, but in a very general aspect. BUT if there is no god(s) *shrugs* oh well. I do not belive in orginized religion to any degree, as far as I am concerned it is all open for interpritation. :D

HOWEVER, back to the topic at hand, ;) , if there turns out to be aliens on mars, i think it will effect more than just the religous. At least it will in the beginning. Man kind in general is a rather egotistical race, and to find out there is actual alien life forms out there with possible intelligence? Won't go over well at first, or possibly ever.

It implies we are no longer alone, we are not the exception to the rules, we aren't special, there are others. MANY I feel, would start in on all sorts of hoax theories and conspericy theories and on and on.

[cirisme]

How do you know they are green men:D Also I do not believe in any religion.
That's why I called them little purple men ;)

[Jake Bunce]

Very good point Jake. But what would I be then? I don't belive in god, but I also don't disbelive him. I am a true fence sitter in the highest form.

I figure there MIGHT be a god or gods, and therefore (due to upbringing) will pray occasioally, but in a very general aspect. BUT if there is no god(s) *shrugs* oh well. I do not belive in orginized religion to any degree, as far as I am concerned it is all open for interpritation. :D

"Fence sitters" acknowledge the question but take a neutral position, so they are "somewhat" religious I would say.

The truly nonreligious person would not even acknowledge God as a valid hypothesis because it is not scientifically testable. I would love to see some one come up with a scientific test to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God. Ain't happening.

[patriotcow]

All I can say is I think there is life on other planets, I dont believe in god it just sounds stupid to me. THe world was created by an explosing. As if some man in space is going right I am going to create a man there lol:)

[ShadyNight]

Agreed, I don't think there is a god in that sense. I'm more inclined to belive that "gods" were someone who had either super intellegence for thier time, or had an "extra" talent others couldn't fathom, and therefore hit god status. (like greek gods and such) Then stories and the like exagerated them to what we know as gods now.

So when I say there might be "god(s)" I mean there may be more in the future, and that thier "spirit" is probably checking in on things from time to time, but they can't do anything.

[Jake Bunce]

...I dont believe in god it just sounds stupid to me...

That's fine, just as long as you realize that your criticism is no less "stupid" than, for example, a Muslim professing that Allah is the true God, and anyone who believes otherwise is stupid. Both claims use identical methodology.

No offense to Muslims, I am only trying to draw an example from an opposing viewpoint in order to make my post more pointed and effective.

[Joseph777]

"Fence sitters" acknowledge the question but take a neutral position, so they are "somewhat" religious I would say.

The truly nonreligious person would not even acknowledge God as a valid hypothesis because it is not scientifically testable. I would love to see some one come up with a scientific test to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God. Ain't happening.

"Fence Sitters" are called "agnostics". That is me. :)

My opinion is "I do not know enough to believe there is a God or to believe there isn't a God. I just don't know."

Jake is right. A firm "belief in" or "disbelief of" are still BOTH faith-based.

I simply don't know. I do "sense" there is a God, but I don't "know" it. But in this life, we actually "know" very little anyways... right? ;)

[chrispadfield]

The truly nonreligious person would not even acknowledge God as a valid hypothesis because it is not scientifically testable. I would love to see some one come up with a scientific test to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God. Ain't happening.

Not so sure about this. You are seperating the argument for "testing" for God's existance from the epistological argument about whether God actually exists. Any God you care to consider exists or does not exist. It does not make you religous to accept that proposition; it is a matter of logic. Just because the solution to something is not testable, does not mean that accepting there is a question makes you "religous". At the moment it is untestable whether the universe will continually expand; this does not make the solution "religious". There is nothing inherent in religion that suggests it can not be tested; there is no reason to believe it is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a supreme being that created the universe - for example the existance of multiple universes would be an argument against because it weakens the argument of supreme design of the universe due the paramaters that are set (e.g. strengh of nuclear forces/gravity etc) that are required for life. It would be a scientic argument to suggest there is a supreme being given the exact nature of these certain constants - they are too exact to be a coincidence; however proving the existance of multiple universes would discount that argument. This *is* science.

It is also too simple to suggest that *all* religion is compeltly based on "faith". There are very few religions that don't have some physical "proof" to the religion itself; be it a holy book or artifacts. When some of the elements in these are shown to be fake/wrong then, while some will invent excuses; most will update the religion to account for it. If we somehow invented a time travel machine that could travel back in time to show that Jesus did or did not rise from the dead after 3 days it seems to me there would be a large change in the number of people who accepted that religion; I think even some creationists might change their mind if they could be transported back in time to see a neanderthal.

Religions are often based on faith because of the lack of evidence either way; not because evidence either way is rejected.

Personally, I reject all current religions but am open to the possibility of a sentient "force" that created the universe but has little if no interest in us. I also believe that the existance/disexistance of that force/being could one day be determined. I don't believe that I am making a religious statement here, but a scientific one on the nature of the universe.

[chrispadfield]

That's fine, just as long as you realize that your criticism is no less "stupid" than, for example, a Muslim professing that Allah is the true God, and anyone who believes otherwise is stupid. Both claims use identical methodology.

They do; but only because both argue their point without appealing to *any* reason. It is possible to give a scientific argument for both propositions; even if it is not possible to prove either way.

[Jake Bunce]

Not so sure about this. You are seperating the argument for "testing" for God's existance from the epistological argument about whether God actually exists...

<big clip>


You are arguing from a higher level. Everything is all gray up there, so I prefer to stay down low with the more fundamental arguments. I am not saying you are wrong, I just really hate high level religious debates because they get all philosophical, and I can't use my "hard" points in philosophical debates.

I also like to start these arguments with the foundation where science and religion do not overlap, where they are true supplements to eachother... that is to say that religion goes where science cannot, and together they cover all possible explanations. You are blurring this separation in your argument so we are no longer on the same "page". Without such a common ground, we cannot effectively debate.

They do; but only because both argue their point without appealing to *any* reason. It is possible to give a scientific argument for both propositions; even if it is not possible to prove either way.

I would like to hear such a scientific argument. Such an argument cannot exist because science, by its very nature, does not deal with supernatural explanations.

Given this fact, you would have to argue that God is not a supernatural explanation. I am no religious expert, but as I understand the idea of God, He is supposedly not bound by the laws of nature, and so He is not natural and therefore not scientifically testable.

[Kraveegun]

Very good point Jake. But what would I be then? I don't belive in god, but I also don't disbelive him. I am a true fence sitter in the highest form.

I figure there MIGHT be a god or gods, and therefore (due to upbringing) will pray occasioally, but in a very general aspect. BUT if there is no god(s) *shrugs* oh well. I do not belive in orginized religion to any degree, as far as I am concerned it is all open for interprite

I feel exactly this way aswell.
as for the science vs supernatural debate. I have had too many weird experiences in my life to ignore the existence of a higher force but to put a name or a face to an infinate universe is really quite a waste of time.
Considering there is still a heavy 2000 year old debate going on over why the moon looks bigger on the horizon than it does when it is overhead I have to say that I really don't think science will ever figure it all out. here is something to ponder -
1 divided by infinity = 0.0000000000 forever with a 1 at the end of that string of never ending numbers. but does tha 1 exist at all? it must for iam 1 person and i'm writting this. and if that number 1 does exist than the universe must be finite. but maybe iam really not here at all. :eek:

[Martz]

Religion should be a personal tool used to give self motivation and soft rules to live your life by in the event you are unable to make rational decisions for yourself. It's a tool to help others as well.

If a higher being exists is irrelevant - religion offers many worthwhile ideals and guidance, and gives people hope; the possibility of a miracle and the calling of someone higher to do what we "normals" cannot gives people hope. Rightly or wrongly. I don't consider myself to be religious. And I have prayed in times of crisis, to a god, not too the God we are all aware of. I just haven't seen any evidence of God, and until then I'll find it very difficult to believe in a 2000 year old marketing book.

But OT: how many people would actualy be able to believe the news that we were under attack my aliens? I very much doubt that the majority of the worlds population would believe it, or that they would be able to deal with that type of scenario.

All IMO of course.