Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

[james bond]

If God created the Earth, it stands to reason that God is an ET.

He doesn't reside in our universe because he likes holy things. We aren't holy. I think he's hyperdimensional.

If so, then he's definitely an ET.

I don't think so because he's not from our universe. A better description of him is spiritual and supernatural. We had Jesus, but he was born a terrestrial being by immaculate conception through the Holy Spirit.

 

[candycorn]

As for the argument of atheist scientist dismissing God while believing in ET; there is far more possibility of finding lifeforms on other planets than there was some force in the world that created the earth, controls our daily lives, etc. That is why it is called "faith". I personally don't believe in God. But I sure as hell hope there is one.

ET is simply "not of this planet" hence "extra terrestrial". Whether the life forms are intelligent or not sporting lasers, space ships, etc in my view is doubtful. If we consider Europa (the moon of Jupiter), we find it interesting because of it's water content. Pretend that they are an advanced civilization, like ours. Surely they have looked up at the stars and wondered if anyone is out there; built telescopes like Galileo did and have looked toward the Sun. They would have seen the Earth eventually and had become interested in us because our planet looks different than our moon, Mars, etc...

Now, if you want to get into intergalactic space, who knows. When you're discussing transit that would take lifetimes; its even money that there may be another earth out there.

 

[Montrovant]

Again, you miss the truth and wisdom of my statements from the Bible and render yourself into deep folly.

you miss the truth and wisdom of my statements ...

the history of christianity from the 4th century to the present day negates whatever authenticity you claim from your 10K pg document as either truthful or wise.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

statements from the Bible ... upon the earth.

that I end up just reading a sentence of two at the bottom.

> bottom <

in the above 4th century forgery, quote, the creators are merely referring to Earth as a domain for man and as not residents themselves would make them aliens, the primary one being jesus if you are gullible enough to believe that document as authentic. that is if jesus is not human there is life and Earth's throughout the universe. (3) - with or without their likeness. aliens.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect human, but they failed by disobeying God. We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus. I continue to be forever grateful for Jesus' sacrifice and being perfect. We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin. That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's part of that 4th century book, too.

.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect human, but they failed by disobeying God. We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus. I continue to be forever grateful for Jesus' sacrifice and being perfect. We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin. That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's part of that 4th century book, too.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect humans, but they failed by disobeying God ... We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus.

bond, jesus did not voluntarily jump off a cliff - for you, he was executed without having a choice in the matter. and as a reminder -

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani”

the words of jesus just prior to his death, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

those words are there only because they are from the spoken religion and could not be removed in the 4th century by the forgers.


We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin.

were it a sin they'd have been left to perish by their own means, there were others at that time it was their choice that made them special, they were given a task for their deed. to triumph over evil.

we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin

au contrarie, your book is a political document not a religion - for their discretion they were given a task to be completed to accomplish remission to the Everlasting, your being a hopeless sinner at death will provide you nothing in return.

That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's (they are) part of that 4th century book, too.

that is your decision and your book, whoever they may be is tangential, part and parcel to the overall outcome for the Final Judgement, success or failure as prescribed by the Almighty through the Religion of Antiquity. - if there is a satan, the spoken religion from antiquity will slay them before the final victory.

It's also scientific theory. Not a science book, but science backs it up.

The Bible is a scientific theory?

 

[james bond]

Again, you miss the truth and wisdom of my statements from the Bible and render yourself into deep folly.

you miss the truth and wisdom of my statements ...

the history of christianity from the 4th century to the present day negates whatever authenticity you claim from your 10K pg document as either truthful or wise.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

statements from the Bible ... upon the earth.

that I end up just reading a sentence of two at the bottom.

> bottom <

in the above 4th century forgery, quote, the creators are merely referring to Earth as a domain for man and as not residents themselves would make them aliens, the primary one being jesus if you are gullible enough to believe that document as authentic. that is if jesus is not human there is life and Earth's throughout the universe. (3) - with or without their likeness. aliens.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect human, but they failed by disobeying God. We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus. I continue to be forever grateful for Jesus' sacrifice and being perfect. We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin. That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's part of that 4th century book, too.

.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect human, but they failed by disobeying God. We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus. I continue to be forever grateful for Jesus' sacrifice and being perfect. We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin. That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's part of that 4th century book, too.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect humans, but they failed by disobeying God ... We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus.

bond, jesus did not voluntarily jump off a cliff - for you, he was executed without having a choice in the matter. and as a reminder -

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani”

the words of jesus just prior to his death, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

those words are there only because they are from the spoken religion and could not be removed in the 4th century by the forgers.


We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin.

were it a sin they'd have been left to perish by their own means, there were others at that time it was their choice that made them special, they were given a task for their deed. to triumph over evil.

we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin

au contrarie, your book is a political document not a religion - for their discretion they were given a task to be completed to accomplish remission to the Everlasting, your being a hopeless sinner at death will provide you nothing in return.

That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's (they are) part of that 4th century book, too.

that is your decision and your book, whoever they may be is tangential, part and parcel to the overall outcome for the Final Judgement, success or failure as prescribed by the Almighty through the Religion of Antiquity. - if there is a satan, the spoken religion from antiquity will slay them before the final victory.

It's also scientific theory. Not a science book, but science backs it up.

The Bible is a scientific theory?

Sure, like God created life as life only begats life. God created only one universe and we see that it's expanding as explained in the Bible. We also see that the shape of the universe is flat. It's shaped like a scroll. This means that in the future that we will find edges to our universe and that its edges curl. These things must have went over your head because of being misdirected by evolution and beliefs in supernatural aliens.

 

[Montrovant]

you miss the truth and wisdom of my statements ...

the history of christianity from the 4th century to the present day negates whatever authenticity you claim from your 10K pg document as either truthful or wise.





statements from the Bible ... upon the earth.

> bottom <

in the above 4th century forgery, quote, the creators are merely referring to Earth as a domain for man and as not residents themselves would make them aliens, the primary one being jesus if you are gullible enough to believe that document as authentic. that is if jesus is not human there is life and Earth's throughout the universe. (3) - with or without their likeness. aliens.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect human, but they failed by disobeying God. We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus. I continue to be forever grateful for Jesus' sacrifice and being perfect. We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin. That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's part of that 4th century book, too.

.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect human, but they failed by disobeying God. We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus. I continue to be forever grateful for Jesus' sacrifice and being perfect. We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin. That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's part of that 4th century book, too.

We had Adam and Eve as the perfect humans, but they failed by disobeying God ... We were saved by the perfect human who did not fail in Jesus.

bond, jesus did not voluntarily jump off a cliff - for you, he was executed without having a choice in the matter. and as a reminder -

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani”

the words of jesus just prior to his death, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

those words are there only because they are from the spoken religion and could not be removed in the 4th century by the forgers.


We continue to strive to be perfect even though we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin.

were it a sin they'd have been left to perish by their own means, there were others at that time it was their choice that made them special, they were given a task for their deed. to triumph over evil.

we cannot ever be due to Adam's sin

au contrarie, your book is a political document not a religion - for their discretion they were given a task to be completed to accomplish remission to the Everlasting, your being a hopeless sinner at death will provide you nothing in return.

That's why I continue to post here while you seem to post for Satan. He's (they are) part of that 4th century book, too.

that is your decision and your book, whoever they may be is tangential, part and parcel to the overall outcome for the Final Judgement, success or failure as prescribed by the Almighty through the Religion of Antiquity. - if there is a satan, the spoken religion from antiquity will slay them before the final victory.

It's also scientific theory. Not a science book, but science backs it up.

The Bible is a scientific theory?

Sure, like God created life as life only begats life. God created only one universe and we see that it's expanding as explained in the Bible. We also see that the shape of the universe is flat. It's shaped like a scroll. This means that in the future that we will find edges to our universe and that its edges curl. These things must have went over your head because of being misdirected by evolution and beliefs in supernatural aliens.

Nothing you just said in any way makes the Bible a scientific theory.

By the way, the universe being flat is not the same as it being "shaped like a scroll." Nor does it being flat mean we will find edges. The universe could be flat and infinite. Also, keep in mind that the universe being flat is based on the observable universe. There is far more that we can't see than we can.

Here, a quick couple of links: How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe
What Do You Mean, the Universe Is Flat? Part II: In Which We Actually Answer the Question
The Universe Is Flat — Now What?

 

[BreezeWood]

It's also scientific theory. Not a science book, but science backs it up.

It's also scientific theory ... Not a science book -

what scientific relativism existing in that document, the religion of the holy roman empire has nothing whatsoever to do with the events of the 1st century as that being the credence for your statement is sorely without merit - equally in regards to its use to verify that religion of the roman empire is categorically the same as the mythical serpent of the Garden reenacting their previous role in a modern setting. and in today's version the same vilification being portrayed - by present day christianity, bond.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is sophistry, you still have no proof,

You are confused. If I had "proof" of something, it would then be deemed a fact, not deemed, "likely true".

I think you mean to say that I have "no evidence" that life likely exists elsewhere. Of course, that is false and has already been covered in this thread. No, it requires no faith. And it is different, as having evidence.is different than having no evidence. And if you can't even remember the argument and evidence presented, you are not in a position to call the argument,"sophistry", now are you?

I am immune to your posturing.

 

[G.T.]

is this the most simple minded comparison possibly in history

 

[Clement]

This is sophistry, you still have no proof,

You are confused. If I had "proof" of something, it would then be deemed a fact, not deemed, "likely true".

I think you mean to say that I have "no evidence" that life likely exists elsewhere. Of course, that is false and has already been covered in this thread. No, it requires no faith. And it is different, as having evidence.is different than having no evidence. And if you can't even remember the argument and evidence presented, you are not in a position to call the argument,"sophistry", now are you?

I am immune to your posturing.

I am immune to yours. All you are doing is making excuses for your own article of faith.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is sophistry, you still have no proof,

You are confused. If I had "proof" of something, it would then be deemed a fact, not deemed, "likely true".

I think you mean to say that I have "no evidence" that life likely exists elsewhere. Of course, that is false and has already been covered in this thread. No, it requires no faith. And it is different, as having evidence.is different than having no evidence. And if you can't even remember the argument and evidence presented, you are not in a position to call the argument,"sophistry", now are you?

I am immune to your posturing.

I am immune to yours. All you are doing is making excuses for your own article of faith.

Which article of faith is that, specifically? Let's check that.

 

[Clement]

This is sophistry, you still have no proof,

You are confused. If I had "proof" of something, it would then be deemed a fact, not deemed, "likely true".

I think you mean to say that I have "no evidence" that life likely exists elsewhere. Of course, that is false and has already been covered in this thread. No, it requires no faith. And it is different, as having evidence.is different than having no evidence. And if you can't even remember the argument and evidence presented, you are not in a position to call the argument,"sophistry", now are you?

I am immune to your posturing.

I am immune to yours. All you are doing is making excuses for your own article of faith.

Which article of faith is that, specifically? Let's check that.

Have you been following along? It doesn't seem like it.

The article of faith I refer to is the notion that any brain fart or idea that can be remotely deemed as "Science" is automatically reality. I don't care how you want to parse it, there is no proof, evidence, fact, extrapolation of fact, or theory that shows that there is life in any other place than this here planet we live on. But you believe it anyway. THAT article of faith. And I dismiss it as easily (and on the same grounds) as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

 

[BreezeWood]

And I dismiss it as easily (and on the same grounds) as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

and on the same grounds - as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

that may be true of a generic designer, intelligent or not however that would not be true, the same grounds, if based on a document written by individuals in a time period the definition of their own planet was in question.

do you have a specific designer in mind or is it just a generic, undefined if even physical being of some sort. and if so then the admission of a designer would also be an admission of life throughout the universe as being true if not actually proven.

so how can you have both a designer and not have life throughout the universe. just planet Earth, christian.

 

[Clement]

And I dismiss it as easily (and on the same grounds) as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

and on the same grounds - as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

that may be true of a generic designer, intelligent or not however that would not be true, the same grounds, if based on a document written by individuals in a time period the definition of their own planet was in question.

do you have a specific designer in mind or is it just a generic, undefined if even physical being of some sort. and if so then the admission of a designer would also be an admission of life throughout the universe as being true if not actually proven.

so how can you have both a designer and not have life throughout the universe. just planet Earth, christian.

No, that doesn't follow. Why would a Designer be compelled to spread life all over the universe, and that is not the topic anyway. The topic is why some people are willing to speculate on life on other planets with no proof yet disparage a belief in a Designer again, with no proof.

 

[Montrovant]

And I dismiss it as easily (and on the same grounds) as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

and on the same grounds - as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

that may be true of a generic designer, intelligent or not however that would not be true, the same grounds, if based on a document written by individuals in a time period the definition of their own planet was in question.

do you have a specific designer in mind or is it just a generic, undefined if even physical being of some sort. and if so then the admission of a designer would also be an admission of life throughout the universe as being true if not actually proven.

so how can you have both a designer and not have life throughout the universe. just planet Earth, christian.

No, that doesn't follow. Why would a Designer be compelled to spread life all over the universe, and that is not the topic anyway. The topic is why some people are willing to speculate on life on other planets with no proof yet disparage a belief in a Designer again, with no proof.

I believe it's already been brought up, but we do have proof of life in the universe already. We don't have the same sort of proof of a designer. In the former case, it is extrapolating from something that one knows already exists on Earth and wondering if it also exists elsewhere. In the latter case, it is something that one might believe exists but cannot prove.

So you have speculation that something already proven to exist in one place might exist in another place, contrasted with a belief in something that has not been proven to exist anywhere. Neither thing can currently be proven, but there's definitely differences.

 

[Clement]

And I dismiss it as easily (and on the same grounds) as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

and on the same grounds - as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

that may be true of a generic designer, intelligent or not however that would not be true, the same grounds, if based on a document written by individuals in a time period the definition of their own planet was in question.

do you have a specific designer in mind or is it just a generic, undefined if even physical being of some sort. and if so then the admission of a designer would also be an admission of life throughout the universe as being true if not actually proven.

so how can you have both a designer and not have life throughout the universe. just planet Earth, christian.

No, that doesn't follow. Why would a Designer be compelled to spread life all over the universe, and that is not the topic anyway. The topic is why some people are willing to speculate on life on other planets with no proof yet disparage a belief in a Designer again, with no proof.

I believe it's already been brought up, but we do have proof of life in the universe already. We don't have the same sort of proof of a designer. In the former case, it is extrapolating from something that one knows already exists on Earth and wondering if it also exists elsewhere. In the latter case, it is something that one might believe exists but cannot prove.

So you have speculation that something already proven to exist in one place might exist in another place, contrasted with a belief in something that has not been proven to exist anywhere. Neither thing can currently be proven, but there's definitely differences.

What proof is there of life in the universe.

 

[doesanyoneknowmyname]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

"There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens."

no, there isn't.

if you want to say that there is EQUALLY NO PROOF for either I wouldn't bother to argue with you.

But there is NO PROOF of god at all!

none
nada
zip
zero

as for those scientists who "believe in" or "assume the existence of" aliens.....MOSTLY it has little to do with physical evidence and more to do with logic and reason; in a universe as big and as old as ours the probability of aliens elsewhere in the universe is a rational concept.

Then, of course, we have all the POLICE, MILITARY, PILOTS and ASTRONAUTS who claim to have "seen things"...

are you saying they are all liars?

are you calling policemen who make these reports "liars"?

Why not? Cops have been shown to lie about a wide range of things.

I can't argue with that.

but of the conversations I've seen involving police, military, pilots re: UFOs.....they didn't gain anything with their claims....and they pretty much ALL seemed "genuine".....believable.....?!?!?!

but....as you say......police (and others) have been known to lie.....

 

[sealybobo]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

The Bible is evidence of nothing.

Statistically there must be at least dozens of other life forms like us out there in the entire universe but it is rare. So far we don’t know because we just woke up and the universe is huge. We don’t even know everything in our solar system.

You’re 1500 year old goat herding stories are not evidence of god neither is the Old Testament. Do you agree?

 

[Montrovant]

And I dismiss it as easily (and on the same grounds) as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

and on the same grounds - as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

that may be true of a generic designer, intelligent or not however that would not be true, the same grounds, if based on a document written by individuals in a time period the definition of their own planet was in question.

do you have a specific designer in mind or is it just a generic, undefined if even physical being of some sort. and if so then the admission of a designer would also be an admission of life throughout the universe as being true if not actually proven.

so how can you have both a designer and not have life throughout the universe. just planet Earth, christian.

No, that doesn't follow. Why would a Designer be compelled to spread life all over the universe, and that is not the topic anyway. The topic is why some people are willing to speculate on life on other planets with no proof yet disparage a belief in a Designer again, with no proof.

I believe it's already been brought up, but we do have proof of life in the universe already. We don't have the same sort of proof of a designer. In the former case, it is extrapolating from something that one knows already exists on Earth and wondering if it also exists elsewhere. In the latter case, it is something that one might believe exists but cannot prove.

So you have speculation that something already proven to exist in one place might exist in another place, contrasted with a belief in something that has not been proven to exist anywhere. Neither thing can currently be proven, but there's definitely differences.

What proof is there of life in the universe.

Really? Go look in a mirror.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe it has to do with the trillions of planets circling stars within habitable zones?

Wheres your evidence for this god? Oh'yess, a book written by goat herders.

I swear I didn’t read your post before I said the same thing.

Maybe if we nail the point home we can wake this follower of ancient goat herders into the 21st century.

 

[Clement]

And I dismiss it as easily (and on the same grounds) as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

and on the same grounds - as you dismiss the idea of an intelligent designer.

that may be true of a generic designer, intelligent or not however that would not be true, the same grounds, if based on a document written by individuals in a time period the definition of their own planet was in question.

do you have a specific designer in mind or is it just a generic, undefined if even physical being of some sort. and if so then the admission of a designer would also be an admission of life throughout the universe as being true if not actually proven.

so how can you have both a designer and not have life throughout the universe. just planet Earth, christian.

No, that doesn't follow. Why would a Designer be compelled to spread life all over the universe, and that is not the topic anyway. The topic is why some people are willing to speculate on life on other planets with no proof yet disparage a belief in a Designer again, with no proof.

I believe it's already been brought up, but we do have proof of life in the universe already. We don't have the same sort of proof of a designer. In the former case, it is extrapolating from something that one knows already exists on Earth and wondering if it also exists elsewhere. In the latter case, it is something that one might believe exists but cannot prove.

So you have speculation that something already proven to exist in one place might exist in another place, contrasted with a belief in something that has not been proven to exist anywhere. Neither thing can currently be proven, but there's definitely differences.

What proof is there of life in the universe.

Really? Go look in a mirror.

I thought we all understood that earth was exempt from this discussion.