Are people that stubborn? (Religious and atheists alike)

Author: IlDiavolo
Bible
Atheism
UFO
religions

Posts

Total: 50
Topic's author
#1
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
@Stephen
I’ve been reading lately some books of JJ Benitez who is a recognizedufologist that questions the bible, comparing its content with the roundabout26k testimonies of the contactees he personally interviewed over 50 years,which to me leave no doubt that the bible is not a divinely inspired book, letalone sacred words, but an incredible testimony of the presence of human-like beingswith super high technology during the development of the ancient Hebrewcivilization. There is a lot of controversial information I would like todiscuss though, because this subject is open to many theories, not only the human-likealien beings’ theory but also for example the lost human civilizations’ theory,so I decided to create this initial thread in order to meditate previously onwhy most people, either religious or atheists, keep so obstinate on theirbeliefs despite the plethora of evidence there is out there. This is importantbecause the subject I want to discuss requires open-mindedness.

On the one hand, we have the religious people who stick obstinately totheir beliefs despite the fact that the bible is just a mere set of books withmany errors and contradictions that were written by fallible people who hadlimited understanding of their reality. Those books have been passed downsuffering a lot of modifications and translations with the only intention ofgiving them a "spiritual" meaning which make them even more unreliable.Proof of that is the several works of many bible scholars that studied them inits original language in order to find out its real meaning. The original biblicalinformation (in Hebrew) leads us to think effectively about the existence ofthese more evolved human-like beings I referred to, as it is well explained bythe bible translator Mauro Biglino whose work is very telling.


On the other hand, we have the atheists who are not that different totheir counterparts the religious people. Their God is the human science, theirbible is the scientific books/papers and their saints are the scientists. Iunderstand that science has methods and procedures scientists have to stick to,but I am referring to the attitude most of the scientists hold with controversialsubjects like this one, regarding it with disdain as if they were the owners ofthe truth. NASA took a step forward recognizing that this phenomenon deservesto be studied, but even so, arrogant scientists are still there blocking any attemptto study it because atheists gave them authority and as a consequence they feel empowered to doso. For instance, in the interview I provide (1:15:58), Graham Hancock makes a complaintabout how today’s archeologists dominate the main narrative on ancientcivilizations and avoid considering dissident opinions. What I’m trying to sayis that today’s science is run by fallible people and as such it is perfectlyliable to errors and hence to be questioned. In fact, the possible existence of alien civilizations with better technology entails a great impact not only on religions but also on science, specially on the theory of evolution that atheists have fervent faith in.

Is it difficult to be open minded, at least a little bit? What is it? Dogmatism?Fear of an existential crisis? Stubbornness? Shame?

What do you think?
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Their God is the human science
I am pretty.
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
What I meant to say is that I am pretty sure thats not true.
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

#5
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Ask yourself  how many times you have admitted you were wrong about anything without using a caveat. You were just fucking wrong and admitted it. People would rather live a life of lies than admit they are wrong.  “It's far easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
People are programmed to think in a certain way and therefore are likely to return to default settings.

Some people are programmed more rigidly that others, hence responses will vary.

Thereby we conclude that someone who refuses to agree or accept an alternative point of view is stubborn, when in fact they just lack the wherewithal to be open-minded.

So stubbornness is our perception of others, rather that someone else's behaviour.
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@IlDiavolo

On the other hand, we have the atheists who are not that different to their counterparts the religious people.
No, Atheists are a lot smarter. See post #4.
Topic's author
#8
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
No, Atheists are a lot smarter. See post #4.
I'm sorry but the most intelligent position one can take is the agnostiscism. 😁

Topic's author
#9
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Some people are programmed more rigidly that others, hence responses will vary.
That is correct, there are certain human traits that determine the posture one person can take during his life, whether it is in religion or politics, but I also see that the experience counts too. Personally,  I was tempted to be an enraged atheist because of some relatives that bugged me so much with their religious bullshit.

Thereby we conclude that someone who refuses to agree or accept an alternative point of view is stubborn, when in fact they just lack the wherewithal to be open-minded.
Well, I think most self-called atheists in this forum are actually agnostics that assume an atheist posture just so to argue against religious users, like this Tradesecret who is really annoying. 😁

When I opened a thread about the NASA decided to undertake UFO investigations, most users agreed on the existence of the aliens. What I would like to know now is if they also agree on the fact that Darwin was completely wrong with his theory of the evolution, because the existence of the UFO changes the way human beings developed in this planet.
Topic's author
#10
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I've just realized someone moved this thread out of the religious forum. May I know why? 
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Well.

A UFO is a UFO, therefore an unidentified object flying and not evidence to negate Darwin's theory of species evolution.

Species evolution is just as likely to have applied to the development of advanced extra-terrestrial life forms.


And atheism/ atheist is more of a general term that is used by those who see no logic in the idea of worshipping fantasy MANGODS, especially the fantasy MANGODS that developed relatively recently amongst the peoples of the Arabian peninsular.

Atheists do no presume to know the meaning of everything nor the specific processes of the GOD principle.

Therefore most atheists would not dismiss non-fantastic hypotheses out of hand...Extra terrestrial intervention for example.


Though one should not confuse theism with deism. Deism being the fantasy and theism being the associated nonsense that consequently develops 
#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@IlDiavolo

I've just realized someone moved this thread out of the religious forum. May I know why? 

   God did it.
Topic's author
#13
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
God did it.
ROFL. It was actually my mistake, I did it in a rush, but it's fine.
Topic's author
#14
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Species evolution is just as likely to have applied to the development of advanced extra-terrestrial life forms.
Well, the evolution theory as we know it has a lot of flaws. I opened a thread about some scientists questioning this theory long time ago, and all the "atheists" come rapidly to roast me.

At first sight it seems a good theory but it lacks of common sense in our context, that's why to me the UFO theory fits better. Maybe it could apply to the ETs but this is another story.
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@IlDiavolo


Evolution has produced countless amazing life forms, but you need look no further than to the human body to find examples showing that evolution has also produced a number of poor constructions. "The many flaws of evolution makes it impossible to believe in the theory of intelligent design," says Professor Glenn-Peter Sætre at the University of Oslo.

An obvious example of "unintelligent design" in the human body is that women have a narrow birth canal, which makes childbirth both more dangerous and more painful than in other species. Maternal death is now a rare phenomenon in industrialized countries, but according to the World Health Organization, the death rate in several African countries without access to Western medicine is up to approximately 200 times higher than that of Norway.
"The human body is also constructed poorly in a lot of other ways. We are for example not able to synthesize the all-important vitamin C, unlike other mammals. Therefore, we must either obtain vitamin C through our food or die from scurvy. It is unreasonable to claim that this is the result of an intelligent design," Sætre points out.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
So what is the better UFO theory?


And as I see it, evolution started at the beginning and is ongoing, and will be to the end.

I refer to it as material evolution...Which is a universal process.

The development of life and living organic structures is one small part of the sequence, and I see no reason why as a part of a universal process, extra-terrestrial intervention should not play a part. UFO's and all.

Though I  think it unlikely, given the difficulties of interstellar travel, that we would have been visited by UFO's.

But if we have been visited, then I think it odd that we are not already an integral part of interstellar species evolution.

Why are still stuck here on little old planet Earth with nowhere else to go?

Other than an ageing space station, and little old Mars perhaps...Such is the evolutionary rate of human driven flying objects.


#17
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
On the other hand, we have the atheists who are not that different totheir counterparts the religious people. Their God is the human science, theirbible is the scientific books/papers and their saints are the scientists. Iunderstand that science has methods and procedures scientists have to stick to,but I am referring to the attitude most of the scientists hold with controversialsubjects like this one, regarding it with disdain as if they were the owners ofthe truth.
This is like comparing two different types of jurors: the juror who vehemently combs through the evidence and connects the dots before reaching a conclusion, and the juror who says "I get a bad feeling about that guy, he's obviously guilty".

Science and religion are not opposing methods for understanding what is true about the world. Science is a method, religion is the absence of one.
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R

Well stated.
Topic's author
#19
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Science and religion are not opposing methods for understanding what is true about the world. Science is a method, religion is the absence of one.
That is why I said the attitude people have towards either religion or science, I'm not comparing the methods, where religion obviously has no method.

Science is based on paradigms, which makes it liable to be observed and eventually be changed or adjusted. Newton's theory was improved by Einsten's theory, just to say an example.

In the case of the evolution theory, I've always said that it has flaws, then it needs to be observed. The problem is that scientists get really stubborn about it because they think the creationism theory necessarily indicates that there is a God behind the creation.
Topic's author
#20
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
What I'm trying to say is that the Darwin's theory of evolution has many important flaws that makes it untenable. Long time ago I thought the best explanation for that was the panspermia hypotheses, but now I think life was not brought by an asteroid but a UFO, like the one portrayed in the movie Alien Prometheus. 

But if we have been visited, then I think it odd that we are not already an integral part of interstellar species evolution.
If you were part of a far evolved alien species, would you let the human beings join you? We are close to a stupid nuclear was so I think the answer is no. Lol.
Topic's author
#21
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
If Darwin was right, explain me why human beings are not adapted to any environment of the earth like the rest of species? We have to produce our own protection (clothes). It's just one of the many flaws this theory can't explain.
#22
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
What does it mean to be far evolved?
Must an advanced species not have war?
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@IlDiavolo
Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa. Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Africa is warm.
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Within the context of Universal development, why is it likely that there is another more advanced intelligence that is capable of interstellar travel.

Maybe we are the most intelligent lifeform in the Universe.

Maybe other intelligent lifeforms are at the same stage of material development as us.


Even so...If the seeds of life were sown here long ago by a UFO, then why wouldn't Darwin's theory of species evolution still be relevant?
#25
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
In the case of the evolution theory, I've always said that it has flaws, then it needs to be observed. The problem is that scientists get really stubborn about it because they think the creationism theory necessarily indicates that there is a God behind the creation.
Most scientists get stubborn about evolutionary theory because the people who challenge it in favor of creationism tend to have no idea what they're talking about. It's not the same thing as devotion to one's faith.
Topic's author
#26
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Lemming
What does it mean to be far evolved?
Must an advanced species not have war?
Well, take as an example the evolution of us, we are far more evolved than those of the medieval times, not only in technology but also in morality and conciousness. I guess the aliens are morally more superior, then they are not that stupid to get involved in self destructive wars. 

Topic's author
#27
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa. Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans. Africa is warm.
Well, Africa es warm in summer, not in winter, at least not during the nights. Scientists have other fancy explanations for it that is not convincing at all. I think these scientists force their explanations to one only theory which is the evolutionary theory. I think the current scientific approach is short sighted. 

Topic's author
#28
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Even so...If the seeds of life were sown here long ago by a UFO, then why wouldn't Darwin's theory of species evolution still be relevant?
This is the matter of this thread, why are scientists so stubborn to change their minds? The Darwin's theory is sustained by the scientists who are fallible men. It's really ridiculous how these people keep trying to explain the unexplainable.
Topic's author
#29
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Most scientists get stubborn about evolutionary theory because the people who challenge it in favor of creationism tend to have no idea what they're talking about. It's not the same thing as devotion to one's faith.
This is not what I've seen. There are stubborn people in scientific areas that really believe they are the authorities in terms of science, like a priest that think himself as the only one to interpret the biblical dogma. So if a scientist get against the flow, he's ridiculed and forced to rectify. 

#30
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm sure we can find plenty of anecdotal examples of this, but anyone who actually believes in science understands that in science there is no figurehead. The only one's who achieve the status where they can legitimately think of themselves as an authority are after they have proven their abilities through demonstrated results, and even then their authority status is contingent on their ability to continue demonstrating said results.

Religion doesn't have anything like this.