OT:Why Aliens dont come here

[Colonel]

Simple Answer, everytime they come here they find us either blowing each other up with Nukes, planning to blow each other up or they run into dumb hicks most of the time....


So why do you think they dont come here?

(This is assuming that they exist.)

[Gandalf Parker]

I saw a note about the ship they are about to drop onto Titan (a Saturn Moon) which has a fairly good chance of supporting life. They even allowed that "in the event that the lander becomes surrounded by aliens" they included a CD which will play wordless music by some french guys.

Now THAT is just plain MEAN. I dont mean the music, Im sure its fine. But if a probe landed here and made noise.. what would we do? We would spend years and a ton of money trying to decode it. Wordless music as a first contact message? Not cool guys.

[Arkcon]

Well now Gandalf, that just begs the question, "If you have the technology to explore space beyond your own solar system, why do it?" You shouldn't be short of natural resources if you can do it, there should be abundant living space in your own system, you pretty much do it just to see whats out there. If there's sapient life on Titan, we've save them the trouble of starting a SETI program, at least.

I have SE4 inspired question now. Often, when you start a game, you find a system with one of those nice green star planets. Our solar system seems to lack that.

But if there was another rock oxygen planet here, how close would we be to establishing a colony? We don't have near the technology now, but if we had the incentive, would we be closer, or be there already?

[Colonel]

You related to SEIV so I give sort of an answer... In order for us to establish a colony the planet has to be nearly the same as ours.... ie needs to be in almost the same orbitial pattern aswell as tempture and most importantly nearly the same mass. If there is to much mass or to little we will either be extremely heavy or floating around.....Besides it would need a stable core and not to much volcanic activity....

[Raging Deadstar]

Colonel said:
Besides it would need a stable core and not to much volcanic activity....


I don't know...Nothing Creates Survival of the Fitest like frequent Volcanic Activity http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Some will call this unethical, Some will call this genetic cleansing. I personally call it "Don't live near a smegging Volcano!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Timstone]

Raging Deadstar said:
I personally call it "Don't live near a smegging Volcano!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif



No, never live next a vulcano, your icecream will melt much too fast. And that would be a waste.

[capnq]

My theory is that we're sort of a wilderness preserve. Pre-starflight technological civilizations are so rare that they're set aside for their scientists to study.

[Will]

Colonel said:
You related to SEIV so I give sort of an answer... In order for us to establish a colony the planet has to be nearly the same as ours.... ie needs to be in almost the same orbitial pattern aswell as tempture and most importantly nearly the same mass. If there is to much mass or to little we will either be extremely heavy or floating around.....Besides it would need a stable core and not to much volcanic activity....


No, the real reason is because the year isn't 2400 yet.

[TerranC]

The real reason is because the Raelians haven't finished building their compound yet.

[Atrocities]

Why Aliens Do Not Come Here:

1. Because we make movies about them always being evil.
2. Because they know we will kill them and steal their technology
3. Becasue we engineered pond scum
4. Because we are the aliens to the aliens
5. There are no aliens

[Kamog]

Aliens are already here. Some of them are living in the secret base in Area 51. Others are disguised as humans and living among us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif

[Renegade 13]

My theory: Aliens would have to be stupid to contact us. We're far too moronic as a whole to be worthy of contacting another race. Likely we'd be stupid and try to wipe them out.

[Karibu]

Renegade is correct. Weaker always resent stronger and try to find ways to overcome them (when speaking of humans). We would simply be afraid of them -> Fear leads to suspicion -> Suspicion to mistrust -> Conflicts -> Terror/pity war, etc. disastrous happening. Also, every time in human history when more advanced culture has been in contact with less advanced one (or with less ability to defend oneself) has proven disastrous to less advanced one. If I would be alien, I would propably do like Kevin Spacey in K-PAX (nice film) and use earth as "Natural park" where you can go to see how primitives are living (no offence, Primitive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif ).

[Randallw]

Renegade 13 said:
My theory: Aliens would have to be stupid to contact us. We're far too moronic as a whole to be worthy of contacting another race. Likely we'd be stupid and try to wipe them out.



As someone who on a number of occasions has explained my attitude towards aliens (to clarify I am a Xenophobe, with an emphasis on Xeno meaning space aliens) I won't take your comment to heart http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. I agree however that making a snap judgement is dangerous, better to wait a few hundred years till our technology is superior then exterminate them.

[Gandalf Parker]

No no. Most of the evil alien movies were prior to Rockwell. Since then the government has been secretly funding shows and movies which
A) show friendly aliens
or
B) aliens which are protecting us from aliens
or
C) show secret government organizations which have been in contact with aliens and having good results
or
D) show the wonders which we can achieve if we allow aliens to help us into space travel

This is all a long term plan to move us from the reaction we would have had back then, to one of "oh it really has been that way. Oh well."
I better post this now, I hear helicopters.

[Renegade 13]

Randallw said:

Renegade 13 said:
My theory: Aliens would have to be stupid to contact us. We're far too moronic as a whole to be worthy of contacting another race. Likely we'd be stupid and try to wipe them out.



As someone who on a number of occasions has explained my attitude towards aliens (to clarify I am a Xenophobe, with an emphasis on Xeno meaning space aliens) I won't take your comment to heart http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. I agree however that making a snap judgement is dangerous, better to wait a few hundred years till our technology is superior then exterminate them.


Lol, no offense was intended http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I wasn't really referring to people who genuinely think aliens were meant to be wiped out (xenophobes), I was mostly referring to the people who, through ignorance not rational thought, freaked out and went on a killing spree. But seriously, think of how people deal with people of other races than their own. Genocide. Would we, as a whole, do any different if an entirely separate species came into contact with us?? I think not.

[Raging Deadstar]

Karibu said:
... do like Kevin Spacey in K-PAX (nice film) and use earth as "Natural park" where you can go to see how primitives are living (no offence, Primitive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif ).



Thumbs up to Karibu http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif K-Pax is an Incredible film!

Also, I believe that if a lesser advanced culture comes into contact with a more advanced one, the advanced one gets contaminated by the lesser one's primitiveness http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Thats why aliens keep clear from us http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

[Azselendor]

I figure aliens don't come here because they are cubs fans.

[Thermodyne]

Why would aliens bother to contact us? The cost would be huge and the returns few. IMHO we would be nothing more than an academic exorcize for them. They would study us without contact. Contact would ruin their results. As for us finding earth like planets and colonizing space, that’s not likely either. If they were afraid of us, then they could just drop a big rock on us, end of story. But, if they wanted this world for their own use, then they just need to wait a few more decades and they can just occupy it when we exhaust the resources. But probably they will just study us as it is unlikely that they could live here without reengineering themselves. We can barely deal with small changes in the life that exists on this world. Influenza being an example. What would happen if we set foot on a planet that had a whole biosphere that was unknown to our immune systems? And as to mining and manufacturing, who would be able to afford the products and resources. We can’t make use of many of the resources that we have now because of the recovery and transportation costs. And unless two things happen very soon, we are probably at our high water mark for this society. We need a new source of energy and a reduction in population growth. And we need both very soon.

World demand for oil is greater than production today, and demand will continue to outpace supply for the foreseeable future. There is probably one more big production kick left in world reserves, but at current use levels we will burn through that in less than 50 years. Now I can hear many of you thinking that new technology will take care of this. But this has yet to be the case. The only thing that is ready to go now is nuclear power generation. And we all know the pros and cons of this, so I will skip the discussion. Fusion, hydrogen, and natural sources such as wind and water current all will need a technical breakthrough to be feasible. The only promising new technology at this time is magnetic flux, which is in its infancy. We will need a new source of cheap energy to continue or current rate of development. You can add to that the need for it to be clean energy.

The second problem is the success we have had as a species. If population growth continues at the current rate, we will soon be little more than locusts. We will strip the planet bare. Our current system for feeding the masses relies on cheap energy. Take away the cheap food and people would be starving now. Add this to the effect we are having on the environment and the problem just gets worse. The results of this are already being seen across the world. Although very few people are will to publicly address this issue.

We have already seeing the first conflicts for control of energy reserves. The deal just inked between Iran and China almost guarantees that Japan will have to secure reserves else ware. And to add to their problems, I doubt that Alaskan oil will continue to be shipped to Asia much beyond the end of the current contracts. At $50 dollars a barrel it becomes economical to ship it to the lower 48. This will rekindle the competition for the oil known to be in the South China Sea. And, if Saudi reserves prove to be vapor, as it is beginning to appear, then the problem arrives much sooner.

As a society, we are probably a real good case study. And if there are advanced beings out there, they would probably spend some resources to document our rise and fall. A society that fell victim to our own biological success. In a way, it would be like us studying the fall of the Roman Empire, or contemplating the demise that ended the great societies that once thrived in SE Asia and Africa. Now perhaps the aliens could announce themselves and offer us the technology to produce cheap renewable energy. Give us access to the stars. But I doubt it. I fail to see how that could be in their best interests. At our current level of evolution, I can imagine what we would end up doing with such technology. And perhaps it is not just an issue of evolution. Perhaps it is our very success as a species that would prevent them from doing so. Should we be able to adapt to living on alien worlds, how long would it take us to out grow our welcome? A long time by our measure, but perhaps only a blink of an eye to the way a superior society viewed time.

[TurinTurambar]

Will said:

No, the real reason is because the year isn't 2400 yet.




LMAO


Gandalf Parker said:
I better post this now, I hear helicopters.



LMMFAO

[Captain Kwok]

My reply to the topic is that it is really, really, far. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Thermo, you forget to mention biomass, which is a good renewable alternative to consider to displace the use of fossil fuels.

[Atrocities]

I know why aliens will not visit us... They were given poor directions and ended up on the otherside of the galaxy. They are now out of gas and stranded. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Raging Deadstar]

Atrocities said:
I know why aliens will not visit us... They were given poor directions and ended up on the otherside of the galaxy. They are now out of gas and stranded. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif



Aliens with Interstellar Travel but run out of gas for travelling in the Wrong Direction? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Oh God, i can see it now.

Three Eyed Aliens from the Alabama quadrent!
Disclaimer: No Offence Intended to those from Alabama, or Three eyed people http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Rasorow]

capnq said:
My theory is that we're sort of a wilderness preserve. Pre-starflight technological civilizations are so rare that they're set aside for their scientists to study.



I would die laughing if this turned out to be the case.

Rasorow

[dmm]

Arkcon said:
...if there was another rock oxygen planet here, how close would we be to establishing a colony? We don't have near the technology now, but if we had the incentive, would we be closer, or be there already?


Interesting question. Some thoughts:
1) You assume that it is possible to have two stable Earthlike planets around one star. May not be true.
2) Is there life on that other planet? The dominant opinion nowadays seems to be that liveable planets will automatically have life. This is by inference from Earth, where life exists in every ecological niche that is conceivably liveable (as well as in many niches that we thought were not liveable). However, the data from Earth may be unrepresentative.
3) Is it possible for a planet to be livable (for humans) without an already-existing biosphere? I would guess "no."
4) If there is a biosphere on that planet, would it be right for us to go there at all, much less colonize it? Would orgs like the Sierra Club put up a huge fight to prevent it? My guess is that, regardless of morality or scientific ideals, there is no way in the world that you could keep nations from setting up research colonies at least and that these would gradually become intrusive. Example is Antarctica.
5) If there is a biosphere on that planet, would it be compatible with us? It could be amazingly similar, yet the amino acids and sugars might all have the wrong chirality. (Hmmm...none of it would be digestible. Earth Lite?)
6) What about the problem of non-indigenous organisms being accidentally transferred? And you thought zebra mussels and kudzu were bad!
7) I think we have the technology now, and I think we'd colonize it. Absolutely.
8) Someone should invent a computer game where our solar system captures a liveable planet (or two). Like "Alpha Centauri," but the home planet is still very much part of the game. (Anyone know if AC can be modded to do that?) Actually, "Conquest of the New World" was somewhat like that, except that of course it was historical not sci-fi.

[geoschmo]

If there was a planet that could support human life in our system we could colonize it. If nothing there was edible, at least we'd be able to transplant our own flora there. If it would support human life I can't think of any reason it wouldn't support other earth species. So you might be talking about a period of terraforming, but it would probably only be a few years before a small colony there could be self-sufficent. Perhaps only a single growing season.

[Starhawk]

Heh are you freakin kidding if we had a rock oxygen world in this system aside from Earth Morality would go right out the window when people realize the raw materials you can get from a whole new untouched world.

Mining Companies would probobly send up teams immedietly

Some "religious nuts" might see it as a new Eden or something and go there to get away from the rest of humanity.

Scientists would surely go (probobly first)

The military would DEFINATELY GO as a whole new world may not be given up without a fight by some countries (I can think of a few that would probobly start a war over it but I won't list them)

And not to mention countries like China and India who's populations double every fifty years (You'd think they never heard of birth control) would probobly be the first to send up people in their thousands (or even millions) as they are desperate for any real estate they can get their hands on.

[Timstone]

Starhawk:
China actualy has a birthcontrol law act.
You are not allowed to have more than two children. If you are a single mother/father you are not allowed to have more than one child.

Warmonger countries; yeah you're probabely right about the war thingie. Some countries never learn to peacefully coexist.
To wander a little bit, I don't think global peace will never come. We might have a slight change at worldpeace when all religions would be banished. But that isn't a viable option.

[Alneyan]

China had a fertility rate of about 1.8 child per woman in 2000; not enough to double population every fifty years, especially as this number is decreasing. The United States actually have a slightly higher fertility rate (2 children per woman or so), in the upper average of developed countries.

India has been trying to reduce its population growth as well (a bit less than 3 children per woman Last time I heard), but setting up birth control is easier said than done (mainly in rural communities). If you want countries where population is increasing by twofold every thirty or forty years, you should see the figures for poor African countries instead, and definitively not China.

Edit: At Last, I found the compared growth rates for China and the United States. The US is expected to have a growth rate of about 0.9% this year, while China is expected to be around 0.5%/0.6% (it was at about 0.9% in 2001, and slightly above 1% the Last decade).

[Fyron]

dmm said:

Arkcon said:
...if there was another rock oxygen planet here, how close would we be to establishing a colony? We don't have near the technology now, but if we had the incentive, would we be closer, or be there already?



8) Someone should invent a computer game where our solar system captures a liveable planet (or two). Like "Alpha Centauri," but the home planet is still very much part of the game. (Anyone know if AC can be modded to do that?) Actually, "Conquest of the New World" was somewhat like that, except that of course it was historical not sci-fi.

Civilization II Test of Time does that. It can have up to 4 maps in one game. There is an "extended original game" mode, where once you build a spaceship, you get to land on and colonize Alpha Centauri, all while maintaining your nation on Earth. There can even be an alien race living there, which would have grown without any competition (or interaction) with other civilizations until you get there.

There is a "science fiction" mode of play where two species sent colony ships that crash landed on a planet, humans and some aliens (I forget their name). You can eventually send units up to orbital platforms over this world that were constructed by a long extinct race. Later, you can send units to a Mars-like planet. Lastly, you can send units to a gas giant that has platforms of solid hydrogen, also constructed by that long extinct aliean race.

Finally, there is a "fantasy" mode of play, where the 4 maps represent the surface layer of the world, a subterranean layer of caves, the sea floor, and a cloud layer. You can play as elves, humans, hawkmen, merfolk, goblins, etc.

Incidentally, this is part of why Civilization III sucks so much... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Timstone said:
Starhawk:
China actualy has a birthcontrol law act.
You are not allowed to have more than two children. If you are a single mother/father you are not allowed to have more than one child.

Warmonger countries; yeah you're probabely right about the war thingie. Some countries never learn to peacefully coexist.
To wander a little bit, I don't think global peace will never come. We might have a slight change at worldpeace when all religions would be banished. But that isn't a viable option.


Apparently, I have to repeat myself. 1: Stalin and Hitler were atheists. I'm judging by their actions. 2: The enslavement of black people was supported by the scientific establishment of the time, which deemed them evolutionary throwbacks. 3: People tend to support whatever theory allows them to feel good about their already existing prejudices. 4: Religeon was the motivating factor behind the establishment of the first country to try for the goal of equality for all it's people, however blinded they were by their prejudices. 'One nation under God'.

I get really annoyed when people propose simplistic solutions to complex problems.

[Starhawk]

I'm sorry religion is not actually the main cause of war so that's not even worth mentioning, as mentioned MANY times most of the "real" Modern wars (I mean ones involving whole countries and not just individual tribes fighting one another which Last i heard falls under the catagory of "Conflicts other then war)have been caused over the desire for Raw materials, land and other resources.
Banishing all religion would NOT bring peace at all, especially since nation's that have "Banned" religion have simply taken up humanistic "divinity" as their new dogma, or used the ban on religion as an excuse for promoting their own dogma.
Basically religion as the cause of all war is just an excuse atheists use to make those with religious belief look bad. (aside from the 7day war I mean point out a war now a days caused by religious beliefs? (seriously if there is a war I don't know about point it out I'm willing to listen)

A unified world government would probobly require the unification of the super powers first (AKA China and the US would have to ally) and then most likely a big nasty war to get rid of those irritating nationalist Groups that would no doubt pop up when you tried to take over their country either by economic or military preasure. Ah hell I'm going to start a thread on this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif read that to see the rest of this hehe.

Oh and I probobly misunderstood the whole Chinese population growth thing I know that at one point in history their population doubled every fifty years.

[Fyron]

Starhawk said:
Oh and I probobly misunderstood the whole Chinese population growth thing I know that at one point in history their population doubled every fifty years.

Same with everywhere else in the world, especially as various agricultural and industrial revolutions occured...

[Starhawk]

Yeah but China has a HUGE population so them doubling is scary.

[Alneyan]

If you were speaking of the Last fifty years, your statement was indeed correct. China had fewer than 600 million inhabitants in the 1953 census (how reliable this census was is another matter), but more than 1,250 million inhabitants in 2000 (the figure is now estimated to be slightly under 1,3000 million), which would be a twofold increase in roughly fifty years. During this period, China had a growth rate around 2% per year, and the number of children per woman was much higher, especially before 1975.

My point was that China's population growth is decreasing nowadays, making a twofold increase in fifty years no longer possible (with the current trends that is). How quickly will their growth slow down is another question; the estimated value for 2004 is 0.57%, which seems quite low compared to the 1% of the previous years (or 0.9% in 2001). But predicting the future is not something I will try. I have read about estimates going from 1,400 million inhabitants to 1,600 before their population growth stops (once again with the present tendencies).

[Starhawk]

Yeah but I've also run across articles and the like that say by 2057 Africa's population will be less then 100 million due to AIDS and other stuff, I don't know how some "scientists" come up with such projections but it just doesn't sound right an entire Continent reduced to 100 million people.

Anyone got any real info on the Africa thing because as I said many times before i love learning the "facts" of things I've read about so if you'd like you can PM me with the info http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Alneyan]

I would believe AIDS to be particularly devastating because it is easily transmitted to offsprings, which will carry the virus themselves, and so on. That is closer to biology though, and not exactly my field of study, so I should keep quiet here.

Add to that the usual problems (wars, corruption, not so nice leaders, malnutrition, shortage of water...), and you could reach a very bleak projection. Of course, it would not be possible to know whether these problems will be so worse as to destroy Africa's population, or if the very high number of children per woman will be enough, or... The growth rate was still positive Last year (2.3%), and you would probably need dramatic events in the future to bring the 840 million inhabitants of Africa down to 100 millions in fifty years (not the kind of things I would like to see myself).

[Sivran]

Palestinians and Israelis fight over "holy land" among other things.

Islamic fundamentlist extremists (note the extremist qualifier) fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in malls, cars, and anywhere else they can cause a lot of pain.

And that's just off the top of my head without going very far back. You can't simply ignore the violence done by those claiming to be "doing god's work".

Religion, money/trade, resources, and survival. These are all primary causes for war. Any war can be put into one or more of these four boxes.

[brianeyci]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Apparently, I have to repeat myself. 1: Stalin and Hitler were atheists.



No. Fundamentalist propaganda. Not sure about Stalin, but here's Hitler, http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/Hitler.shtml

Its a good site too, should be required reading lol.

Brian

[Starhawk]

Sivran said:
Palestinians and Israelis fight over "holy land" among other things.

Islamic fundamentlist extremists (note the extremist qualifier) fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in malls, cars, and anywhere else they can cause a lot of pain.

And that's just off the top of my head without going very far back. You can't simply ignore the violence done by those claiming to be "doing god's work".

Religion, money/trade, resources, and survival. These are all primary causes for war. Any war can be put into one or more of these four boxes.



Oh yeah and we all know atheistic governments have proven themselves totally worthwhile and innocent (gag)

Stalin=Atheist (his only "spiritual" beleif was that humanity in and of it's self was some sort of divinity unless of course they were peasents who died in their millions for him)
Hitler=Occultist (the occult is not a religion)
Chinese Leaders=Atheist (China Banned religion and the state line is Atheism)
PRK Leaders= Atheist (Same deal as China)

Yeah and we all know just how caring and loving these people are don't we?

It is a foolish and ignorant thing to blame the problems of the world on religion, trust me if there was no religion I'd still hate you for some reason if I wanted to. :p

[Fyron]

Religion has no place in government. Period. Religion in government will _always_ lead to unfair treatment of those that are not of that religion, and favoritism for those that are of that religion. It is why the US was supposed to have a complete and total separation of church and state...

See the link that Brianeyci posted. Hitler was a Catholic, not an occultist...

Religion is not required for morality. Assuming that it is just plain wrong. Atheism is not immoral. Atheists are not immoral. Religious people are not moral. Some people are both religious and moral, certainly, but there are plenty that are religious and immoral. There really is no correlation between morality and piety.

[Starhawk]

Your right about the fact that government and religion have no place together.

Uhm okay then how come every history show I've ever seen and book I've ever read said he was deep into the occult? And how come he Banned religion then? you can't be a catholic in a state where religion is Banned.

Yes but religion is not the cause of all the world's wars and crap.

[Fyron]

Hitler did not ban religion... Pure revisionism. Read the link that Brianeyci posted.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/Hitler.shtml


Yes but religion is not the cause of all the world's wars and crap.

Nobody said that. It is one of the common causes, not the sole cause, or always a cause.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Direct qoute from that site.


When confronted by the fact that Hitler's example hardly helps in their slander campaign against atheists,
[/qoute]
I am not trying to slander atheists, I'm trying to stop people from slandering religeons. Nice 'interpretation' of the motives of >EVERY< religeos person who argues against you
some anti-atheists suddenly switch gears to Marxism and point out that Marxism is atheistic, in an obvious attempt to tie atheism to past and present human rights abuses in Russia and China. However, that is a logical fallacy: the fact that all Marxists are atheists does not mean that all atheists must therefore be Marxists (if you don't understand why that's a fallacy, go back to school). It's also an unnecessary slander against Marxists. Ok, I've read this three times and I don't have a clue what he's saying. Of course all atheists are not marxists. And I doubt everybody who says the're a marxist is an athiest, either. What's the guys point? [qoute]
While I find Marx's communist ideas to be very seriously flawed, I must note that he never would have approved of the violent regimes of Stalin or Mao. Atheism is merely the refusal to believe in a God for whom no scientific evidence exists. It does not necessarily lead to Stalinism, or decadence, or the breakdown of family values, or any of these other ridiculous charges that are routinely levied at it.


Religeon is merely a system of belief in some sort of higher power, because of personal choice and sometimes personal evidence, even if there is no demonstratable, scientific evidence. It does not necessarily lead to totoleranism, or mass-murder, or the breakdown of rationality, or any of these other ridiculous charges that are routinely levied at it.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Imperator Fyron said:
Hitler did not ban religion... Pure revisionism. Read the link that Brianeyci posted.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/Hitler.shtml


Yes but religion is not the cause of all the world's wars and crap.

Nobody said that. It is one of the common causes, not the sole cause, or always a cause.


Blanket solutions annoy and alarm me. I apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings.

[Starhawk]

Imperator Fyron said:
Hitler did not ban religion... Pure revisionism. Read the link that Brianeyci posted.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/Hitler.shtml


Yes but religion is not the cause of all the world's wars and crap.

Nobody said that. It is one of the common causes, not the sole cause, or always a cause.



Ahem a problem I spotted right off is that the "school children" of 1930s germany couldn't have grown up to be the SS of WWII as most would have been younger then 18.
Oh and the fact that there were actually TWO branches of

"The term "Waffen SS" did not come into use until after the beginning of the war. Up to that time there were two branches of the SS composed of full-time, professional, well- trained soldiers: the so-called SS Verfuegungstruppe, translatable perhaps as "SS Emergency Troops"; and the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, the "Death Head Units." After the beginning of the war, the units of the SS Verfuegungstruppe were brought up to division strength, and new divisions were added to them. Moreover, parts of the SS Death Head Units were formed into a division, the SS Totenkopf Division. All these divisions then came to be known collectively as the "Waffen SS". "

Many of which were drafted from nations other then Germany, a great many of the others were prisoners or "idealists" who liked the handsom SS uniforms that made young girls swoon instead of the normal German army grunts.


As to Hitler and religion look here:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=Cache:v5Rb7oIFGxwJ:constitutionalistnc.tr ipod.com/hitler-leftist/id13.html+%27The+religion+of+the+Nazi+party"&hl=en (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=Cache:v5Rb7oIFGxwJ:constitutionalistnc.tr ipod.com/hitler-leftist/id13.html+%27The+religion+of+the+Nazi+party)
as well as some other interesting stuff.

Your link sounds like it is desperately trying to turn about the common belief that Hitler and the Nazi's were occultist in their views to make people beleive that it was Religion's fault so I don't much take that one guy's article over so many history books and shows I've watched and read.

[brianeyci]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Religeon is merely a system of belief in some sort of higher power, because of personal choice and sometimes personal evidence, even if there is no demonstratable, scientific evidence. It does not necessarily lead to totoleranism, or mass-murder, or the breakdown of rationality, or any of these other ridiculous charges that are routinely levied at it.



That's what I thought too until I read this (also from the guy that made that website, I'm sure he won't mind if I quote him),


Theological monotheistic religion, based on the recorded revelations of long-dead "prophets", is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind. It has a natural tendency toward intolerance (someone who believes in a different god must, by definition, by denying the truth of my monotheism, so there is a conflict that would not exist if I was polytheistic), and it resists progress in all its forms by making ancient writings the ultimate and immutable authority.

In essence, scriptural religions are plagued not only with human flaws, but the human flaws of primitive humans from thousands of years ago.



The message is from http://bbs2.stardestroyer.net/Archive/viewtopic.php?t=56315&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=50 . If you want to debate him on that point, go there, I'm not him. But after reading his stuff I do agree with a lot of what he says, and his forum is an incredibly intelligent and eye-opening community.

<edit> It should be noted that his forum isn't a kiddie forum. What I mean by that is that if you are a moron (as I was and still consider myself am, although I'm trying my best to beef up), you'll be quickly exposed and mocked per the forum's policy. That's what I mean by eye-opening -- I needed an eye-opener or I would have been a moron my whole life. Swearing, and even porn links. But as he said (I'm paraphrasing here), better to sacrifice civility than promote stupidity. </edit>

Brian

[Renegade 13]

I'm not exactly sure how this conversation on why aliens don't come here devolved into one about religion....

To bring it a little bit more on topic, I'll just say that pointless debates such as these are the reason why aliens don't contact us. Why the hell would they want to talk to a people who are so fragmented, and so vehement in their beliefs, and unwilling to change their opinion unless directly confronted with massive proof that contradicts what they believe?? Hmmmm, yes, very difficult indeed to understand why aliens don't want to come here....we probably have a big note attached to the file of humanity in some alien's database: "Caution: Do not approach. Dangerous animals."

[Starhawk]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theological monotheistic religion, based on the recorded revelations of long-dead "prophets", is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind. It has a natural tendency toward intolerance (someone who believes in a different god must, by definition, by denying the truth of my monotheism, so there is a conflict that would not exist if I was polytheistic), and it resists progress in all its forms by making ancient writings the ultimate and immutable authority.

In essence, scriptural religions are plagued not only with human flaws, but the human flaws of primitive humans from thousands of years ago.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah he's a non-biased source of historical information (rolleyes) folks like him scare off aliens no doubt I mean what if the aliens are creationists? this jackass would make them sick no doubt.

Anyway I just think if there are aliens they really don't give a crap about us as a culture because we can't even prove they are there I think once we can prove they are there and pretty much smack em upside their grey heads they'll start talking but until then we just aren't that interesting.

[brianeyci]

Starhawk said:Oh yeah he's a non-biased source of historical information (rolleyes) folks like him scare off aliens no doubt I mean what if the aliens are creationists? this jackass would make them sick no doubt.



Well no. I was not quoting him to talk about aliens, but about religion in general. And better a "jackass" and offend some people than to hide behind a shield of civility I think. Anyway back on topic, I don't know how this thread turned into religion either.

My two cents on the aliens thing is one word -- Why? Why would aliens want to contact us? That's the most basic question, and every answer I can think of revolves around "they find us interesting" which is an incredibly self-centered and egocentric justification. Since I can't even answer the Why question, I don't think I can carry on the discussion further.

Brian

[Fyron]

Ahem a problem I spotted right off is that the "school children" of 1930s germany couldn't have grown up to be the SS of WWII as most would have been younger then 18.

That is not a problem in any way. Many people that were school children of the 1930s were of proper age to become members of the SS during the war. That is an entire decade there... 17 year olds in school are certainly "school children."


As to Hitler and religion look here:
(link removed because UBB makes crappy scripts that completely butchered it)
as well as some other interesting stuff.

That site is too filled with political hogwash and personal attack to be of much academic merit...


Your link sounds like it is desperately trying to turn about the common belief that Hitler and the Nazi's were occultist in their views to make people beleive that it was Religion's fault so I don't much take that one guy's article over so many history books and shows I've watched and read.

No, it does not attempt to make it seem like it was "Religion's fault." It merely debunks the myth that Hitler was an atheist, and that he was not Christian (Catholic to be more precise).

What do you mean by "occultists," exactly? Do you mean, mixing in a bit of Norse mythology to help instill national pride? That is not "occultist" by any means. Unless, of course, you are a Christian Fundamentalist... but that is an entirely different can of worms...


narf poit chez BOOM said:
Direct qoute from that site.

When confronted by the fact that Hitler's example hardly helps in their slander campaign against atheists,


I am not trying to slander atheists, I'm trying to stop people from slandering religeons. Nice 'interpretation' of the motives of >EVERY< religeos person who argues against you [/qoute]Nice way to take it out of context. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif He was writing about those slandering atheism, not about you trying to stop slander against religions.



some anti-atheists suddenly switch gears to Marxism and point out that Marxism is atheistic, in an obvious attempt to tie atheism to past and present human rights abuses in Russia and China. However, that is a logical fallacy: the fact that all Marxists are atheists does not mean that all atheists must therefore be Marxists (if you don't understand why that's a fallacy, go back to school). It's also an unnecessary slander against Marxists. [/qoute] Ok, I've read this three times and I don't have a clue what he's saying. Of course all atheists are not marxists. And I doubt everybody who says the're a marxist is an athiest, either. What's the guys point?

Think McCarthyism. Marx espoused atheism. Nations like the Soviet Union and the "Communist" China claimed to be Marxist and committed countless atrocities. Therefore, they must have commited them because they are Godless atheists. Thus, Godless atheists are evil. This is the sort of thinking he was writing against.

[qoute][qoute]While I find Marx's communist ideas to be very seriously flawed, I must note that he never would have approved of the violent regimes of Stalin or Mao. Atheism is merely the refusal to believe in a God for whom no scientific evidence exists. It does not necessarily lead to Stalinism, or decadence, or the breakdown of family values, or any of these other ridiculous charges that are routinely levied at it.

Religeon is merely a system of belief in some sort of higher power, because of personal choice and sometimes personal evidence, even if there is no demonstratable, scientific evidence. It does not necessarily lead to totoleranism, or mass-murder, or the breakdown of rationality, or any of these other ridiculous charges that are routinely levied at it.

I think you misconstrue postings about the atrocities committed in the name of religions, ordained directly by them (Christianity is one of the worst offenders, primarily Catholicism), as some sort of statement that religion is only about such things...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I am a better person because of my religeon than I would be without it. No other institution, save that of my family, I have ever encountered, could have taught me morality so successfully.

[brianeyci]

Unfortunately I have to admit it, but watching reruns of TNG after coming home from school at 4:00 pm (yes, I rushed home to watch it) is what I attribute to some of my morality. Especially the "Prime Directive" and live and let live philosophy, although now that I'm older I see Star Trek as a totally unworkable dream fantasy and the possibility a "Prime Directive" mentality being used as justification of withholding help from needy people.

Brian

[Fyron]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
I am a better person because of my religeon than I would be without it. No other institution, save that of my family, I have ever encountered, could have taught me morality so successfully.

Your family could easily have taught you morality in the absence of religion. It happens all the time. Religion is in no way required for morality.

[Fyron]

brianeyci said:
Unfortunately I have to admit it, but watching reruns of TNG after coming home from school at 4:00 pm (yes, I rushed home to watch it) is what I attribute to some of my morality. Especially the "Prime Directive" and live and let live philosophy, although now that I'm older I see Star Trek as a totally unworkable dream fantasy and the possibility a "Prime Directive" mentality being used as justification of withholding help from needy people.

There were a number of episodes where it was indeed used to withhold help from needy people, just because it would interfere with their development.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Nothing wrong with that. One of our LDS (The other short form, not LSD) beliefs is 'if there is anything virtious, lovely or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.' As I remember it. My memory might not be exact, but the meaning is clear.

[brianeyci]

Imperator Fyron said:There were a number of episodes where it was indeed used to withhold help from needy people, just because it would interfere with their development.



Yes well Picard always gave a long-winded philosophical speech about withholding help, and me being 10-14 or so I bought into a lot of them, until I was older and realized that his philosophical justification was really a practical justification. The Feds can't help everybody around, because they need to keep control of their technology and wouldn't have the resources to help every downtrodden alien race that comes along.

Brian

[Starhawk]

[/quote]Your family could easily have taught you morality in the absence of religion. It happens all the time. Religion is in no way required for morality.

[/quote]

Well Imperator as I said you are free to hold to your own beliefs in this country, and I suppose to understand what a Christian (I am talking about a good normal person that happens to be a christian, not including the far right or far left Groups in this term) means when they say that they are better because of their religious beleifs then they would be without them you'd have to feel it for yourself.

It truely is different to have faith then simple morality.

As a friend of mine often said
"Faith does not equal morality and morality does not equal faith, one can exist with out the other, but when they become one it is a far better thing."

It is true I can have faith in God but be immoral I can also have faith in only myself but be a very "moral" person, Religion and morality are not by default in the same boat and each can exist without the other but it's always better to have Faith in God AND be moral then just to be Moral in my opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Starhawk]

LOL I always saw the Federation as a weak organization, I mean the Klingons and Romulans BOTH being warlike expansionistic empires should be able to easily kick the crap out of such a weak and gutless group.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Imperator Fyron said:

narf poit chez BOOM said:
I am a better person because of my religeon than I would be without it. No other institution, save that of my family, I have ever encountered, could have taught me morality so successfully.

Your family could easily have taught you morality in the absence of religion. It happens all the time. Religion is in no way required for morality.


True, and my religeon would have had a hard time teaching me morality if my family didn't. But the two of them together taught me morality more effectively than either apart. To not leave out other influences, fiction books I read also taught me morality. I am always annoyed when someone says 'But the're just fiction. How could they be usefull?'

And I would also be annoyed if someone advocated banning atheism.

[brianeyci]

Starhawk said:It is true I can have faith in God but be immoral I can also have faith in only myself but be a very "moral" person, Religion and morality are not by default in the same boat and each can exist without the other but it's always better to have Faith in God AND be moral then just to be Moral in my opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Sorry, but your opinion is offensive and wrong. By suggesting that it is better to have "faith" and morality than simple morality, you are almost suggesting that your morality is superior to someone else's morality who doesn't have "faith". Define what you mean to "have faith" and define what you mean to be "moral".

If you choose "having faith" to be something really ambigious, like being optimistic and thinking there is a creator out there, it is different than saying "having faith" and intepreting the words in the Bible.

At risk of sounding offensive to you, "in my opinion", faith is something that a person needs to think that they have a purpose in life/are superior to those without faith, including other types of lifeforms. In other words, "faith" is burying your head in the sand "in my opinion" (see how offensive that sounds lol).

Brian

[Fyron]

Starhawk said:
It is true I can have faith in God but be immoral I can also have faith in only myself but be a very "moral" person, Religion and morality are not by default in the same boat and each can exist without the other but it's always better to have Faith in God AND be moral then just to be Moral in my opinion http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I will have to respectfully disagree with entire thesis. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I will also avoid opening a can of worms just before I go to bed and not post the rest of what I was going to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

brianeyci said:
At risk of sounding offensive to you, "in my opinion", faith is something that a person needs to think that they have a purpose in life/are superior to those without faith, including other types of lifeforms. In other words, "faith" is burying your head in the sand "in my opinion" (see how offensive that sounds lol).

Brian


Plenty of people do both without faith.

Could we quit trying to offend each other now?

[Timstone]

I side with Imperator and Braineyci. I too think that religion (any religion) is not something we absolutely need to become better people.
And as I stated in my first message here I said the that banishing all religion is not a viable option. Like Starhawk said, the problem is too complex for that. Yes, I said "the problem" and I meant religion and the difficulties that go with it.
Religion is not always the believe in a higher power, it can also be a strong believe in a certain way of live (Hindoeism), confidence in a leader of a country (Thailand) or an absolute dedication to the realisation of something (the progress of technology). Core of this is my definition of religion. I define religion as a very strong believe in something, for examples see the text above.

Too many kill in the name of some god or deity. The only way to eradicate acts like this is to banish all the beliefs. Unfortunately that isn't an option. So maybe it's possible to do as the Roman did; absorp all religions and adpat them slightly to accomodate everyone. Then the only problem you have is tolerance or extremism (depending how you want to translate it). So then you must find a way to let those "people" change their mind.

Oh, and a bit late, but countries like China do have a religion. They officially have no religion, but every Chinese has it's own gods (depending on where they live in China). And don't forget the religion that glorify the head of the state.

Everyone:
Please don't use the word "offensive" or "be offended" by anything that is said in this intersting thread. The name of this thread is crystalclear and you can expect to find alternate believs in this thread. So don't enter this discussion if you are easily offended by other beliefs.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I have yet to be offended; I have been angry, annoyed, peeved, confused and worried, but I'm not offended. I was simply worried about the possibility. As for my anger...It's a familiar problem.


The name of this thread is crystalclear and you can expect to find alternate believs in this thread.

I think you are a little tired, my friend, because this is the one about aliens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

As for the roman 'absorpsion', would that include forcing nearly everybody to worship the emporer?

I would also like to say that intollerance and discrimination are two of the foundations of civilization. First, a civilization cannot tolerate crime, and then a civilization must discriminate between the criminal and the innocent, untill the punishment is over. (Barring certain circumstances, like ex-criminals in the police force, which would certainly be difficult if one wished to permit it.)

They are certainly not bad words.

[Timstone]

Hahaha... great answers Narf!
This is one of the reasons I really love this forum. he people are inteligent, tolerant and very funny. They always make me smile on a bad day (especially Raging Deadstar, but that's another story).
I really appreciate your answers.

As for worshipping the emperor concerns. I don't know if you should give one person absolute power. I could be good, it could be bad.

But back to the aliens.
Maybe they have already visited this planet and feld it in terror. We poison ourselfs and our planet and we play very bad music on the radio. ALso most of the programs on the tube aren't worthwhile. Nah, they're long gone... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Mayday]

Timstone said:
Religion is not always the believe in a higher power, it can also be a strong believe in a certain way of live (Hindoeism), confidence in a leader of a country (Thailand) or an absolute dedication to the realisation of something (the progress of technology). Core of this is my definition of religion. I define religion as a very strong believe in something, for examples see the text above.



Religion is the belief in the divine. You describe ideology. Ideology is always present with religion but religion is not always present with ideology.

Anyway, religion is not the cause for war, it on its own is not the bad thing. The bad thing is the prejudices of humans and their greed and their willingness to use religion to justify to themselves and others that their evil actions are in the right.
Religion was often just the political tool used to leverage the masses into serving the religion's political interest. Because, in the past, people lived so harshly, they had to believe in the afterlife, as a reward for all their hard effort, as well as punishment for their crimes. In this way, the religious organisation maintained a level of peace within society while being able to turn the populace against an enemy, I mean, hey, they're the priests, they should know evil when they see it, right?
The Spanish Inquisition was an organisation whose members were good people. Good, religious people. They thought that all their torturous acts were cleansing the souls of those they 'helped' so their victims would make it into Heaven. After all, what is a period of incredible pain compared to the possibility of eternity in hell? And these fine people weren't even sure that they themselves wouldn't be punished for their acts with eternal damnation, but they put others first.
Anyway, I'd be very surprised if the whole organisation wasn't being used for political gain.

Now, back to the original topic.
Meeting aliens would lead to us developing interstellar travel far faster than any sane alien would want us to.
Facts:
We are capable of rapid expansion.
We are on the verge of making ourselves live for aeons.
We are adaptable.
We are quick to pick things up.
We are treacherous.
We do not like others being in more powerful positions than us, it engenders fear and suspicion.

Why would any sane alien want to let beings with our physical and mental abilities, and mindset, loose in the Galaxy? They wouldn't. It's best to either wait for us to change our mindset and culture, or to simply wipe ourselves out. Either way, we're a safer faction for them than we are now.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Just to make it clear who I'm responding too:

Timstone said:
Hahaha... great answers Narf!
This is one of the reasons I really love this forum. he people are inteligent, tolerant and very funny. They always make me smile on a bad day (especially Raging Deadstar, but that's another story).
I really appreciate your answers.

As for worshipping the emperor concerns. I don't know if you should give one person absolute power. I could be good, it could be bad.

But back to the aliens.
Maybe they have already visited this planet and feld it in terror. We poison ourselfs and our planet and we play very bad music on the radio. ALso most of the programs on the tube aren't worthwhile. Nah, they're long gone... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Bad.

As for aliens, if you havn't watched Men In Black, go watch it at the next available opportunity. But not MIB 2, which suffered from the problem of many sequals. It had some good points, but not enough. Just a let-down.

There are scenes in MIB that make it a classic...

[Kamog]

Yeah, I agree MIB was a lot better than MIB II. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Starhawk]

Timstone said:

Religion is not always the believe in a higher power, it can also be a strong believe in a certain way of live (Hindoeism), confidence in a leader of a country (Thailand) or an absolute dedication to the realisation of something (the progress of technology). Core of this is my definition of religion. I define religion as a very strong believe in something, for examples see the text above.


As stated already that's Ideology not religion you described
BTW Hindos (sp?) Do beleive in various Gods/Godesses and monor deitys so I don't know how you brought them into the [not believing in divinity] Category http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Too many kill in the name of some god or deity. The only way to eradicate acts like this is to banish all the beliefs. Unfortunately that isn't an option. So maybe it's possible to do as the Roman did; absorp all religions and adpat them slightly to accomodate everyone. Then the only problem you have is tolerance or extremism (depending how you want to translate it). So then you must find a way to let those "people" change their mind.



People also kill far more often in the name of:
Money
Land
Ideology (independent of religion)
Nationalism
Raw Materials
Gold
Political SNAFU
Revenge
removing a political enemy
Buisness
Spite
Desperation
Women
Men
Animals (not falling into the Category of women and men lol)
Conquest
"Self Defense" (most empires claimed self defense)
Security
Fear
Mistrust
Theft
Cars
Drugs
Toys (yeah I actually heard of a six year old who killed a girl over the fact that she broke his toy)
Fun

So you want to remove every single thing on that list before you blame religion for most of the "problems" of the world's disunity?


At risk of sounding offensive to you, "in my opinion", faith is something that a person needs to think that they have a purpose in life/are superior to those without faith, including other types of lifeforms. In other words, "faith" is burying your head in the sand "in my opinion" (see how offensive that sounds lol).



It's funny how you keep saying "no offense" while at the same time practically calling me a fool and a yuppie for beleiving in God now isn't it?

And as far as me saying "morals are better when you have faith" that shouldn't make you sound as if I'm claiming superiority as my morals may or may not be the same I simply meant for me Faith makes my morals stronger.

But many people also constantly argue about what is "moral" so that's a very difficult thing to say who is "better" or not anyway :p



Oh, and a bit late, but countries like China do have a religion. They officially have no religion, but every Chinese has it's own gods (depending on where they live in China). And don't forget the religion that glorify the head of the state.


They don't glorify the head of state as a god and as such it's not a religion, it is more an ideological indoctrination.

I assume you meant Chinese provinces? and weren't referring to the people as "it". While technically true "China" has no religion as in the PRC (People's Republic) because they have Banned all religions "officially" and will punish those they find following a religion (thus the underground churches and temples) so religious belief there is dangerous in the extreme and most don't worship openly.

A friend of mine (granted he could be a bit pushy with his religious beliefs sometimes) once asked a Chinese woman how she felt about her country banning religion to which she replied (oddly enough).
"Oh you can beleive in God, just don't tell anyone."


will have to respectfully disagree with entire thesis. I will also avoid opening a can of worms just before I go to bed and not post the rest of what I was going to.



LOL I'm honestly suprised by that Fyron considering I pretty much conceded a point to you guys http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
If you'd like me to define that better I guess I could say it like this

The "Inquisitions" and "Witch Hunters" had a lot of faith in God yet what they did was constantly immoral and wrong (Same goes for an assload of Catholic priests these days).

Now as far as the second part goes, as I said I knew a guy that would give you the shirt off his back (literally) yet he did not beleive in God and generally believed only in himself, yet he rarely even cussed lol never drinked (not saying drinking is immoral by that I mean he never got drunk off his ***) and that's something I can't say I never did hehe, never hurt anyone unless they tried to hurt him first and was generally a great person to know.
Thus he was moral without being Godly.



Everyone:
Please don't use the word "offensive" or "be offended" by anything that is said in this intersting thread. The name of this thread is crystalclear and you can expect to find alternate believs in this thread. So don't enter this discussion if you are easily offended by other beliefs.



I agree with this entirely if all your going to do is get hostile and scream "you offended me" don't read any further and you'll stop being offended http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I "personally" only felt a little insulted by some of the comments made earlier but that's only because the guy saying it was practically calling me an idiot because of my beleifs while I havn't said anything offensive against people who do not believe in God, Heck i even said I was very good friends with a "neo-pagan" (though I honestly don't know what that means as she mainly sounds ignostic to me)and a girl I'd LOVE to date is a buddist http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

NOW on to the Aliens I agree with the folks that say the aliens probobly wouldn't want us humans to go throwing ourselves out into space because of how aggressive we can be when we feel threatened, and some countries on this world (thinking of a few places in the mideas take a guess which ones lol) getting out into space and onto other worlds is a SCARY prospect.

[Fyron]

As stated already that's Ideology not religion you described

Actually no, it is religion. Go look it up in a dictionary. The word encompasses for more than the worship of gods...


They don't glorify the head of state as a god and as such it's not a religion, it is more an ideological indoctrination.

And just what is the vast majority of organized religion, hmm?

Note that a large number of religions have no "gods" to speak of.

[Sivran]

I would like to clarify, that in the face of apparent atheism-bashing and glorification of religion on the part of Starhawk I was simply trying to provide examples in which religion was the primary or sole cause of violence. I was in no way defending atheism nor was I trying to say that atheists don't commit violence.


...


Aliens haven't visited because our stargate is buried and it takes too long to get here by ship! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Starhawk]

Not glorification, defense, Religion does cause a lot of crap but it's not the "main provider" of crap in the world so to speak http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

You can't blame "religion" or "atheism" for violence in my opinion you can only blame people.

[Edit] Oh and big deal the dictionary defines Fart as letting wind fly lose from the anus, but IT'S NOT WIND IT'S GAS!.(you'd be suprised the strange stuff I looked up in the dictionary when I was 10 :p)

Anyway my point is the dictionary does describes things on a broad basis and does indeed include as part of religion as "anything you follow with zeal" yet 90% of people I talk to (not all christians as I have said many times) say that it's generally only something that beleives in a god or some form of creator.


Anyway you guys let's stop the fussin and the fuedin and agree that we all have our own seperate opinions and that that's okay (best southern accent) and get back to discussin them little green men. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

GREY! I tell you, they are GREY! AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE SHALL BE LOBOTOMIZED!

[Timstone]

*agrees with Narf and Starhawk*

I volunteer to preform the lobotomies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

[Fyron]

Starhawk said:
Not glorification, defense, Religion does cause a lot of crap but it's not the "main provider" of crap in the world so to speak http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

You are reading what you want to read... Noone said that religion was the "main provider of all crap in the world," just that it is often a major player, which it is. Generally, it is more from intolerance fostered by some religions putting themselves up as the only true religion, with all others being wrong, than the religion itself preaching death and destruction... At least, in the modern post-WWII world...


[Edit] Oh and big deal the dictionary defines Fart as letting wind fly lose from the anus, but IT'S NOT WIND IT'S GAS!.(you'd be suprised the strange stuff I looked up in the dictionary when I was 10 :p)

Actually, it is wind... Few words have one single meaning to them...


Anyway my point is the dictionary does describes things on a broad basis and does indeed include as part of religion as "anything you follow with zeal" yet 90% of people I talk to (not all christians as I have said many times) say that it's generally only something that beleives in a god or some form of creator.

That is a huge logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people think something does not make it true. In this case, it is absoultely, 100% wrong. No gods or creators of any sort are required to classify a belief system as a religion. Spiritualistic belief systems that do not have any gods, but instead have guiding animal spirits, or ancestor spirits, or other such spirits, are most certainly religions. Belief systems that solely revere and worship nature, not in the form of a god, but just nature itself, are most certainly religions. Belief systems that have no divine, but instead view that we are all part of the universe experiencing itself in different ways, are religions. Belief systems that focus solely on achieving personal spiritual enlightment as a means to leave behind the perpetual cycle of reincarnation and enter a "heaven," and have no "divine" to speak of, are religions. The list goes on. God worship is just one tiny fraction of the spectrum of systems that are qualified as religions...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Bad Fyron! Lobotomy for you! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Fyron]

The aliens are red anyways, duh.

http://shipyards.spaceempires.net/Zhentara/Zhentara_Race_Portrait.png

[Timstone]

Hahaha... LOL!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

LOBOTOMIZE FYRON!

Forward, my Mouse-Bots!

[Timstone]

Mousebots?! What about me?!

[Fyron]

/me impales and gores Narf with his horns and tusks, then eats him with his sharp teeth and gaping jaw.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

/me rips out of Fyron's stomach in an aliens-esque scene. "LOBOTOMIZE FYRON" was, of course, code for LOBOTOMIZE TIMSTONE.

[Timstone]

Oh my goodness, they killed Narf1 The bastards!

[Fyron]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
/me rips out of Fyron's stomach in an aliens-esque scene. "LOBOTOMIZE FYRON" was, of course, code for LOBOTOMIZE TIMSTONE.

So says the bloody bits and pieces that constitute the mauled Narf...

[Timstone]

Damn, Narf! Why would you want to kill me?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Injured.gif
Don't kill me, I'm indispensable... I hope.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I dunno. You said "What about me?!" so I thought you felt left out.

Anyway, their standard mad scientist robots, which means that their invulnerable to everything except ripping out the exposed wires.

Tired...ZZZZZZZZZ

[Timstone]

Sleepy, sleepy Narf. Till next time! Sweet dreams!

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Not yet. I've got some things to do.

Although I havn't started doing them yet...

[Timstone]

Oh, and you're tired already?
Then a bucket of coffee is the answer.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

It's 1:30 in the morning here.

And coffee? Yuck. Smells like sewer water.

[Timstone]

1:30 in the moring! Damn, and you're still up?! Why mouse? What needs to be finished?

[Starhawk]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
It's 1:30 in the morning here.

And coffee? Yuck. Smells like sewer water.



LOL Doesn't just smell like sewer water, tastes like it too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Now we all know that the aliens are greyish blue unless you talk the the Raelians (cuckoo cuckoo) in which case the aliens are called Elohim (he turned the singular Hebrew word meaning "God on High" into a plural describing an entire race, odd eh?)and they conveniently look just like us humans so that Rael himself can claim that those same aliens who got Mary preggers got his mama preggers....LOL AHAHAHAHA anyway I'm sorry it's just HAHAHAHAHA a greasy looking bald guy is our next jesus LOL


Anyway though, the aliens are not all gray http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif(some say the've seen blues and reds that look just like the grey cept the blue's have fins on their heasd) So are we looking at different alien races? OR one species with multiple skin colors much like us Hummies?