Yes. Everyone on this board has told you so. Then you insist it’s your own opinion. Now you’re denying you’ve ever posted your own opinion. This is typical of your posting style. You say something, when someone asks you about it, you deny it - even after someone provides a link to whatever posts in which you stated the thing in the first place. I know you’ll do the same with this post. But just know that we are all aware of your inability to back up stupid opinions of others as well as your own.
Hello little miss pot, you are fucking black. Well, not really because I would imagine you would shoot yourself. Maybe I should say the snow is calling you miss cotton to tell you that you are white.
This brings up an interesting philisophical point. When we know the boy is spoonfed and accepts every opinion he has, but yet is considered an entity with an opinion, does that opinion really belong to him once it is put into his mind by another? Technically once the Joe Rogan program, or whatever republican/libertarian source tells him what to think, he does think that way in continuous motion. In a physics sense. If you have a stationary object and you make it move with force and direction from another object, the original object does have it's own inertia and vector at that point even though the energy did come from somewhere else, and without it the original object would not have ever moved on it's own being incapable of self motivation. However, in my own example I do break the primary law of physics in assuming other objects could define their own opinions and then be set in motion with inertia and vector by their own power and not through interraction with others which is not a proven part of the example.
Okay, now why do you think that? What reason do you think that they would worship a deity, let alone one of the ones worshipped by humans? Ken Ham, who I need to point out has employed the current Speaker of the House in the past, has said this about aliens: Check the link, that's his site, not someone else's, so you can't say I'm relying on hearsay about his opinion on the matter. Additionally, Ham, who again, once hired the current Speaker of the House as legal council for The Ark Encounter, has said this on the subject of aliens. And yes, that is his site. Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound like the kind of person who'd accept aliens as our equals, even if they professed to believe in the same deity that most Christians do. If aliens do show up while Ham's alive (not something that I'd be willing to bet on) and he refuses to accept them as being our equals (both in terms of how one should treat sapient species but also being worthy of the rewards handed out by a particular deity worshipped by humans), I'm sure he'll continue to have a large number of followers. Additionally, I'm also certain that every other nutbar religious leader out there who shares his thoughts about aliens, will also continue to have a large number of followers. Regardless of what one believes about deities, I think that we can both agree this is a problem. Yes?
And there's someone who is subjected to TBE as part of their profession who is related to folks who've claimed to be abducted by aliens. None of which proves anything about the subject.
Why should I give a shit what a creationist believes? If there's only one god and that god created the universe and there are intelligent being out there, then it stands to reason that they are a result of evolution as well and therefor "God" created them as well. Then if God revealed himself/ itself to humanity and Jesus is the son of God and he's the only son of God and the bible tells us that everyone will know who Jesus is then it stands to reason that God would reveal himself to all other intelligent beings throughout the universe. We've even various episodes of Star Trek with this same basic premise. It's all the same God. So more open minded Christians like myself would be fine with the existence of aliens because A) it means that the word of God has been or will be spread throughout the universe, B) Christians love meeting like minded people, and C) it means we are not alone in the universe and while some aliens may be hostile, many will embrace us just like they do in Star Trek. The Ken Ham's of the world will truly be the ones left behind. All of that being said, this is just pure speculation. I also want to point out that people need to stop conflating fundamentalist Christians with the majority of Christianity.
Because a significant portion of American politicians cater to them. Does it? What if they, not us, were god's "Chosen People," and our existence is the product of evolution, but their's isn't? What then? Do I need to point out that this is predicated on the idea that god revealed himself to humanity? God certainly didn't see the need to reveal himself outside of a small area of the Middle East (unless you're a Mormon). Why should we expect him to do the same with the rest of the universe? Additionally, why should we think that he revealed himself to us at all? There's been any number of people who've claimed to the son of god or the Second Coming of Jesus. What if every person claiming to be the incarnation of god on Earth has been lying and that the only true incarnations of god happened on some other planet? But let's just say that Jesus was really the son of god and he also revealed himself on other planets. What reason do we have to believe that he would do it in the same manner as he did on Earth? Even if he did so on other planets the same way he did on Earth, how would we reconcile the fact that it happened in different places, at different times, with people having different names? And if evolution drives everything, how does Original Sin factor in? Which doesn't mean shit. In a fictional universe. Populated by beings that have more in common with us, than they do differences. We exist on this planet because of a combination of the environment and evolution. A species that evolves on a planet different than ours may not have the same take on a whole host of things that we do. For example, let's take Sagan's idea that there are living creatures on Jupiter. And that the floating gas bags he talked about on Cosmos are as smart as you and I. How does the Biblical story of Jesus make sense to creatures that look like this? Assuming that we can figure out some kind of universal translator to communicate with them, how do we (this includes them) figure out that their Jesus is the same as ours? It certainly isn't going to be because they were both crucified. I'm willing to bet a year's salary there ain't a fucking tree on Jupiter, assuming that there is life. Let me throw this out at you: In terms of brain size to body ratio, there's only a couple of species on Earth that have one identical to humans. Whales, dolphins/porpoises, and elephants. This means that they are almost certainly as intelligent as us. Do you think that god revealed himself to them? What do you think that their version of the Bible is like assuming they have one? Dude, folks can't even agree on which version of the Bible, let alone Christian or Judaic sect is correct, and you think that large numbers of them will agree that space Jesus and Earth Jesus are the same. Are you on dope? Predicated on the idea that there are aliens, that they have religion, and that it might resemble something like our own. Just like your ideas that aliens are visiting the Earth and "helping" us. When folks such as yourself begin screaming about the dangers of fundamentalist Christians with the same level of volume that you do things like trans people, we'll talk. Until then, your ass is getting lumped in with those assgaskets. Because it's the fundies running the GOP right now, and I don't give a shit as to what political party you belong to, that ought to scare the shit out of you. It certainly seemed to scare Barry Goldwater. And he was fucking right about that. I should point out that the current Speaker of the House is exactly the kind of person Goldwater was talking about.
Dude, you seriously need to figure out how to boil your points down to a few paragraphs and not a rapid fire of questions.
And you need to have an attention span that enables you to process something longer than what can fit on a bumper sticker (which is roughly the same amount, or fewer, than the characters that can fit in a Tweet).
What's that you always say? "When you can't attack the content, you attack the source."? Can't help but notice that your reply would easily fit in the 280 character limit of a tweet, while this one wouldn't. I'm not saying that someone has a short attention span, I'm just saying that it's funny how you complain about tweets (which are short) and a detailed response from me (which isn't short). Almost as if the length doesn't matter, it's the content that's the sand in your britches.
