LOL! Just kidding.

Super-high resolution image of Andromeda galaxy from Hubble telescope.
Science, nigga!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU&app=desktop

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."

http://image.blingee.com/images19/content/output/000/000/000/7a8/763997240_585196.gif


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

forcing myself to actually respond to you is like bathing in ebola virus. - Binlahab

Like there is stupid, and then there is you, and then there is dead. - VAsBestBBW

R.I.P. Disco D

They fail to see they attempt to possess the universe for themselves and box it. Whether or not god exists is irrelevant and cannot be proven one way or the other, and yet people persist, swearing "I know for a fact". Ha Ha Ha.

A futile and cyclical discussion with no end in sight. A zen master might say to you that the reason god does not show himself is because if he did, human beings would be unable to look away, and so he gets out of the way for you to explore and experience on your own. Some people find god, and the great irony and joy is that finding god is finding yourself, and after all, isn't that what Christ, and every great spiritual teacher has said? The kingdom of god is in you.

So why then, the need to advertise whether or not you believe in god. Truly being one with "god" would produce mostly silence, laughter, love, and compassion. No judgement, and definitely no advertisement.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>They fail to see they attempt to possess the universe for
>themselves and box it. Whether or not god exists is irrelevant
>and cannot be proven one way or the other, and yet people
>persist, swearing "I know for a fact". Ha Ha Ha.

i guess i don't understand how we can say people who believe in leprechaun or wizards or any other magical creatures are crazy but if someone scoffs at the idea of a god (unless it's zeus or apollo or something) they're a jerk.

>>They fail to see they attempt to possess the universe for
>>themselves and box it. Whether or not god exists is
>irrelevant
>>and cannot be proven one way or the other, and yet people
>>persist, swearing "I know for a fact". Ha Ha Ha.
>
>i guess i don't understand how we can say people who believe
>in leprechaun or wizards or any other magical creatures are
>crazy but if someone scoffs at the idea of a god (unless it's
>zeus or apollo or something) they're a jerk.

Zeus and Apollo were greek allegorical symbols for the super physical and unseen forces of nature. They were not considered as real beings that lived in a real mount Olympus, these are simply symbols. There are many unseen forces which we encounter on a daily basis, gravity being one of them, dark matter, another. Ancient Greeks gave these symbols human characteristics in order to give man something to relate to, in his image. The original symbol for god was a simple stone, because a stone represents the creation of a physical object out of unseen forces. After the stone, came animal symbols, and eventually, god was shaped as man.

However, a leprechaun or a wizard is not a universal idea experienced and constructed by every culture or religious establishment on the planet, god is.

Any and every rational being asks, "Where am I from?", "How did life begin?", "Where did everything come from?", and thus the idea of god was born. It was inevitable and it is innate. Let us suppose 20 babies are born without religion or cultural influence. All of them will ask where they are from, and all of them will eventually come to the idea of god on their own, but none of them will think of a wizard or a leprechaun.

Attempting to compare the idea of god to a leprechaun is short sighted and false.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>Any and every rational being asks, "Where am I from?", "How
>did life begin?", "Where did everything come from?", and thus
>the idea of god was born. It was inevitable and it is innate.

So youre saying it was born of laziness? because you know, a person could decide to study and do science to try and discover the answers

or they can say 'meh, must be god!'

>Let us suppose 20 babies are born without religion or cultural
>influence. All of them will ask where they are from, and all
>of them will eventually come to the idea of god on their own,
>but none of them will think of a wizard or a leprechaun.

wat? you know this for a fact? how?

>Attempting to compare the idea of god to a leprechaun is short
>sighted and false.

yet they both have the same amount of evidence for existence

>So youre saying it was born of laziness? because you know, a
>person could decide to study and do science to try and
>discover the answers

That makes no sense at all. Early man had no access to telescopes or the scientific method. The scientific method emerged over thousands of years of industrialization. I find it puzzling that you expect a cave man to "do science". How does one "do science" exactly? Early man's concept of science was simple and based on nature as the god head. The sun was God as it brought light and free'd man from the fear of darkness. Ra, Apollo, etc etc. If only those cave men had access to astrophysics and the Hubble telescope, lazy bastards.

>>Let us suppose 20 babies are born without religion or
>cultural
>>influence. All of them will ask where they are from, and all
>>of them will eventually come to the idea of god on their
>own,
>>but none of them will think of a wizard or a leprechaun.
>
>wat? you know this for a fact? how?

Simple. Have you ever questioned where you or the universe came from? How about everyone you know? How about the fact that we are innately curious and exploratory? You don't think a species that is attempting to colonize other planets would question where it's own planet and universe came from? One of the obvious conclusions is that "it was put here by something or someone".

Furthermore, there is not a single culture or race of human peoples on this planet who don't have the idea of god deeply rooted in their creation story. If the idea of "god" was not universal, there would be cultures that did not have god as the roots of their creation, but there are none. Compare thousands of cultures with God to 1 idea of a leprechaun from one culture. Like I said, the idea of god is unique.

>
>>Attempting to compare the idea of god to a leprechaun is
>short
>>sighted and false.
>
>yet they both have the same amount of evidence for existence
>

I would say that is incorrect. Humanity has invested far more time into attempting to find God than a leprechaun. There are millions upon millions of volumes of research and data on this very question, from all cultures. Leprechaun's exist in culture specific folklore.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>That makes no sense at all. Early man had no access to
>telescopes or the scientific method. The scientific method
>emerged over thousands of years of industrialization. I find
>it puzzling that you expect a cave man to "do science". How
>does one "do science" exactly? Early man's concept of science
>was simple and based on nature as the god head. The sun was
>God as it brought light and free'd man from the fear of
>darkness. Ra, Apollo, etc etc. If only those cave men had
>access to astrophysics and the Hubble telescope, lazy
>bastards.

saying its god when you cant come up with abetter answer is laziness

>Simple. Have you ever questioned where you or the universe
>came from? How about everyone you know? How about the fact
>that we are innately curious and exploratory? You don't think
>a species that is attempting to colonize other planets would
>question where it's own planet and universe came from? One of
>the obvious conclusions is that "it was put here by something
>or someone".

and should we then ask the question who created that something or someone?

>Furthermore, there is not a single culture or race of human
>peoples on this planet who don't have the idea of god deeply
>rooted in their creation story. If the idea of "god" was not
>universal, there would be cultures that did not have god as
>the roots of their creation, but there are none. Compare
>thousands of cultures with God to 1 idea of a leprechaun from
>one culture. Like I said, the idea of god is unique.

sure. its born of ignorance. from the childhood of humanity.

eventually we have to grow up

>I would say that is incorrect. Humanity has invested far more
>time into attempting to find God than a leprechaun. There are
>millions upon millions of volumes of research and data on this
>very question, from all cultures. Leprechaun's exist in
>culture specific folklore.

still, theres the same amount of evidence for both

imagine if we wasted all that time and effort looking for leprechauns?

>>That makes no sense at all. Early man had no access to
>>telescopes or the scientific method. The scientific method
>>emerged over thousands of years of industrialization. I find
>>it puzzling that you expect a cave man to "do science". How
>>does one "do science" exactly? Early man's concept of
>science
>>was simple and based on nature as the god head. The sun was
>>God as it brought light and free'd man from the fear of
>>darkness. Ra, Apollo, etc etc. If only those cave men had
>>access to astrophysics and the Hubble telescope, lazy
>>bastards.
>
>saying its god when you cant come up with abetter answer is
>laziness
>

It may be laziness to say it today, given the instruments we have built to investigate the problem, but it is a universal and innate idea that was inevitable.

>
>and should we then ask the question who created that something
>or someone?
>

Exactly. We should and we do. Scientists who believe in the big bang theory are unable to tell you what came before the big bang and themselves practice a leap of faith. The greatest scientific theory on our planet is based on the same inclication as religion, FAITH. Do you know what Newton's core principle and belief was? That the universe is a bunch of billiard balls and that GOD put them all into motion.

>
>sure. its born of ignorance. from the childhood of humanity.
>
>eventually we have to grow up

Why would the presence of a god signify that we are immature? You are attempting to box the universe into what you believe is the "correct paradigm. You are no different to a Christian, except you are branded differently.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>It may be laziness to say it today, given the instruments we
>have built to investigate the problem, but it is a universal
>and innate idea that was inevitable.

its always lazy. and soon as you say 'god did it' you absolve yourself of all investigation


>Exactly. We should and we do. Scientists who believe in the
>big bang theory are unable to tell you what came before the
>big bang and themselves practice a leap of faith. The greatest
>scientific theory on our planet is based on the same
>inclication as religion, FAITH. Do you know what Newton's core
>principle and belief was? That the universe is a bunch of
>billiard balls and that GOD put them all into motion.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation != FAITH

>Why would the presence of a god signify that we are immature?
>You are attempting to box the universe into what you believe
>is the "correct paradigm. You are no different to a Christian,
>except you are branded differently.

presence without proof.

is a person who believes with all his heart in the tooth fairy immature?

>>It may be laziness to say it today, given the instruments
>we
>>have built to investigate the problem, but it is a universal
>>and innate idea that was inevitable.
>
>its always lazy. and soon as you say 'god did it' you absolve
>yourself of all investigation
>

I agree there, and that is my contention as well.
>


>
>Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation != FAITH

It's not proof. It's part of a picture that favors the Big Bang, however, that was not my point.

What came before the big bang? You can't answer that and neither can any scientist.

How did the materials needed for the big bang to occur materialize and originate?

Once again, you cannot answer that. That is where faith comes in.

"I'll take it on faith that I don't know what came before the big bang but that the big bang was the birth of the universe."

You are using faith to use the Big Bang as the beginning because you don't know what came before, anyway you look at it, it's a blind leap of logic.

>
>>Why would the presence of a god signify that we are
>immature?
>>You are attempting to box the universe into what you believe
>>is the "correct paradigm. You are no different to a
>Christian,
>>except you are branded differently.
>
>presence without proof.
>

My point is that your definition of the "true" universe has just as much proof as a Christian does for his.

>is a person who believes with all his heart in the tooth fairy
>immature?
>

No. Misinformed, and as we have already discussed, the idea of god is unique.

Every culture in the world = Came up with god.

Corporate America = Came up with tooth fairy.

Hardly the same thing.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

It's like you've only got 95% of the answer each time you try and talk about something like this.

The Big Bang isn't just the start of matter, it's the start of time too, since they are interchangeable according to Relativity. By definition, there is nothing before the Big Bang. Saying that it's not true because nobody knows what came before only belies a failure to understand what the theory means.

Comparing belief in an expansive universe starting from an initial singularity to belief in a divine creator is short-sighted and simplistic in the extreme. There is *zero* experimental evidence available for the creator argument and there never could be; it relies entirely on faith and belief. The more tests we design to try and prove the Big Bang hypothesis, the more confirmation we get. No, we haven't (and possibly never will have) proved it by photographing it or by perfect philosophical logic but weight of evidence from the implications of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the evidence provided by background radiation (now extensively mapped by the Plank Telescope to further confirm expansion theory) and mathematical models of the Universe makes it a FAR more reliable belief than word of mouth, which is essentially all deism has going for it.

Newton did believe in "a" creator/God (i.e. someone that wrote the rules), but not the one written about in the Bible. He'd very much be a heretic by his day's standards. You're also talking about a man, however much a genius, from the *1700s*. Pre-relativity, pre-quantum mechanics... before anyone worked out whether the Universe was static, expansive or contractive. By the time his work had been superceded by Einstein's Relativity, belief in a creator was getting much more difficult. Einstein tore himself apart when Quantum Mechanics arose because he famously hated the idea that God would "play dice with the world"... but the "God" he spoke of was nothing like the God written about in bibles. Fast forward past Red Shift, Lemaitre and Hoyle tearing themselves to shreds arguing about steady states and singularities and the mapping of cosmic background radiation and we're left with a surprisingly reliable theory with plenty of evidence backing it.

I'd highly recommend reading John D. Barrow's Book of Universes and Sean Carrol's From Eternity To Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.

^ Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? and what gave it the energy to be extremely hot and dense?


>
>I'd highly recommend reading John D. Barrow's Book of
>Universes and Sean Carrol's From Eternity To Here: The Quest
>for the Ultimate Theory of Time.

Thank you.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from
>an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand
>today.
>
>^ Where did this extremely hot and dense state come from? and
>what gave it the energy to be extremely hot and dense?
>

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

I am well versed on The Dead Sea Scrolls but I'd like to hear what you drew from them.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

I think there was a different type of soul on this earth alongside our own human soul at some point and those souls warred against each other to near extinction. They taxed and corrupted the earth and they and whatever they produced were destroyed in a great deluge.

I think the Vedas, the clash of the titans, Ragnarok, Gilgamesh, and the death and dismemberment of Osiris are all related to the same story. They are the legendary tales of these souls and the creatures that produced them and I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are the account from which those stories are formed.

The Mayan glyph for conjuring is a hand grasping a fish-- and as experts say seems to suggest reaching into another world and pulling something out. Something alive, slippery, and elusive. I think that world exists and it overlaps our own.

It's a fringe outlook for sure, but I think we live in an age where it will all soon come to light because we are nearing the end of the tunnel. In fact I think there is much science and archaeology have unearthed to support this, but refuse to analyze or make known the results.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

No.

Stop getting your information from YouTube. You are infecting good reason with madness.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

Saying YouTube is too over arching, I just specifically mean the home made video's with the dramatic music and illuminati symbolism, lol. i think you would dig Neil Tyson Degrasse seminars, if you havn't checked them out before you definitely should.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

Check out Space Engine if you want to experience this distance first hand. It's a Universe simulator with real objects and distances. You can download the 1 gig version which has a ton of cool content, or the 37 gig version which allows you to land on any planet and explore the terrain. It's a fantastic program.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

Like that's just one tiny piece of the night sky.
But that tiny piece has over 1 trillion stars in it. Da fuck?

_______________________________________

>But that tiny piece has over 1 trillion stars in it.

The light from those stars can take millions of years to reach your eyes, meaning that many of them may have gone supernova.

When you look at stars in the night sky you're staring at a portal into the past. Millions of years into the past.


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

forcing myself to actually respond to you is like bathing in ebola virus. - Binlahab

Like there is stupid, and then there is you, and then there is dead. - VAsBestBBW

R.I.P. Disco D

still exists right now, stars burn for hundreds of millions of years to several billion. How sick is it that the closest Galaxy's light takes 2.5 million years to get to us. And there are 200-500 BILLION known galaxies. These numbers are just too big for people to wrap their heads around.

----
I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.

made up by man. Also, if there is a God, he/she/it does not care about your little sports game, no reason to watch something so pathetic when at any moment galaxies are colliding.

It takes incredible vanity to believe that we have any significance to a being that created the entire fucking universe.

but damn! the pix are amazing.

fuck you.

Or is that still a question?
Because looking at this...
How can there NOT be?

--

"You can't beat white people. You can only knock them out."

that the universe is teaming with life, but being scientists it's crucial to find proof of life somewhere other than earth, or else they wouldn't be very scientific. But yeah, when you see something like that and then are reminded that there are 200+ billion galaxies it's ridiculous to think we are unique, we're all made from the same raw materials and similar processes, how could that not beget similar results?

Here it is

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/cosmic-rays-render-90-percent-of-the-universe-a-lifeless-desert-astronomers-say/

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

I don't. But I would wager it's a whole fucking lot.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Let us say that 10% is not plagued by deadly cosmic rays, it would still require the perfect scenario for a planet to be capable of sustaining life. The right distance from its sun, the right balance of gasses and minerals, etc etc. There are a multitude of factors that allow life to exist here.

The distances between stars and galaxies is so vast that the practical reality of locating life elsewhere is pretty much impossible. The universe is too big to pick a point and look at it in its current state. Our best shot of finding life is in our immediate cosmic neighborhood.

If we are alone in the universe, that makes life all the more precious, and it is our priority to preserve it, but given our current socioeconomic model, we are doing the exact opposite.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

...planets considered uninhabitable to us could already have other lifeforms on it that we can't detect....ijs

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

You can't assume. There either is or there isn't, and you either have data or you don't. There is no in-between.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

...but there are theories though

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

You cannot disprove god exists just as much as you can't prove that he does.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

What kind of life makes the criteria? Microbes? Yeah, there are probably, almost certainly in fact, microbes. There might even be other microbes in our Solar System.

But most people's conditions for "intelligent life" involve finding a species that we're able to communicate with in some way - and that really does narrow the field down a LOT.

Bearing in mind that the only current way we'd have to detect civilised life would be emitted radio waves, we as a species would've only met the criteria for about the last 100 years... when we've considered ourselves a "civilised" species for at least 10,000. We've been 'intelligently' roaming the Earth for something like 250,000 years. So in humanity's time, we've only been a "civilised society according to aliens" for something like 0.1% of our time as a recognisable civilisation and 0.04% of our time as a species.

As far as our planet goes, it's harboured "life" for something like 3.6Bn years - so on a planetary scale, Earth has only *looked* teeming with life for something like 0.0000027% of the time it's actually harboured life.

What those ridiculously small %s leave us with is that even though there are more than enough stars and planets out there to assume that alien life is inevitable, it's also very possible that it only exists in one place at a time because the chances of two planets, within contactable distance having their 0.0000027% at the same time are frustratingly small. The likelyhood is that even if we found signs of life, by the time we'd sent a message back or somehow traveled to investigate, it'd be long gone.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

if there is/was life on some planet that is WAY more advanced than us. Just think of all the advances that we have made in the last 100 years. If an alien civilization existed at some point that advanced far beyond what we can currently imagine, and didn't destroy themselves through war an/or destroying their environment, then it's possible that they found a way to greatly increase that window of time of there being intelligent life on their planet. They may have advanced far enough that they have prevented the demise of their civilization.

Combine that with the fact that they may also be way more advanced than us with space travel. We went from learning how to fly to sending people into space within 50 years. What if some other civilization continued at that rate of progress for a thousand years or so? They may have figured out faster than light travel or broken some other barriers that we currently have in place.


>the chances of two planets, within contactable distance having
>their 0.0000027% at the same time are frustratingly small. The
>likelyhood is that even if we found signs of life, by the time
>we'd sent a message back or somehow traveled to investigate,
>it'd be long gone.

... coupled with the explorative nature that leads to such discoveries, you'd think they would've found us before we found them... which, unless civilisations eventually reach a point where they can only explain the secrets of the Universe through crop circles, they don't appear to have done.

Anyway, it's a fantastic thought problem... looked at from certain angles it seems almost idiotic to say there might not be life out there, from others it seems perfectly reasonable. I guess the only true answer is we'll never know... right up to the moment we meet one. It's one of the most enjoyable and entirely useless conversations available to Man.

>if there is/was life on some planet that is WAY more advanced
>than us. Just think of all the advances that we have made in
>the last 100 years. If an alien civilization existed at some
>point that advanced far beyond what we can currently imagine,
>and didn't destroy themselves through war an/or destroying
>their environment, then it's possible that they found a way to
>greatly increase that window of time of there being
>intelligent life on their planet. They may have advanced far
>enough that they have prevented the demise of their
>civilization.
>
>Combine that with the fact that they may also be way more
>advanced than us with space travel. We went from learning how
>to fly to sending people into space within 50 years. What if
>some other civilization continued at that rate of progress for
>a thousand years or so? They may have figured out faster than
>light travel or broken some other barriers that we currently
>have in place.
>
>
>>the chances of two planets, within contactable distance
>having
>>their 0.0000027% at the same time are frustratingly small.
>The
>>likelyhood is that even if we found signs of life, by the
>time
>>we'd sent a message back or somehow traveled to investigate,
>>it'd be long gone.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

why a theoretical advanced civilization hasn't found us yet could be the fact that in their eyes we've only been "intelligent life" for 50-60 years or so in terms of sending satellites up and doing basic space travel. So maybe we wouldn't have been on their radar. If they did have faster than light travel, then the fact that Earth is in a hospitable zone might not even matter to them because they are able to find and travel to thousands or even millions of other planets that are hospitable. Maybe they've even already found other advanced civilizations and just haven't gotten to us yet.

Andromeda is the closest galaxy to us and it is around 2.5 million light years away. So even if they had some type of space travel that is many times faster then light it might STILL take a really long time for them to get here. If they are in the Milky Way that time would be much shorter, but the Milky Way is still 100,000 light years wide. Maybe they first noticed us in the 20th century sometime when we started sending out satellite communication, and they are on their way to investigate but won't show up for another couple hundred years. Maybe their life spans are way longer than ours, so 100 of our years is like a couple weeks to them.

Who knows. Fun to think about though.

Well, not so much the existence of it, but the experience of it anyway. It seems pretty likely that species experience time on a very slightly differently scale... there are intervals a mosquito can deal with that we can barely comprehend and there are probably intervals a virus can react to that would just be a blur to a mosquito... so perhaps there are beings out there that, like you say, can take a nap and wake up on the other side of the galaxy. They might not even experience in it in the sequential cause/effect way we do. Our built-in concept of time governs so much of the way we act... if it turns out to be the best analogy our brains can create to make sense of things, all bets could be off.

I'm getting into dangerous ramble territory now though... I just wish they'd hurry up and get here so they can do an AMA on Reddit.

>why a theoretical advanced civilization hasn't found us yet
>could be the fact that in their eyes we've only been
>"intelligent life" for 50-60 years or so in terms of sending
>satellites up and doing basic space travel. So maybe we
>wouldn't have been on their radar. If they did have faster
>than light travel, then the fact that Earth is in a hospitable
>zone might not even matter to them because they are able to
>find and travel to thousands or even millions of other planets
>that are hospitable. Maybe they've even already found other
>advanced civilizations and just haven't gotten to us yet.
>
>Andromeda is the closest galaxy to us and it is around 2.5
>million light years away. So even if they had some type of
>space travel that is many times faster then light it might
>STILL take a really long time for them to get here. If they
>are in the Milky Way that time would be much shorter, but the
>Milky Way is still 100,000 light years wide. Maybe they first
>noticed us in the 20th century sometime when we started
>sending out satellite communication, and they are on their way
>to investigate but won't show up for another couple hundred
>years. Maybe their life spans are way longer than ours, so 100
>of our years is like a couple weeks to them.
>
>Who knows. Fun to think about though.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

to a point where I realize that we have no idea about any of it. Anything is possible. Or not. We'll likely never know. They'll show up here a thousand years after we've killed ourselves with some nuclear war or something, after they took a nap and jumped across the galaxy, and wonder what happened to us.

That means that life as we experience it here on Earth couldn't survive there. We just discovered the first silicon based lifeform a few years ago.

I know it's not scientific, but I don't think there's any way that life doesn't exist elsewhere. Can I prove it, no. But there is just too much space. There are too many galaxies. Too many stars. Too many planets for it not to exist elsewhere. Earth is not that special.

--

"You can't beat white people. You can only knock them out."

>That means that life as we experience it here on Earth
>couldn't survive there. We just discovered the first silicon
>based lifeform a few years ago.

Exactly.

>
>I know it's not scientific, but I don't think there's any way
>that life doesn't exist elsewhere. Can I prove it, no. But
>there is just too much space. There are too many galaxies. Too
>many stars. Too many planets for it not to exist elsewhere.
>Earth is not that special.

A comforting thought. I personally hope there is. I have experimented with many psychedelics when I was younger inspired by the lectures of Terence McKenna. He claimed that Psilocybin acts as a "telephone call to intelligent life in the universe". Sure enough, I have come into contact with many alien beings in that state. It's probably all psycho psematic but it didn't make it any less real in the moment. Shrug. Still though, I cannot say that there is for certain or not and I would never use those experiences as proof or vindication. Just a fun personal experiment that produced many interesting results. You should give it a whirl

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

Creationist: LOOK AT THIS! HOW CAN YOU LOOK AT THIS AND NOT KNOW THIS COULD ONLY BE CREATED BY GOD?!

You, and many others: LOOK AT THIS! HOW CAN YOU LOOK AT THIS AND NOT KNOW IT'S BRIMMING WITH INTELLIGENT LIFE?!

Sure, you can make a reasonable assumption based on the sheer vastness of the universe that some form of intelligent life exists aside from ourselves. Thing is, no matter how great the order of magnitude, we don't know until we actually know. Until we have actual evidence it's just a reasonable assumption.

I'm not sure how anyone makes the leap from "reasonable assumption" or "safe bet" to "without question" despite no actual evidence to answer the question.

The probability of life developing elsewhere in the universe is the product of what appears to be a huge number (the number of inhabitable planets), and what appears to be a tiny number (the probability of the first necessary biochemical steps occurring on any given planet, until something like natural selection can take over). Until we know pretty well what both of those numbers are, we won't really be able to say. Things look pretty good at this point, because we're developing solid data that the first number really is really big. But the second number is much more open at this point. And the universe can come up with really tiny numbers just as easily as it can come up with really big ones.

such beauty could only be the result of an unguided and non existent hand.

best comment on the Youtube page though

"And we're still arguing over money............" lol

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

why would that make the universe any less beautiful? most of everything that we see in space would kill us immediately. what are the implications of that reality when thinking of a creator?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

it seems logical that something that is exponentially more beautiful and more complex could only be the creation of something more intelligent. Factor in that when looking at those images we only "see" a fraction of the light and particles that make it all up.

Much of the universe's beauty is in fact wasted on us, why would evolution and random creation bring into existence something that that can't even be fully experienced, utilized, or appreciated?

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

>it seems logical that something that is exponentially more
>beautiful and more complex could only be the creation of
>something more intelligent. Factor in that when looking at
>those images we only "see" a fraction of the light and
>particles that make it all up.
>

That is a safe and comforting assumption derived from human kind's hubris. Unfortunately, it doesn't prove anything.

>Much of the universe's beauty is in fact wasted on us, why
>would evolution and random creation bring into existence
>something that that can't even be fully experienced, utilized,
>or appreciated?
>

What do you mean?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

with us. Creatures that constantly destroy themselves from cradle to grave and fail miserably at making use of the resources around them are somehow the most intelligent beings? Meanwhile it seems most animals are taking better care of their offspring and communities than most people.

Never mind that the only thing we can do with our own space is try to put weapons into it to shoot at ourselves that and the fact that there is litter in space. Actual trash in outer space orbiting our planet-- just think about that. Evolution has basically created one of the best planet and space destroying creatures in existence and we're supposedly the highest form of life. I just can't believe that there isn't anything out there smarter than us because we are quite dumb as a species.

Our naked eye and even our machines can't see all that universe is made of and I think it reasonable to think that there are creatures more evolved (for lack of a better term) than us who are capable of seeing more of it as well as utilizing it.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

>with us. Creatures that constantly destroy themselves from
>cradle to grave and fail miserably at making use of the
>resources around them are somehow the most intelligent beings?
>Meanwhile it seems most animals are taking better care of
>their offspring and communities than most people.
>

Actually, even though it may seem grim at times, and that we truly do not care about life, the state of the world is universally improving. Life expectancy is longer, there is less disease, less war, and more people enjoy employment and industrialization than ever before. We are on the upswing.


>Never mind that the only thing we can do with our own space is
>try to put weapons into it to shoot at ourselves that and the
>fact that there is litter in space. Actual trash in outer
>space orbiting our planet-- just think about that. Evolution
>has basically created one of the best planet and space
>destroying creatures in existence and we're supposedly the
>highest form of life. I just can't believe that there isn't
>anything out there smarter than us because we are quite dumb
>as a species.


We are definitely not dumb, and all space debris will eventually be cleaned up. Human beings are not going to drive themselves into extinction. We have survived hundreds of thousands of years and have proven to possess love, reason, compassion, and planning. People like Elon Musk are the proof you are looking for. There are visionaries everywhere working on altruistic goals for the benefit of all mankind.
>

>Our naked eye and even our machines can't see all that
>universe is made of and I think it reasonable to think that
>there are creatures more evolved (for lack of a better term)
>than us who are capable of seeing more of it as well as
>utilizing it.
>

Once again, that is just assumption. So far, according to science, the only other possible form of life in our observable universe is silica based. Are there other means, probably, have we found them? maybe in time, but to assume there are for certain and there are "more intelligent" beings on them is illogical. Intelligence is not a finite thing either. Try to find the walls inside your mind, you can't, try to find the walls of the universe, you can't. Intelligence is ever expanding and evolving just as the universe. It is logical to assume humanity will accomplish feats never imagined that prolong life by hundreds of years and create mutual harmony with our environment. It is inevitable as our survival is directly correlated.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>Actually, even though it may seem grim at times, and that we
>truly do not care about life, the state of the world is
>universally improving. Life expectancy is longer, there is
>less disease, less war, and more people enjoy employment and
>industrialization than ever before. We are on the upswing.

Show me the numbers. Show me that the gap between the haves and have not's is not widening

Show me that the US is not leading the world in incarceration i.e. making men and women into monsters

show me the data that says the masses of poor are being fed

Show me facts that corporations are not destroying the rain forest, the water sources, and the air (looks at China).

show me that the Human condition is improving.

>We are definitely not dumb, and all space debris will
>eventually be cleaned up. Human beings are not going to drive
>themselves into extinction. We have survived hundreds of
>thousands of years and have proven to possess love, reason,
>compassion, and planning. People like Elon Musk are the proof
>you are looking for. There are visionaries everywhere working
>on altruistic goals for the benefit of all mankind.

Trash in space bro-- where is the plan to clean it up? I don't want names of the 1% I want to see their plans of action. Visionaries get shut down all the time e.g. who Killed The Electric Car?

Why are we still drunk on crude oil and coal when solar power is actually quite feasible these days? Show me that capitalist greed is on the decline.

>
>>Our naked eye and even our machines can't see all that
>>universe is made of and I think it reasonable to think that
>>there are creatures more evolved (for lack of a better term)
>>than us who are capable of seeing more of it as well as
>>utilizing it.
>>
Science says the more cones our eyes have the more color we can see-- so there's already that area we can't see.

Science says there are solar winds blowing out towards the end of our solar system-- can you see those winds?


>Once again, that is just assumption. So far, according to
>science, the only other possible form of life in our
>observable universe is silica based. Are there other means,
>probably, have we found them? maybe in time, but to assume
>there are for certain and there are "more intelligent" beings
>on them is illogical.

According to science is a weak phrase. According to science phlogiston was a thing. According to science black people were less evolved than white people. According to science is not always good enough.

Also why can't other life be light based? or Electromagnetically based? Why do we assume other intelligence's would even vibrate at the rate our atoms vibrate? Why do we assume something smarter than us could be seen by us to begin with? I think much of the scientific community is afraid to admit that if there is higher life out there (and there seems to be proof of that) then we are at it's mercy and once again man's lack of humility clouds his observations and understanding.

It's not illogical because mankind has been saying it exists for centuries. It's illogical to write off 3rd century BC writings and artifacts as nonsense. And to support that you have both Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin saying things to further support that very real possibility.

>logical to assume humanity will accomplish feats never
>imagined that prolong life by hundreds of years and create
>mutual harmony with our environment. It is inevitable as our
>survival is directly correlated.

Really? Prolong whose life? The poor? The needy" Or the 1%? Look at our world-- do you see those running the nations being concerned about our survival? How many nukes are there? How easy is to push a button and kill a whole wedding party? How many infectious diseases can we unleash right now?

Hope in mans ability to save his world seems like misplaced hope to me.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

>Show me the numbers. Show me that the gap between the haves
>and have not's is not shrinking
>
>Show me that the US is not leading the world in incarceration
>i.e. making men and women into monsters
>
>show me the data that says the masses of poor are being fed
>
>Show me facts that corporations are not destroying the rain
>forest, the water sources, and the air (looks at China).
>
>show me that the Human condition is improving.


You can start reading about it here, complete with numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Improving_State_of_the_World



>Trash in space bro-- where is the plan to clean it up? I don't
>want names of the 1% I want to see their plans of action.
>Visionaries get shut down all the time e.g. who Killed The
>Electric Car?
>

Those are pessimistic assumptions. Humanity will not let itself go extinct over space debris. Climate change is becoming more and more evident. Sure, there are people who deny it and fight to maintain the power and wealth they built on destroying the environment, but their days are numbered. Many 1st world nations are going fully green. Look at Germany, Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Those are highly progressive cultures that are paving the way for green energy and altruistic human goals. Do you want numbers on that as well because I can provide them.

>Why are we still drunk on crude oil and coal when solar power
>is actually quite feasible these days? Show me that capitalist
>greed is on the decline.
>

Crude oil is a finite resource. You cannot sell something forever that is limited in amount. Sooner or later, they will all be forced to abandon ship, by law, by the government. China and USA agreeing to lower emission's is one of the first and important steps to this reality. Progress is occurring all around you, but you are ignoring it. Don't get caught up in sensationalism, the state of the world is far better off than it has ever been. There is always room for improvement and we are improving.


>Science says the more cones our eyes have the more color we
>can see-- so there's already that area we can't see.
>

Irrelevant. We have instruments to detect it.

>Science says there are solar winds blowing out towards the end
>of of solar system-- can you see those winds?
>

Yes, Aurora Borealis.

>
>>Once again, that is just assumption. So far, according to
>>science, the only other possible form of life in our
>>observable universe is silica based. Are there other means,
>>probably, have we found them? maybe in time, but to assume
>>there are for certain and there are "more intelligent"
>beings
>>on them is illogical.

No, silica based life is a new form of life we have found. Our life is carbon based.

As an aside, What does the number 666 mean to you personally?

>
>According to science is a weak phrase. According to science
>phlogiston was a thing. According to science black people were
>less evolved than white people. According to science is not
>always good enough.
>

That wasn't science, that was political propaganda. The scientific method is universal and must be reproducible. Anything that does not follow its guidelines is not "science".

>Also why can't other life be light based? or
>Electromagnetically based? Why do we assume other
>intelligence's would even vibrate at the rate our atoms
>vibrate? Why do we assume something smarter than us could be
>seen by us to begin with? I think much of the scientific
>community is afraid to admit that is there is higher life out
>there (and there seems to be proof of that) then we are at
>it's mercy and once again mans lack of humility clouds his
>observations and understanding.

Why are you assuming other life would be smarter to begin with? You are setting specific conditions for your universal view. We are "light based", we are "electromagnetic" too. The scientific community is materialistic, it is not afraid. As materialists they based their foundation on the physical universe, that is to say, one that can be observed and tested. Science is but one side of a prism of possible means to discovery. If you really think about it, everything is "scientific", even you choosing your lunch based on your preferences.

>
>It's not illogical because mankind has been saying it exists
>for centuries. It's illogical to write off 3rd century BC
>writings and artifacts as nonsense. And to support that you
>have both Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin saying things to
>support it.
>

I'm sorry I don't follow your point here.

>>logical to assume humanity will accomplish feats never
>>imagined that prolong life by hundreds of years and create
>>mutual harmony with our environment. It is inevitable as our
>>survival is directly correlated.
>
>Really? Prolong whose life? The poor? The needy" Or the 1%?
>Look at our world-- do you see those running the nations being
>concerned about our survival? How many nukes are there? How
>easy is to push a button and kill a whole wedding party? How
>many infectious diseases can we unleash right now?
>

This is all political jargon and doomer speculation. Don't take this wrong way, but you are watching too many home made youtube videos. You are not going to find reason and truth on youtube.

>Hope in mans ability to save his world seems like misplaced
>hope to me.

That is illogical. If you were drowning would you not try to survive? If the planet starts drowning, do you think it would not try to survive as well? The way you are speaking is as if you believe humanity is digging its grave and running towards it with blind folds over their eyes. You couldn't be more misinformed.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>You can start reading about it here, complete with numbers:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Improving_State_of_the_World
>
That seems like trying to string a few good things together to make the larger picture more acceptable. It doesn't answer what is being done about our own country's mass incarcerations, doesn't say a thing about nuclear or even biological destruction. We may have fewer wars (supposedly) but how many lives are lost in one war these days? One war that take millions of lives is worse than a hundred wars that takes thousands. For the sake of argument I left out mans inhumanity to man in the form of racism, sexual violence, child abuse, etc. A few crumbs do not a cookie make.


>Those are pessimistic assumptions. Humanity will not let
>itself go extinct over space debris.

It almost happened because Cuba said "we want to run our island as we see fit". So there's that. Humanity almost made extinct an entire portion of itself during WWII and many knew about that extinction. I call a spade a spade.

Climate change is
>becoming more and more evident. Sure, there are people who
>deny it and fight to maintain the power and wealth they built
>on destroying the environment, but their days are numbered.

I agree.

>Many 1st world nations are going fully green. Look at Germany,
>Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Those are highly progressive
>cultures that are paving the way for green energy and
>altruistic human goals. Do you want numbers on that as well
>because I can provide them.

Mid Atlantic Slavery happened after/maybe during a supposed age of enlightenment so I'm not sure how to take altruistic human goals as anything substantial.


>>Why are we still drunk on crude oil and coal when solar
>power
>>is actually quite feasible these days? Show me that
>capitalist
>>greed is on the decline.

Prove it when economists are proving that the gap is widening and that the rich are getting exponentially richer.


>Crude oil is a finite resource. You cannot sell something
>forever that is limited in amount. Sooner or later, they will
>all be forced to abandon ship, by law, by the government.
>China and USA agreeing to lower emission's is one of the first
>and important steps to this reality. Progress is occurring all
>around you, but you are ignoring it. Don't get caught up in
>sensationalism, the state of the world is far better off than
>it has ever been. There is always room for improvement and we
>are improving.

I'm sure we'll find something else to fight over. Also there is such a thing as "too late" which could easily be when we decide to pull out of crude and coal. Fracking anyone?



>>Science says the more cones our eyes have the more color we
>>can see-- so there's already that area we can't see.
>>
>
>Irrelevant. We have instruments to detect it.

But can WE see it and understand it on that level?

>>Science says there are solar winds blowing out towards the
>end
>>of of solar system-- can you see those winds?
>>
>
>Yes, Aurora Borealis.

Inside our atmosphere yes, but I'm talking about space and the possibility that the universe we "see" may be a dim after image of what is actually "there".


>>>Once again, that is just assumption. So far, according to
>>>science, the only other possible form of life in our
>>>observable universe is silica based. Are there other means,
>>>probably, have we found them? maybe in time, but to assume
>>>there are for certain and there are "more intelligent"
>>beings
>>>on them is illogical.

I'd agree, but we have many, many, many, writings of ancient peoples saying there is other sentience out there and we have scientists like Alan Hynek and Jaques Vallee who have done much research into this and tend to agree. And you have Astronauts seemingly concurring as well. How does one not explore or entertain the idea based on that alone?

>As an aside, What does the number 666 mean to you personally?

A lot, but I'm guessing you're going with the connection between the 6th day of man's (alleged) creation coinciding with Carbon's place on the periodic table of elements-- 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons? Which in and of itself is quite a coincidence.


>>According to science is a weak phrase. According to science
>>phlogiston was a thing. According to science black people
>were
>>less evolved than white people. According to science is not
>>always good enough.
>>
>
>That wasn't science, that was political propaganda. The
>scientific method is universal and must be reproducible.
>Anything that does not follow its guidelines is not
>"science".

We say that now, they didn't all say that that then and it was certainly argued as such. Just like certain scientific things are debated today. While the scientists were busy arguing though many a black life was further impeded. Gee, thanks science.
>
>Why are you assuming other life would be smarter to begin
>with?

Mainly due to the narratives of early civilizations, accounts of Scientists like Jaque Vallee, and what the Astronauts have said about their encounters. That and the small amount of photographic and video captured images which seem to support such belief. Oh and the aforementioned 666 thing.

You are setting specific conditions for your universal
>view. We are "light based", we are "electromagnetic" too.

We are primarily carbon which is pretty much what we return to after death. I'm talking about something being primarily some other element, like silicon in you earlier reference.


>>It's not illogical because mankind has been saying it exists
>>for centuries. It's illogical to write off 3rd century BC
>>writings and artifacts as nonsense. And to support that you
>>have both Neal Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin saying things to
>>support it.
>>
>
>I'm sorry I don't follow your point here.

Mankind has always been saying there is/are higher life forms out there and that's why I assume not only are there lower life forms like the silicon based life you mentioned, but there are likely higher forms as well. If there is a lower doesn't that require a higher? Why do we assume that it's us when the historical human narrative says otherwise?


>This is all political jargon and doomer speculation. Don't
>take this wrong way, but you are watching too many home made
>youtube videos. You are not going to find reason and truth on
>youtube.

No it's kind of the loop we as humans like to get into. And it's what is happening today. Who's sharing that trans atlantic slave money? Who's sharing Africa's diamond wealth with Africa or even Africans? I could go on, but you get the point. We aren't any less covetous today. Folks will make sure anything that improves life will go to those who they feel are worthy, in other words-- not the poor. We don't even adequately care for the mentally ill (thanks Reagan).


>That is illogical. If you were drowning would you not try to
>survive? If the planet starts drowning, do you think it would
>not try to survive as well? The way you are speaking is as if
>you believe humanity is digging its grave and running towards
>it with blind folds over their eyes. You couldn't be more
>misinformed.

Meh, I call them as I see them. We'd already be colonizing the moon, and harnessing it's gravitational pull for near limitless energy if we were as self preserving as you say.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

>That seems like trying to string a few good things together to
>make the larger picture more acceptable. It doesn't answer
>what is being done about our own country's mass
>incarcerations, doesn't say a thing about nuclear or even
>biological destruction. We may have fewer wars (supposedly)
>but how many lives are lost in one war these days? One war
>that take millions of lives is worse than a hundred wars that
>takes thousands. For the sake of argument I left out mans
>inhumanity to man in the form of racism, sexual violence,
>child abuse, etc. A few crumbs do not a cookie make.
>

That link only scraped the surface. There is a ton of data you can segway into. Also, for the sake of argument concerning inhumanity, those areas have probably seen the greatest improvements overall. We are becoming wiser and more compassionate, it is difficult to see because it is taking a long time. It will be hard for you and I to truly see changes that have in your face impact. Our children's children will be much better off though and will look back on us as imbeciles.

>
>>Those are pessimistic assumptions. Humanity will not let
>>itself go extinct over space debris.
>
>It almost happened because Cuba said "we want to run our
>island as we see fit". So there's that. Humanity almost made
>extinct an entire portion of itself during WWII and many knew
>about that extinction. I call a spade a spade.

Reality does not account for hypothetical scenario's. WWII didn't even come close to extinction on any level.


>
>>Many 1st world nations are going fully green. Look at
>Germany,
>>Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Those are highly progressive
>>cultures that are paving the way for green energy and
>>altruistic human goals. Do you want numbers on that as well
>>because I can provide them.
>
>Mid Atlantic Slavery happened after/maybe during a supposed
>age of enlightenment so I'm not sure how to take altruistic
>human goals as anything substantial.
>

You are bringing in a totally unrelated point to frame your argument. We cannot live in the past or go back to it. We must stay present. It is the only way to find peace of mind, that's another post altogether though.



>
>I'm sure we'll find something else to fight over. Also there
>is such a thing as "too late" which could easily be when we
>decide to pull out of crude and coal. Fracking anyone?
>

Fracking is problematic for sure, and it's days are numbered as well. The next economic race will occur in space. There are asteroids within our reach that have more gold on them than our entire planet has combined. The historic landing on the comet was the first step to asteroid mining, that was the whole point. Exploration, sure, the real reasons are economic. The first trillionares will be made by space trade, and that is becoming a reality faster than you think.

>But can WE see it and understand it on that level?
>

We can see it's particle constituency, one can say we see it in a way that is fully transparent. I know what you are trying to say though, and yes, there is a ton we can't see. Dark energy and dark matter for example. We can infer its existence but it remains a mystery, and who knows, it may answer the spirituality or intelligent designer question once and for all. Exciting times.



>Inside our atmosphere yes, but I'm talking about space and the
>possibility that the universe we "see" may be a dim after
>image of what is actually "there".
>

I don't doubt that may be part of the case, it still does not prove there is an intelligent designer though. You should look into the Zen theory of existence, it's far more interesting than speculating about god, or arguing science.

A Zen master might say to you that you cannot have the foreground without the background. There cannot be a space without something occupying that space. There cannot be life without death, and there cannot be death without life. In the same breath, there cannot be SOMETHING without NOTHING. They are inseparable. The Ying and Yang is a symbol for existence, and its two spirals represent the two great winds of creation: Something and Nothing. You cannot pry them apart and you cannot isolate one without taking the other into account, therefore, the universe has always existed, as existence cannot occur without non-existence and vice versa.

A Zen master might go on to say that you cannot access the past, as it is completely insoluble. You also cannot go into the future as it dose not exist yet, thus, the only practical thing you can do, is to live in the present moment. Here, and NOW. If you as an individual can grasp the power of the present moment, you will be free'd from every psychological and physical burden that you place on yourself. Enlightenment can only be experienced in the eternal NOW, it is the only moment we have access to, and yet most of humanity is concerned with the past and future, and ignores the now completely. That is probably the core reason why we have so many collective problems.



>
>I'd agree, but we have many, many, many, writings of ancient
>peoples saying there is other sentience out there and we have
>scientists like Alan Hynek and Jaques Vallee who have done
>much research into this and tend to agree. And you have
>Astronauts seemingly concurring as well. How does one not
>explore or entertain the idea based on that alone?
>

I study many ancient texts and they are all allegorical. All creation myth's are purely symbolic. That is well understood if you really dive into them, however, man, over time, has taken symbols and called them reality. People who believe Greek's believed in a Zeus sitting on a mountain top have totally missed the point and are misinformed. Zeus on Mount Olympus is an allegory for the super physical forces of nature, seen, and unseen. You must gut ancient writings and place them in their correct context to understand them. If you are interested, listen to a man named Manly P Hall. A lot of his lectures are on the internet, even YouTube. He does a very detailed examination of ancient texts and their relation to enlightenment. You will find a lot of interesting stuff.

>>As an aside, What does the number 666 mean to you
>personally?
>
>A lot, but I'm guessing you're going with the connection
>between the 6th day of man's (alleged) creation coinciding
>with Carbon's place on the periodic table of elements-- 6
>protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons? Which in and of itself is
>quite a coincidence.

No, I am simply using it to illustrate a point. Christians believe 666 is Mark of the Beast, as in, The Mark of the Devil. When in fact, as you already sated, it is the construction of carbon. All carbon is flesh/beast, and we all have the mark of the beast within our construction. I did this so you can see how complete illusions can be taken out of its allegorical symbolism and used as a literal tool to create fear with.



>We say that now, they didn't all say that that then and it was
>certainly argued as such. Just like certain scientific things
>are debated today. While the scientists were busy arguing
>though many a black life was further impeded. Gee, thanks
>science.
>>

Who is "they"? The scientific community had nothing to do with those idiotic conclusions. Those were truly only examples of political propaganda.


>>Why are you assuming other life would be smarter to begin
>>with?
>
>Mainly due to the narratives of early civilizations, accounts
>of Scientists like Jaque Vallee, and what the Astronauts have
>said about their encounters. That and the small amount of
>photographic and video captured images which seem to support
>such belief. Oh and the aforementioned 666 thing.

You need to research these things from a credible source. Try Manly P Hall, I promise that you will find a wealth of information. He was probably the most well versed on ancient people's and their text than any other person.


>
>You are setting specific conditions for your universal
>>view. We are "light based", we are "electromagnetic" too.
>
>We are primarily carbon which is pretty much what we return to
>after death. I'm talking about something being primarily some
>other element, like silicon in you earlier reference.
>

Yes, silica based life is possible we haven't found any though.


>>I'm sorry I don't follow your point here.
>
>Mankind has always been saying there is/are higher life forms
>out there and that's why I assume not only are there lower
>life forms like the silicon based life you mentioned, but
>there are likely higher forms as well. If there is a lower
>doesn't that require a higher? Why do we assume that it's us
>when the historical human narrative says otherwise?
>

I never said silica was lower, I said it was different. I don't use a concept of higher and lower life forms. I only see life, in all its glorious variance. I do not kill any living things. I see it all as a "holy" happening, an expression of adventure and the quest to find truth. Truth is something that is immovable. The ancient mystics used TRUTH as the foundation for the universe, as TRUTH is the only thing that will never change. The concept of the university arose from Mystical schools, etc etc. Everything has an origin, and Manly P Hall will help you see it if you are interested.


>
>No it's kind of the loop we as humans like to get into. And
>it's what is happening today. Who's sharing that trans
>atlantic slave money? Who's sharing Africa's diamond wealth
>with Africa or even Africans? I could go on, but you get the
>point. We aren't any less covetous today. Folks will make sure
>anything that improves life will go to those who they feel are
>worthy, in other words-- not the poor. We don't even
>adequately care for the mentally ill (thanks Reagan).

Keep in mind that a few hundred years ago, it was unheard of for the working classes to eat meat, to be educated, or to have any position of influence. In today's society, that has changed, and it will continue to change. You are standing on the periphery of change as you speak right now.



>
>Meh, I call them as I see them. We'd already be colonizing the
>moon, and harnessing it's gravitational pull for near
>limitless energy if we were as self preserving as you say.
>

Hmm, I've never come across anything like that, once again, make sure to gut your sources. There is a ton of mis information out there.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

I was referring to the extinction of Jewish Semites with the WWII example-- nearly happened. Also the military was prepared and totally ready and willing for nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis. We came very very close.

The scientists I mentioned were US government appointed to dispel the idea that there was any intelligent life beyond our own, but they came to entirely different conclusions, they are just as reputable as any other. As are our astronauts.

Also its quite relevant that a supposed enlightened society took part in one of the best and most effective examples of dehumanization and brutalization, but then again the Romans thought they were hot shit in a champagne glass as well. My point being if you can't divorce something from nothing you can't divorce past history from current events they are just as intertwined.

Another school of thought on "myths" is that they're used to explain a very real concept or incident. The Ramayana for example which details air battles and advanced weaponry. Total fiction or an attempt by early humans to explain something human eyes had yet seen?

As far as man improving-- nah. I don't see it. Too many social workers and teachers in underfunded schools with stories that paint an entirely different picture. Too many folks coming into this world without a damn thing and all odds stacked against them to say otherwise. Too many children not even living to see the light of day.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

>I was referring to the extinction of Jewish Semites with the
>WWII example-- nearly happened. Also the military was prepared
>and totally ready and willing for nuclear war during the Cuban
>missile crisis. We came very very close.
>

All of the above is irrelevant because it did not happen.

>The scientists I mentioned were US government appointed to
>dispel the idea that there was any intelligent life beyond our
>own, but they came to entirely different conclusions, they are
>just as reputable as any other. As are our astronauts.
>

Conspiracy theory.

>Also its quite relevant that a supposed enlightened society
>took part in one of the best and most effective examples of
>dehumanization and brutalization, but then again the Romans
>thought they were hot shit in a champagne glass as well. My
>point being if you can't divorce something from nothing you
>can't divorce past history from current events they are just
>as intertwined.
>

We are far above and beyond the Romans. You are looking back into time and living by ancient ideas. The past is gone.

>Another school of thought on "myths" is that they're used to
>explain a very real concept or incident. The Ramayana for
>example which details air battles and advanced weaponry. Total
>fiction or an attempt by early humans to explain something
>human eyes had yet seen?
>

You speak of the Veda's which seemingly describe atomic power. It is possible that hundreds of thousands of human activity has been present on the planet. Than again it is possible it was just an exercise of the imagination.

Take a look at these pieces of art, they were conceived in 1910 an depict futures using high technology.

http://paleo-future.blogspot.ca/2007/09/french-prints-show-year-2000-1910.html

You cannot discredit the human imagination.

>As far as man improving-- nah. I don't see it. Too many social
>workers and teachers in underfunded schools with stories that
>paint an entirely different picture. Too many folks coming
>into this world without a damn thing and all odds stacked
>against them to say otherwise. Too many children not even
>living to see the light of day.
>

Haha, the statistics are there, and you are free to ignore them. You also don't use any historical perspective if it doesn't frame your argument. Why don't you start with the dark ages, and you will see how far we have come.

Overall, it seems like you are not ready to accept certain reality's because they are directly in conflict with your world view, which you no doubt think is founded on truth. You cannot have just 1 source of information. You need to check them all. Also, try to consider why your view of reality is so pessimistic and sad. Do you really want to grow up into a world you think is doomed? What is the point for you to get out of bed in the morning if we are going extinct?

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

>>I was referring to the extinction of Jewish Semites with
>the
>>WWII example-- nearly happened. Also the military was
>prepared
>>and totally ready and willing for nuclear war during the
>Cuban
>>missile crisis. We came very very close.
>>
>
>All of the above is irrelevant because it did not happen.

The Cuban missile crisis did happen and the top brass was urging Kennedy to push the button. Not sure why you say those are hypothetical. Maybe wiping out the European Jews wouldn't have exterminated them, but most seem to think otherwise.

>>The scientists I mentioned were US government appointed to
>>dispel the idea that there was any intelligent life beyond
>our
>>own, but they came to entirely different conclusions, they
>are
>>just as reputable as any other. As are our astronauts.
>>
>
>Conspiracy theory. Err no-- look up Jaques Vallee or J Alan Hyneck. There is no conspiracy to any of their work. They are respected scientists.

>>Also its quite relevant that a supposed enlightened society
>>took part in one of the best and most effective examples of
>>dehumanization and brutalization, but then again the Romans
>>thought they were hot shit in a champagne glass as well. My
>>point being if you can't divorce something from nothing you
>>can't divorce past history from current events they are just
>>as intertwined.
>>
>
>We are far above and beyond the Romans. You are looking back
>into time and living by ancient ideas. The past is gone.

Right history clearly has no bearing on our current lives. The past is so irrelevant that much of the world acts completely independent of it. Also the human heart is still exactly the same. It doesn't matter how much feel good stuff you read. I'll grant you that Western society has done slavery and brutality way better than the Romans though.

>>Another school of thought on "myths" is that they're used to
>>explain a very real concept or incident. The Ramayana for
>>example which details air battles and advanced weaponry.
>Total
>>fiction or an attempt by early humans to explain something
>>human eyes had yet seen?
>>
>
>You speak of the Veda's which seemingly describe atomic power.
>It is possible that hundreds of thousands of human activity
>has been present on the planet. Than again it is possible it
>was just an exercise of the imagination.
>
>Take a look at these pieces of art, they were conceived in
>1910 an depict futures using high technology.
>
I'd agree maybe that's it or maybe not.


>Haha, the statistics are there, and you are free to ignore
>them. You also don't use any historical perspective if it
>doesn't frame your argument. Why don't you start with the dark
>ages, and you will see how far we have come.

Like I said the hearts are the same. People are still cruel, people still want to be worshiped as gods. That's a reference to the pope by the way. The office of which still exists. You'd think advanced enlightened people wouldn't worship old men in robes as deity. Guess that goes for the Dali Lama or Mohammad's dead body. You can add Jesus in there if you like, but no one can say where his body is so he doesn't have that in common with the others.

>Overall, it seems like you are not ready to accept certain
>reality's because they are directly in conflict with your
>world view, which you no doubt think is founded on truth. You
>cannot have just 1 source of information. You need to check
>them all. Also, try to consider why your view of reality is so
>pessimistic and sad. Do you really want to grow up into a
>world you think is doomed? What is the point for you to get
>out of bed in the morning if we are going extinct?

No but I don't want to live in a world with rape, murder, and racism either, but guess what? The lack of a cure for evil is why the earth from which we're made and the creations we've made upon it must all go the same direction as our finite lives. I actually live a very happy life because I know what's I can control (very little) and what I can't-- which is everything else. I get out of bed each morning because life is about more than me just getting out of bed.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

>
>The Cuban missile crisis did happen and the top brass was
>urging Kennedy to push the button. Not sure why you say those
>are hypothetical. Maybe wiping out the European Jews wouldn't
>have exterminated them, but most seem to think otherwise.

Extinction didn't happen. So to base your argument on "we almost drove ourselves to extinction" to make a point that we will eventually drive ourselves to extinction, is illogical because if anything we showed that we can overcome roadblocks of that nature. Not everything is as serious as you think. The universe is playful and we are all players in a drama we struggle to comprehend and understand.


>>Conspiracy theory. Err no-- look up Jaques Vallee or J Alan
>Hyneck. There is no conspiracy to any of their work. They are
>respected scientists.
>

A bit too out there for me. UFO's and inter-dimensions, all pretty much irrelevant to how I live my life. I'm trying to remain focused on here and now. When I let my mind drift with those ideas, it only stirs up confusion, and to me, that is a sign that my mind is trying to fight it, kind of like how my bodies immune system fights infection.

>>>Also its quite relevant that a supposed enlightened society
>>>took part in one of the best and most effective examples of
>>>dehumanization and brutalization, but then again the Romans
>>>thought they were hot shit in a champagne glass as well. My
>>>point being if you can't divorce something from nothing you
>>>can't divorce past history from current events they are
>just
>>>as intertwined.
>>>

Fair enough, however, the distance between madness and reason is growing, and we are walking towards a better state. I firmly believe that when I speak to people. People are much more open minded than ever before.


>>We are far above and beyond the Romans. You are looking back
>>into time and living by ancient ideas. The past is gone.
>
>Right history clearly has no bearing on our current lives. The
>past is so irrelevant that much of the world acts completely
>independent of it. Also the human heart is still exactly the
>same. It doesn't matter how much feel good stuff you read.
>I'll grant you that Western society has done slavery and
>brutality way better than the Romans though.
>

As I said before, the state of the world is improving. Stop living in the past, and stop living in the negative. It will only destroy you and nothing more.

>>
>I'd agree maybe that's it or maybe not.
>

Maybe.


>Like I said the hearts are the same. People are still cruel,
>people still want to be worshiped as gods. That's a reference
>to the pope by the way. The office of which still exists.
>You'd think advanced enlightened people wouldn't worship old
>men in robes as deity. Guess that goes for the Dali Lama or
>Mohammad's dead body. You can add Jesus in there if you like,
>but no one can say where his body is so he doesn't have that
>in common with the others.

The heart is not cruel. It is a source of pure energy. What you do with it, is completely up to you, however, if you use your heart for cruelty, you will inflict more damage unto yourself than any other human being. Believe me, all that glitters is not gold. Why do you think many wealthy and affluent people commit suicide? Why do bankers jump out of their office windows? These people are deeply sick and we should have compassion for their illness. The only way we can help them see the way is by not allowing ourselves to become disillusioned and conditioned to chase the dreams they set for us. By doing that, we vindicate and encourage them, convince them that they are doing the right thing. They continue because we enable them.

We live on a planet where there is a large professional sector that controls destiny. Take your destiny for yourself by unplugging from everything, including the "truth" as you find it, in the very same system which corrupts it. Right now is the most important moment of your life because now, will always be the only moment you can experience. What are you doing with your life *now*?


>
>No but I don't want to live in a world with rape, murder, and
>racism either, but guess what? The lack of a cure for evil is
>why the earth from which we're made and the creations we've
>made upon it must all go the same direction as our finite
>lives. I actually live a very happy life because I know what's
>I can control (very little) and what I can't-- which is
>everything else. I get out of bed each morning because life is
>about more than me just getting out of bed.

Racism and murder, rape, are a symptom of a sickness, and they are symptoms down the road of anger, jealousy, and greed. You must first cure yourself of every one of these before you can truly know yourself.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

I also liked how you completely ignored the very real concept of the effects of the past on the present and then inserted a fortune cookie guruism. I guess Japan and China should just stop living in the past too since the universe was just being playful in Nanking.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

Seriously, read Steven Pinker's - The Angels Of Our Better Nature... it has all the numbers you need to stop being such a killjoy.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

spoiler- youre never getting shakespeare

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

© C.M. Burns

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

Did you ever wonder why gold is considered to be so precious? Is it because it's shiny and pretty? hardly, there are many beautiful minerals and gems on the planet.

Gold is precious because the earth does not produce it. The amount of gold on the planet is finite and was put here when our planet coalesced.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

We've always had the same amount of iron, oxygen, hydrogen and copper too. Jewels form here under great pressure underground, but the atoms they're based on have been here since Day 1 because forming the bonds requires nuclear fusion reactions so hot they can only occur in stars, supernovae or for some, the Big Bang. All elemental metals on earth from Aluminium to Zinc have been here since Day 1.

We just happen to have a whole lot less gold than anything else and it's a whole lot better at what it does - less reactive and more conductive than almost any other metal.

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

and work it out.

~Experience is the currency of the soul.

Everytime I jump into these post or topics I get upset with myself. I love astronomy and astro-physics and I feel like I may of missed my calling in life.

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

There are other life forms outside of us wondering if there are other life forms outside of them. My personal belief is that something much more advanced is not meant to be seen when you have not mastered your own existence. It's like unlocking levels on a video game. When you use cheat codes yeah you may beat the game but you haven't mastered certain aspects of the game to justify your survival. Ultimately leading to your demise when you encounter those that really went through it. You will make it but will not be able to sustain your position. A plane without wheels. The flight is nice but the landing will not be so forgiving.

-Scholar's Mind. Servant's Heart