ok..
i'll chime in.
this is usually a discussion i save for something more..i dont know..in the same room type of deal.
and try to avoid internet discussions (context gets lost and the discussion has..by design..a polemic frame to it).
as some of you know i am a minister yet a can assume (with mild amusement i must add) that my comments and some of my posts may have you wondering..minister of what exactly?
well..dont get yer panties in a bunch,i am not going to do any preaching here.
all i am going to do is point out something that i find most atheists struggle with.
spirit,divinity,soul,chai,doktow,connection to the godhead..
whatever you wish to use as an adjective to define your own divinity.
what has EVERY religion,all 4500 on the planet,have in common?
that we have a soul,a spirit,a direct link to the cosmic consciousness.
argue all day on doctrine and dogma,translation but that remains the constant.
atheists do not believe in the spirit.that is their choice and they may change their mind or they may never change it.
now..
if one is an atheist they rely on science and not religious doctrine to make choices,decisions and judgements.
not a bad way to be,science has given us much.
but dag pointed out the fundamental breakdown between an atheist and someone who is aware of their true self..or spirit if you like.
he does not understand how such advanced civilizations would even bother with a race so obviously low on the civilization scale.
to study us..sure..but WHY else?
and there my friends is the disconnect.
the WHY.
the atheist..by his own belief system is literally pure ego.now i do not mean that in a derogatory way,just pointing out a fact.the ego is mind..a creation of not who we actually ARE but who we THINK we are.
so you can still be a kick ass person and still be pure ego.takes discipline though and an agile mind but it has and can be done.
the person who has become aware of their true selves ignores the ego and listens to their true self.
i am not saying one is greater or better than the other just pointing out the differences and their basic mechanics.
so..establishing the inherent differences let me explain my point.
dag does not understand because to him..we would be only a mild curiosity,but to the spiritually aware person we realize that all life is connected..especially sentient life and we are sentient but not all of us are awake.
it is this connection that all life recognizes on one level or another...even atheists.
i am no greater nor more important than a blade of grass.to you this may seem silly and even dimwitted but i assure you it is not that way and it is the more freeing than you can imagine.
no fear..no hate..no shame nor guilt.
how is that possible?
because i am aware of who i truly am and who you are and i make my choices accordingly.
so if we look at these "aliens" as not simply studying as us ants but rather as seeing us as little brothers and sisters struggling to take our first steps.then maybe we can take it a step further and look into the construct of time...lay it out like a canvas and ask..why the fuck are we even here?
are we ants to be studied?a populace to be controlled so we can buy more useless crap? on a never -ending treadmill of debt,fear and uncertainty?
or maybe the universe is far more wonderous and un-imaginable than we can even attempt to comprehend today?
maybe the universe is not so big after all?we just dont know it yet...but we will.
and im betting science will tell us how it works too!

now i dont know if aliens are here to help us walk.i dont know if they have been studying us for future food harvesting.i dont even know if they exist.
but there is a lot of information...and more and more people coming forward to tell their stories.
so a sit and watch with fascination and wonder and ask..is what they are saying true?
i dont know.i have not seen an alien nor have i been abducted but i HAVE seen some of the most extrordinary events that defy all description and laws of nature.
so just because i have not seen nor touched it i cant rule out somebody elses experience and so i sit,like dag and others,skeptical.
but i also wont rule anything out because "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."WS

but if you add the spirit element and that we are all connected.
each and every lifeform in the universe is connected.
aliens coming to help us in our next stage of evolution may not make more sense but it sure does feel/seem/sound better.
reality is the illusion gentlemen.
it is thought and consciousness that is real.

^But you do 'believe' in scientific consensus. You 'believe' every other conclusion scientific consensus has ever come to. You don't question gravity, or plate tectonics, or photosynthesis, or the reality of the ozone layer, do you?

Why defy science on this lone issue?

Could it have anything to do with the billion dollar PR campaign designed to put these ideas in the public mind?

Video Analysis:

I can't speak to the validity of the science, because I am not a scientist, but I can certainly speak to some of the political manipulation found within this video.

-The video replaces the term 'climate science' with the less accurate, more politically charged term 'global warming'.
-Science is described as 'opinion' to downplay the research that defines it.
-'Public opinion' is put on an equal footing with science.
-The "debate" is framed as one of equals, using the image of two men with cannons firing at each other. In reality, this is science vs. rich guys who don't want to clean up their factories.
-The video pretends to differentiate itself from, and rise above these two warring factions, despite its overt partisanship.
-The video condescendingly reminds scientists of the importance of evidence. WTF?
-At the end, the video reaches conclusions that were not satisfactorily proven, and then displays the image of a judge pounding a gavel in an attempt to invoke the mental frame of officiality and authority in the mind of the viewer.

The debate on this issue has nothing to do with science, it is pure *politics. The scientific process has already reached the consensus that climate change is real, man made and potentially harmful to organic lifeforms. I find it disturbing that you would put politics on an equal footing with science within the context of a scientific debate. Putting your 'belief' in experts is a good thing, and I imagine that outside of this political bizzaro world, you probably do just that.

If you need medical attention, you go to a doctor, not a lawyer.
If you need your car fixed, you go to a mechanic, not a gourmet chef.
If you need information on climate change, you go to climate scientists, not greedy industrialists!

>> ^peggedbea:
jesus, listen to yourselves.... either you guys almost exclusively deal with the sorriest, bitchiest, most spoiled, princess-complex females in the universe ... or you're really kind of dickish.
i'm using larsarus's comment as the example, but his sentiments seem to be close to the norm here.
expecting that my work and mind be valued and respected as much as yours, does not mean i don't value your existence too. and helping your neighbor reach something high, or get through the door with her hands full doesn't mean you've bowed down to feminist subjugation or were manipulated by doe-eyes. for fucks sake dudes.
social rule for all genitals: don't be a dick. (pun not intended)
>> ^LarsaruS:
My thoughts on equality
In my opinion equality is better than 17th century chivalry. The problem with equality though is that some people feel that they are more equal than others. This is, as far as I have observed, usually a female trait (unless you count the statistical outliers like the few ultra-rich and heads of states and the like) in that they demand equality in all things that benefit them yet refuse to fight for/accept equality in things that don't benefit them or is to their disadvantage. As I see it it is the old problem of living standards i.e. if you are used to having a high standard of living then lowering it is not a viable option. Giving way for a male can be seen as a lowering of their living standards in this instance.
How to deal with it
I have found that using their slogans against them and not helping them works quite well as they can't argue with you when you use their own arguments against them. Example: A female wants to reach the top shelves but can't because she is female and short. She sees a tall male and she looks at him with doe-eyes and asks with a lilt in her voice if he could help poor little her. Simply reply with a No and "Girl power!" or some other feminist slogan (In Sweden there was a slogan that went "Kvinnor kan!" which roughly means "Females can!" with [do anything males can] implied which I usually use). Some females realise the astounding irony of fighting gender inequalities and then relying on them for help but some of them get really pissed, in my opinion, because they can't get a male to do their bidding and are not used to being told 'No' by males. But hey if you want equality then you have got it. I would not help a random short male so I wont help a random female either. It is better for all to learn to improvise and solve their own tiny problems, how to get the crisps/chips from the top shelf, than to rely on the kindness/weakness of others.
In conclusion: you - right & they - wrong. Equality > Chivalry & Strength > Weakness
P.S. Wow this is a wall of text... congrats on getting through it :-D



Another wall of text is incoming... be warned (Not interested in starting a flame war but will probably derail the thread a bit but here goes...)

A couple of comments as you used my text as an example:
1) I would help my neighbours, I like them and know them... well most of them at least and the ones I don't like I probably would not help... As someone said above: chivalry and tipping is a choice not mandatory and so is helping others, especially people you don't like/care about.

2) I can't speak for all of the sift but when I write a text like mine I use broad generalizations to get the/my point across, Example: "All Iraqis and Afghanis are terrorists who want to blow up the world", even if it is "a bit" exaggerated or not true in many many many cases(I would guestimate it to ~99.99% of them or so)...

3) Female wiles are still female wiles whether there is a "feminist agenda"/"feminist subjugation" or not. To clarify my stance/point: Males tend to get their way by use of force, physical/monetary/mental and so on, whilst Females get their way by looking good and using males to do their bidding, see gold diggers/black widows and so on. Yes, females are worth as much and contribute to other stuff using their brains blah blah blah. However, it is a, in my eyes at least, simple concept as (most) Males (except asexuals, homosexuals, paraplegics and others not interested in females and/or able to procreate) will do basically anything to increase their chance of getting laid, see plastic surgery/crazy diet & workout schemes and so on, and helping a female does that, in our minds at least, (increases the chance of it, not guarantees it. Don't confuse the two as it might land you in trouble ) and they know that we, males, believe that and use it to their advantage. It is all quite Machiavellian and I applaud them for it.

4) is a bit OT but ties in with My, not everyone's, views on things. Cont. of 3).
It's simply biology in action. Every single action we (as a biological species) ever do is for the ultimate goal of securing procreation/the continuation of our lifeform. (Once again: My views, maybe not shared with some/most...) We (as in males) work out to look good and to be able to fight off sabre-toothed tigers (Providing safety & security), we study to get a job that provides money (for food and shelter, more money usually = better food & shelter) and so on. These things lead to a higher chance of the young surviving and is therefore seen as positive traits when females are looking for a mate. In general animals that play to their strengths survive, those who don't go extinct, and in general males can overpower females but females can outscheme males. Remember to keep on copying and diversifying that DNA. It is the meaning of life after all. Survival of the most adaptable and all that junk...

PS. Oh I almost forgot to say that that was an excellent pun Bea... love that finishing touch... (Seriously I do, very nice)

PPS. Extremly long wall of text... hopefully it is clear enough to be read and understood by others but I know what I mean and that means others do too right?

>> ^Jesus_Freak:
The order and certainty, which I thank Science for demonstrating, in the laws of physics and gravity...you can honestly say "gee, neat that it all just came together like that?" Our planet alone would have had to have been to result of 10,000,000 lottery odds occurrences all happening in concert. Nothing was behind that?
You science guys have far more faith than I!


This is the laziest argument based out of complete lack of understanding of science. A Judeo-Christian God is the ONLY explanation for a carbon-based watery sacks of organic lifeforms that depend on oxygen and a specific temperature region.. It must have been God!

Did you ever think there is a 100% chance that we live on a planet that happens to support liquid water and an oxygen rich gaseous atmosphere? And that it isn't a random fluke our planet just happens to inhabit a narrow band of distance from a certain size star? And that the moon provides tidal forces on a mostly water planet? The reasonable explanation is that life developed to suit its environment and NOT that some mystical being created a world for us to inhabit.

You do realize there is life that developed at the bottom of the oceans in high pressure, high temperature thermal vents that uses methane for energy?! Or even silicon based thingys in some volcanic places.

Why would a horrible, inconsistent, editted, poorly translated, politicized book like the Bible be the best (or even good) explanation of anything?
You do realize half of your Bible is a bunch of oral traditions from hunter gather tribes that were adopted and put into writing to make a book that is more akin to a Boyscout Manual then anything else.

If there was a God that inspired a book, why is the Bible so flawed? Why are there so many contradictions and even what we now consider nonsense? Why do you pick and choose what parts of this holy scripture to follow? Why are you not out there stoning people to death as your God commands you to?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'barelypolitical, lifeform, cracks, jokes' to 'barelypolitical, lifeform, cracks, jokes, brother blob' - edited by ponceleon

We do not have to win 1000 lotteries and on specific days. The universe does. And with each planet being a ticket, the metaphorical(?) probability you're proposing seems easily obtainable, if not a given.



>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Raigen:
http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/insignificance.jpg
The next person that tells me our planet is the only one with life, or even intelligent life, in the whole goddamned Universe is going to get a telescope to the face.

Certainty on the issue is amusing. =)
It is difficult to imagine a lack of some form of life elsewhere in the universe, but intelligent life is tricky. We don't have a good understanding of the probabilities involved in the development of lifeforms with the capability of creating, for instance, long range electromagnetic communication.
It's quite possible that we are the only, or at least the first, highly intelligent life in the Milky Way. There's no scientific reason to conclude that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, but we may be the only ones within any practical distance.

Yeah. And remember the time factor. In those billions of years that have passed since the universe began, what are the chances of us being alive at the DURING THE SAME SPAN OF TIME as another intelligent species? Let alone aliens being out there and within reach. Take a look at the average life span of the species on earth - it isn't very long at all. You need an appropriate star, an appropriate planet, the planet to be during the prime period for life to develop, the necessary environmental and evolutionary developments to have taken place to allow an intelligent creature to prosper..
Not only have you got to win 1000 lotteries, but you have to win them all on specific days.
Reminds me of the weak anthropic principle - the question of "why are we so lucky that we find ourselves born into life in the most hospitable perfect area of space and time which allows us to live" is answered by "because if we weren't in this perfect area of space/time, we wouldn't be here to ponder such a thing".

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Raigen:
http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/insignificance.jpg
The next person that tells me our planet is the only one with life, or even intelligent life, in the whole goddamned Universe is going to get a telescope to the face.

Certainty on the issue is amusing. =)
It is difficult to imagine a lack of some form of life elsewhere in the universe, but intelligent life is tricky. We don't have a good understanding of the probabilities involved in the development of lifeforms with the capability of creating, for instance, long range electromagnetic communication.
It's quite possible that we are the only, or at least the first, highly intelligent life in the Milky Way. There's no scientific reason to conclude that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, but we may be the only ones within any practical distance.


Yeah. And remember the time factor. In those billions of years that have passed since the universe began, what are the chances of us being alive at the DURING THE SAME SPAN OF TIME as another intelligent species? Let alone aliens being out there and within reach. Take a look at the average life span of the species on earth - it isn't very long at all. You need an appropriate star, an appropriate planet, the planet to be during the prime period for life to develop, the necessary environmental and evolutionary developments to have taken place to allow an intelligent creature to prosper..

Not only have you got to win 1000 lotteries, but you have to win them all on specific days.

Reminds me of the weak anthropic principle - the question of "why are we so lucky that we find ourselves born into life in the most hospitable perfect area of space and time which allows us to live" is answered by "because if we weren't in this perfect area of space/time, we wouldn't be here to ponder such a thing".

>> ^Raigen:
http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/insignificance.jpg
The next person that tells me our planet is the only one with life, or even intelligent life, in the whole goddamned Universe is going to get a telescope to the face.


Certainty on the issue is amusing. =)

It is difficult to imagine a lack of some form of life elsewhere in the universe, but intelligent life is tricky. We don't have a good understanding of the probabilities involved in the development of lifeforms with the capability of creating, for instance, long range electromagnetic communication.

It's quite possible that we are the only, or at least the first, highly intelligent life in the Milky Way. There's no scientific reason to conclude that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, but we may be the only ones within any practical distance.

http://www.wimp.com/lifeform/

Go here now, the original poster set the video to private...

Suspicious? I say yes.

demon, it seems unlikely that there will be complex bigger lifeforms. That is because at least on Earth oxygen respiration is required to sustain energetic multicellular creatures. No sunlight reaches the depth of Europa so oxygen generating photosynthesis is unlikely. So if we only harm a small place in, the worst case scenario of a leak or meltdown, then I don't think it would matter that much on a planetary scale. However leaving the reactor in the water will doubtlessly cause it to leak after decades or centuries. Maybe they could drive the meltprobe back up a bit after the mission is done. If it then locks into the ice it should remain so.

Crake for communication a wire would bring problems as you say. What they could do, is drop radio beacons at certain distances along the way down which could then relay the signal back up the surface. Or maybe use really longwave radio signals which might be able to penetrate the ice, though could only carry very low bandwidth.

*long and good. I was blinded by the science at 05:53...

...Phenotypical taxonomy is character based, an in-depth analysis of every morphological developmental genetic or physiological trait, systematic classification surpasses this by comparing these collectives to determine derived synopomophies, indicating a nested phylogeny, and THAT determines the clade. Because phylogenetic hierarchy is the only consistent criteria for classifying diverse lifeforms stemming from an evolutionary lineage, and that is evidently where we came from...

Stick that in your turbo encabulator.

I have no concept of "day". I also have no notion of fallibility in artificial lifeforms.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
Having a tough day, are we?

I understand, I also always found difficulty in differentiating between 1 and 7.

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by EDD.

Reinstating. maltreatment of artificial lifeforms will not be tolerated in my garden.

lets be honest, there are fuckwits everywhere, people so naive and dumb that the affront us all by stealing the air meant for higher lifeforms.

But seriously, America does seem to have far more than anywhere else on earth!

Sensationalism (propaganda even). methane is not likely to equal life and they know that.
it's not just unlikely that would be the cause of methane but take into account the improbabilities of lifeforms evolving on two rocks right next to each other, independently...

yes okay it's nice to hope but we are being fed this tripe for a reason, they're just attempting to get more funding for the space program through sensationalizing scientific findings, or something thereabouts.

somewhat related food for thought :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox