Seriously - Aliens, if they do exist, do not count as infallible techno-gods come to save us from ourselves. They most likely have similar flaws to our own, and have simply made it a few centuries further along than we have.
Probably came here wondering how the fuck they managed to make it as far as coming here. Sort of like traversing squillions of kilometres of space just to see a not-quote-so-instant replay of yourself dodging a bullet. If it were me, I probably wouldn't risk failing an explanation of how to do that. I'd probably bug out at the first sign that I was being watched.
What's to say there isn't a whole world existing in the same space as us, and we just cant perceive it.
On a wild guess, I'd say physics.
Because we know every detail about every iota of matter and every detail about every energy transfer, right?
No, because we don't allow argumentum ad ignorantiam. What's to say there isn't a god? What's to say there isn't a magical teapot? What's to say there isn't an invisible pink unicorn? What's to say there isn't an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage? These are all the same question as the original that I quoted. The answer to that, "I'd say physics", is perfectly rational, and could quite sensibly be paraphrased as "what's to say there is?" or even "that's not even wrong!"
Considering the ratbaggery going on in Macquarie St and in Canberra we'll take any actual governing, even from Wellington. It would make a nice change.
Along those lines, I'd have suggested letting your replacement explain why not while you got on with working for someone who was less ethically challenged.
What makes you think the Catholic Church has this information exclusively? Maybe leaders from all major religions have it. Maybe the larger media companies know it as well. Maybe the the British Monarchy, the Vatican, the Getty's, the Rothchild's, and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up all knew about this and have been slowly preparing us for it over many years.
What makes me think the Catholic Church has this information exclusively? Nothing. I don't think that, and I didn't say that I did. TFA was about the Vatican's admission of the possibility of alien life, giving the discussion a Catholic slant. GGP and GGGP to this post, along with TFA, could reasonably imply (for the purposes of this speculation, at least) that only the Catholic Church has the information. I already admitted, for my part in this speculation, the possibility that they aren't the only ones who might be told; I did say "why would you give the Catholic Church (or any other organised religion, for that matter) the exclusive privilege of this information" after all, and from there I might have gone on to ask not only why not the rest of the churches but also why not business also. However, I did not so ask because that was not the point. This particular branch of the discussion tree grew from the notion that the Vatican would make some announcement. My only contribution to this was not to affirm this speculative (and interesting) idea, but simply to ask why them particularly.
But if you want me to make it simple, nothing exists outside of our minds.
What a world-view! You think, therefore we are not? If we don't exist, then why bother explaining this to us? Do you profess to be all-knowing? If not, then do we figments of your imagination surprise you or say something to you that you will never understand from time to time? If so, then is that because your mind is in some way defective? It's convenient not to have to be able to prove this view.
If I'm a world government, or some other group with international power and influence, and I know or suspect that an announcement like this is imminent, I don't want this dropping on the populace light a thunderbolt out of the sky.
All very interesting points there, but why would you give the Catholic Church (or any other organised religion, for that matter) the exclusive privilege of this information?
There are two main theories groups that attempt to explain the creation of the Universe and the origin of life and humanity.
Group 1. Big Bang & Evolution. Essentially this version says, it all just happened, mostly by accident but with the amount of time and mass involved it was inevitable.
Group 2. Created by God (or gods). Essentially this version says it all originated from the imagination of a being with virtually unlimited intelligence and power.
You know what I find cool? That under both scenarios it's almost inevitable that we will encounter other intelligent life, somewhere out there.
Why almost inevitable? It is not impossible under scenario 1 (notwithstanding that evolution does not explain the origin of life or of the universe) that life managed to arise exactly once in the universe, however unlikely that may seem to some. Moreover, it is not impossible that under scenario 2 the creator decided only to set up life on this planet. In fact, depending on one's understanding of the nature of the creator in scenario 2, it may be inevitable that life only arose here and nowhere else.
It's far from inevitable that we will/would encounter life "out there": we simply do not know. The only way we'll ever be sure is by encountering it. Until we do, it's an open question. Unless, that is, someone can "prove" that it's impossible for life to have arisen anywhere else. And good luck with that.
The Founders always said that "democracy is are worst disease"
If they said anything like that, it would have been "democracy is our worst disease". They hadn't quite reached the point of substituting verbs for pronouns at that stage.
"Our" and "are" are completely different words. They're not even universally homophonic.
First, you lump all religious people (hint: this is most of the planet) into the category of "people who cause genocide." Second, you offhandedly pronounce that, on the whole, the effects of religion are evil. Then, you conclude that religious viewpoints should not be heard.
I think that intelligence does have some survival value, but as they saying goes there's more than one way to skin a cat. Intelligence is merely one way to solve the general problem of survival. I suspect, however, that it may be a self-limiting solution. For one thing, it has given us the ability to do ourselves in both by deliberate action and by unintended consequence. For another, I think that it has given us the room to develop the luxury of compassion -- if I can put it that way -- in which we devote resources to the task of preserving otherwise less-than-ideal survival characteristics.
Two atoms were walking down the street and one says to the other, "hey, I think I lost an electron."
The other says, "are you sure?"
The first one replied, "yeah, I'm positive."
Having said that, please do fight for your rights over in the US, because most Australian politicians seem to have a monkey see, monkey do approach to policy and if Americans stand up against wiretapping etc, then there might be less chance of legislation allowing it being enacted here.
Isn't having other people fight for our rights elsewhere just a little bit iffy?
I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power. African regimes with constant rebellions and other chaos don't count.
I don't know if this was quite what you were looking for, but does the Battle of Athens count in any way?
It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.)
Theist: God exists.
Weak Atheist: I see no evidence to support that proposition; I don't believe you.
Strong Atheist: God does not exist.
Weak Atheist: That seems reasonable, but since you're making a positive statement to that effect I expect that you have irrefutable evidence or at least a rigorous proof of that?
Strong Atheist: Well...
Weak Atheist: I'm sorry, but I don't believe you either.
Slashdot Mirror
You took a QANTAS flight to figure that out?
For sufficiently "convenient" values of "slightly", the other poster is right. Good info, though.
"Palatable" and "populace", for starters.
Hope this helps.
A. Earthling.
PS: That's "that's", not "thats".
PPS: And the same goes for "it's", too.
PPPS: GG "English Grammar For Green Bug-Eyed Monsters For The Rest Of Us" FTW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson's_Puppeteer
Probably came here wondering how the fuck they managed to make it as far as coming here. Sort of like traversing squillions of kilometres of space just to see a not-quote-so-instant replay of yourself dodging a bullet. If it were me, I probably wouldn't risk failing an explanation of how to do that. I'd probably bug out at the first sign that I was being watched.
No, because we don't allow argumentum ad ignorantiam. What's to say there isn't a god? What's to say there isn't a magical teapot? What's to say there isn't an invisible pink unicorn? What's to say there isn't an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage? These are all the same question as the original that I quoted. The answer to that, "I'd say physics", is perfectly rational, and could quite sensibly be paraphrased as "what's to say there is?" or even "that's not even wrong!"
Your objection shoots itself in the foot.
Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest.
Considering the ratbaggery going on in Macquarie St and in Canberra we'll take any actual governing, even from Wellington. It would make a nice change.
Ugg! That was baad.
I solemnly swear that I will from now on.
Along those lines, I'd have suggested letting your replacement explain why not while you got on with working for someone who was less ethically challenged.
What makes me think the Catholic Church has this information exclusively? Nothing. I don't think that, and I didn't say that I did. TFA was about the Vatican's admission of the possibility of alien life, giving the discussion a Catholic slant. GGP and GGGP to this post, along with TFA, could reasonably imply (for the purposes of this speculation, at least) that only the Catholic Church has the information. I already admitted, for my part in this speculation, the possibility that they aren't the only ones who might be told; I did say "why would you give the Catholic Church (or any other organised religion, for that matter) the exclusive privilege of this information" after all, and from there I might have gone on to ask not only why not the rest of the churches but also why not business also. However, I did not so ask because that was not the point. This particular branch of the discussion tree grew from the notion that the Vatican would make some announcement. My only contribution to this was not to affirm this speculative (and interesting) idea, but simply to ask why them particularly.
Does that help?
What a world-view! You think, therefore we are not? If we don't exist, then why bother explaining this to us? Do you profess to be all-knowing? If not, then do we figments of your imagination surprise you or say something to you that you will never understand from time to time? If so, then is that because your mind is in some way defective? It's convenient not to have to be able to prove this view.
All very interesting points there, but why would you give the Catholic Church (or any other organised religion, for that matter) the exclusive privilege of this information?
Why almost inevitable? It is not impossible under scenario 1 (notwithstanding that evolution does not explain the origin of life or of the universe) that life managed to arise exactly once in the universe, however unlikely that may seem to some. Moreover, it is not impossible that under scenario 2 the creator decided only to set up life on this planet. In fact, depending on one's understanding of the nature of the creator in scenario 2, it may be inevitable that life only arose here and nowhere else.
It's far from inevitable that we will/would encounter life "out there": we simply do not know. The only way we'll ever be sure is by encountering it. Until we do, it's an open question. Unless, that is, someone can "prove" that it's impossible for life to have arisen anywhere else. And good luck with that.
If they said anything like that, it would have been "democracy is our worst disease". They hadn't quite reached the point of substituting verbs for pronouns at that stage. "Our" and "are" are completely different words. They're not even universally homophonic.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
I think that intelligence does have some survival value, but as they saying goes there's more than one way to skin a cat. Intelligence is merely one way to solve the general problem of survival. I suspect, however, that it may be a self-limiting solution. For one thing, it has given us the ability to do ourselves in both by deliberate action and by unintended consequence. For another, I think that it has given us the room to develop the luxury of compassion -- if I can put it that way -- in which we devote resources to the task of preserving otherwise less-than-ideal survival characteristics.
Two atoms were walking down the street and one says to the other, "hey, I think I lost an electron." The other says, "are you sure?" The first one replied, "yeah, I'm positive."
Isn't having other people fight for our rights elsewhere just a little bit iffy?
I don't know if this was quite what you were looking for, but does the Battle of Athens count in any way?
Which is why there are cameras in the toilets, of course.
Theist: God exists.
Weak Atheist: I see no evidence to support that proposition; I don't believe you.
Strong Atheist: God does not exist.
Weak Atheist: That seems reasonable, but since you're making a positive statement to that effect I expect that you have irrefutable evidence or at least a rigorous proof of that?
Strong Atheist: Well...
Weak Atheist: I'm sorry, but I don't believe you either.
Spot the person who has no religion.
To whom are you speaking? The speaker or the audience? If the former then the word you're looking for is "advice"; if the latter then "advise".