Skip to content

You think it’s unfair, but belief in E.T life is greater than a belief in God

Christian blogs inspire me.

I was asked whether it was fair to dismiss God due to a lack of evidence, whilst being unfairly open to the idea of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe with an equally empty portfolio of facts backing it up.

God has more responsibility to let himself be known than any alien race. Of course God does! There is a reason why we have insufficient evidence for aliens, there’s light years between us and habitable planets. 

There is also a another huge factor to take into consideration, aliens do not claim to love us and answer our prayers, meaning much more justification in failing to contact us. If they are indeed present, it doesn’t mean they have the technology to prove it. 

They aren’t boasting that they do.

Why do we struggle to find evidence for a God that does claim all of this? 

No one should be stating with full conviction that we are not alone. Unless the conspiracies are true and a select few have indeed been in direct contact.

However unlike religious people, I’m open to the idea of aliens yet I won’t be getting down on my knees and worshipping them every Sunday or praying to them before a meal. 

A belief in alien life is being open to the idea of it without changing lifestyle, whereas a belief in God has just as much evidence, but many people change their lives to work around it despite no evidence.

That, is the the difference.


3 replies »

  1. I would say any view of belief that fits the definition, “A belief in **** is being open to the idea of it without changing lifestyle, but many people change their lives to work around a worse belief,” fits the mindset of anyone who’s ever used religion or ethics to do great evils.

    Ethics or religions you can say “Oh, that’s nice” too are probably the most toxic because they are used to blanket the worse offenses.


  2. I was more speaking to the fact “beliefs” and “values” be they political, social, etc. should have consequences if one accepts them, and that a tendency to accept such things because they don’t have consequences is the point behind “All that it requires for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” Especially given that the last 100 years was fought over value systems and even current struggles trend around that.

    Issue is really that rhetoric in present tense is value based, he IS bad & I AM good I HATE, I LOVE, add nausea. With the 60’s focus on existentialism people get sucked into “being in the “now”” even though present tense is the hardest way to carry out meaningful conversation compared to the forensic (past) or future (open) modes.

    As to my beliefs, I am the last of my breed… a Classical Calvinist > means I’m a Semi-Nominal humanist (and thus post-modern in many ways) and not a modernist (believes in Objective universal reason in a Cartesian sense) like either a post 1900’s fundamentalist or Classical Liberal Christian (enlightenment > the 1940’s, miracles are made up, etc.) would be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Thank You!

  • 93,667 little bits of appreciation
Follow Living! on
%d bloggers like this: