Serious Sam Game and Ancient Civilizations

Actually more we digg related to the ancient people and the alien theory, more we try to jump from one conspiracy theory to another and at the end of the day we'll keep what our society is currently expecting us to believe.

I know its all seems odd.... Yes it does seem a lot like the Sumarians.... Enki is also suposed to be the Devil and Prometheus.... As far as the greys go... well it is said that they can just stare at you and you cant move a muscle they can thus paralyse you and do a runner. And the Dolphin can do the same thing to avoid Predators... I wonder if thats why they never seem to have any Dolphin or Grey Alien Skulls in their Trophy Cabinets lol

Only civlization that doesn't consider gods as aliens is hinduism. They do have ships and fights between each other but there is no devil but people who do good or bad deeds. They have quite relaxed mythology compared to western and europian one. By the way, dolphins are one of the smartest species on this planet. I wonder why they were related to the aliens and not any other species like alligator that walks on both land and water. I mean if aliens are hybrid and are underwater then this makes sense to have reference for alligator or lizard type species here in this theory.

Xeno-dolphin [img]http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg561/spacejockey1/8fe25726671111e1b9f1123138140926_6.jpg[/img]

The science in my opinion is the best way to get to the truth, contrary to religion and the new age because are are just irrational and fanciful ways to explain the great mysteries of the universe (an easy solution: God did /ET did) just MHO.

It is impossible for observation of the physical to explain the metaphysical. Science can only explain empirical facts, the truths that matter to most people will never be explained with empirical facts. Science can't answer the question "am I loved?" or "does my life matter?" Only faith can. Faith being defined as believing what you can't prove.

@Myrddin365 ¿Metaphysics? Show me a single objective evidence that the soul, ghosts, God or the Tooth Fairy exist (and I believe). You must not forget that: 1) The science is reinvented and updated over time. 2)From an epistemological point of view the methodology of science is more serious and reliable (as opposed to pseudoscience). 3) As I said there are mysteries, but not necessarily the best way to answer them is by blind faith or speculation based on subjective interpretation. As they say "atheist becomes a believer when he loses faith. An atheist becomes a believer when he loses the right"... ¿Love? is a set of biological processes of the neurotransmitter systems that activate the pleasure circuit (like dopamine) can be activated quickly to a person who is attractive, producing a feeling of comfort and attachment. Indeed recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain secretes increasing amounts in a number of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin, which act similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has shown that this stage usually ends after a year and a half to three years. Another substance that the brain releases in a state of infatuation is phenylethylamine, which acts on the limbic system and causes the sensations and feelings common in that state, plus it is a precursor of dopamine, hence the latter also is in large quantities. A small chemical modification can be transformed into a stimulant (amphetamine and methylphenidate) or an antidepressant (bupropion and venlafaxine). Phenylethylamine is also found in foods like chocolate and aged cheeses. Regards

@Shambala Your previous post was an excellent example of the straw man logical fallacy. I said nothing about religion, the tooth fairy the soul or God or "being in love." I made no claims that empirical data existed to prove the existence of anything metaphysical, in fact I stated opposite. Your entire post is based on the unprovable metaphysical belief that science will eventually be able to explain everything. It is based on faith in evidence, but it is not a provable fact. Being "in love" has nothing to do with being loved.

@Myrddin365 I never said that science explains everything with the passage of time (straw man for you too XP)...I was referring to the fact that science is updated over time. (I have not said that explained everything one day) and also wanted to refer to the fact that science uses methodologies based on objective evidence and not on subjective assumptions. But when we see pseudoscience or religion we are faced with the need of man for answers. The problem is that the man thinks he can solve everything in parsimony. Then there are the Gods, Ancient Astronauts, the soul, heaven and hell. They often resort to Ad hoc argument, or the fallacy of simple cause and the classic Ad ignorantiam. I'm not saying that I am 100% sure that this kind of thing does not exist. I'm just saying that if there is no objective evidence then my position is fair. I can not concluri that there is / or does not exist. That would be irresponsible and senseless and NO, this is not Ad ignorantiam since I am opting for a fair and objective. And "Being in love has nothing to do with being loved", Really?

@Shambala I only mentioned 2 questions "Am I loved?" "Does my life matter?" Deal with those. I made no statements about religion or pseudoscience in support or refute. Unfortunately, you are still using the straw man logical fallacy. "science is reinventing itself with the passage of time and methodologies are still more serious and reliable." That is a statement of faith based on an unknown, but not unreasonable future. You can't prove that the statement will come true. I am stating that belief in something you can't prove is the only viable means to answer questions in my earlier post. And, You don't know the difference between being loved and being "in love?" Really?

@Myrddin365 First (copy paste): I never said that science explains everything with the passage of time (straw man for you too XP)...I was referring to the fact that science is updated over time. (I have not said that explained everything one day) And also wanted to refer to the fact that science uses methodologies based on objective evidence and not on subjective assumptions. if in the future happens or not is another thing, my words are directed to the fact of nature of science to reinvent itself, which can be seen when analyzing the History. Second: Quote-"I am stating that belief in something you can't prove is the only viable means to answer questions in my earlier post". A: This is a classic Ad ignorantiam fallacy: I can not prove that something exists and I can not prove that something does not exist. So my blind faith is the best answer to the mystery. Third: Quote-And, You don't know the difference between being loved and being "in love?" Really? A: No, but you could explain me ¿?

@Myrddin365 Based on your "Am i loved" and "Does life matter" i assume you are relating to the idea of most religions and the thought that we are somehow important in the whole scheme of things. From what science knows so far the start of this universe was natural and life forming and evolving over time is to, there is no proof or realistic explanations from religion except this seems to complicated so god did it. If we discover new things over time the ideas and theories will change with it. It doesn't explain everything and some ideas could be wrong though based on what we know this is the best way to deal with things, it's damn well better then just having blind faith in something. I think the difference between religious people and non religious is they cant accept that there realy is no point behind life at all. I hear lots of religious people say if you don't believe god why not commit suicide then as your life has no meaning? They are scared that maybe there is nothing after death and this god isn't there watching over and loving us.

Religions, sects and cults are the opium of the people, they need to believe in something (a mixture of fear and perhaps arrogance) but in my opinion we have small insignificant (at Universal). It is possible that Man is afraid of death and prefers to think that there will be a magical paradise expecting it ... (I admit it's much better than the idea of being eaten by worms or turn to dustto cease to exist) Ideals vs. reality = Fantasies vs Facts And about Gods / Aliens is like Xena's words: "A wizard did it" (easy answers to difficult questions)

I withdraw the comment about what I thought was being communicated by your "observation." I am stating that science has limits based on current observation and historical observation. Currently there is no means of collecting empirical data that will answer the questions. "Am I loved?" "Does MY life matter?" To say that science will one day answer these questions will be a direct contradiction of your assertion that you are making no assumptions about the future. If your premise never was that one day science will answer those questions, then what bearing did any discussion of science ever have on this conversation? Loving and being loved is a continuous choice made by at least two parties to make the well being of their counterpart a priority regardless of emotional state, or neurochemical reactions. You are "in love" with that person you can't get out of your head who gives you butterflies, goose bumps and causes the release of "phenylethylamine, which acts on the limbic system and causes the sensations and feelings common in that state." At NO point in any of MY posts have i mentioned religion in any form. I clearly defined what I meant by faith for the purposes of this conversation. I have stated this repeatedly. "there realy is no point behind life at all" This is a metaphysical statement, with no supporting empirical data.

If nothing created us and is watching over making it all natural, what point to life could there be? There is a instinctive point to life which is to procreate and keep us a species going and that's about it.

@Myrddin365 "Am I loved?" "Does MY life matter?" A: I do not know, Could you explain step and what is the relationship with the conversation? And QUOTE: To say that science will one day answer these questions will be a direct contradiction of your assertion that you are making no assumptions about the future. If your premise never was that one day science will answer those questions, then what bearing did any discussion of science ever have on this conversation? A: In your second post you mentioned that science alone can explain only empirical factors, and I mention that the methodologies of science and how this knowledge obtained (which in my personal opinion is more plausible that the methodologies used by pseudosciences) and that's all. On the other hand my comment on religious aspects were not addressed to you, I just agree with @Rawr post.

Quoting out of context is not productive. I stated two examples of metaphysical questions that objective observation of empirical data cannot answer. They are questions whose answers matter deeply to people. The point was not the specific questions. The point is that: 1 Some truth is provable and empirical. 2 Some truth must be accepted based on faith, evidence and subjective choice.

If something is apparently so far out of this world that not even science can answer, then what's to say its even real and why care so much about it? It's like when someone says the universe had to be created and ill say what created that etc and the religious person can go well god is outside the laws of science, its bs just to keep the delusion going.

@Rawr don't be obtuse. I obviously am not talking about stuff that's "way out there." You can't prove that your mother loves you, but you most likely believe that it's true, or it matters to you whether or not it is true.

@Myrddin365 1) Some truth is provable and empirical. A: Yes, it is true but ¿what the truth is more valuable? If the thunder and lightning are seen and heard by a primitive and associates it with something of the Gods work, then what is the correct answer to the phenomenon? Yes, I know people's beliefs are very important to them, a lot. But that does not change the fact the real truth as opposed to the fantastic truth (subjective beliefs against objective facts) 2) Some truth must be accepted based on faith, evidence and subjective choice. A:Really? But n must forget the fact that the human being is anxious for answers to the great mysteries and it is possible that science can not currently answer, then we have the pseudo-sciences, religions and new age... Why? that these disciplines offer quick and easy answers to big questions, but be careful, as not necessarily the most plausible route. Technically, there are truths that have been there long before being discovered, for example, gravity, spherical curved earth, evolution, electricity, etc. But then Earth change when people realized that was not flat? And again we have an Objectivity vs. Subjectivity. That is independent of the subjective beliefs of the people. And it certainly is a fact that there are mysteries, but this does not mean that we should make judgments based on a priori subjectivity: Theoretically? maybe... How the best solution or final answer? No way...