I think the term 'life as we know it' better describes what scientist think though. The only way life as we know it can exist is on an Earth-like planet. that's not to say other forms of life can't exist, it's just we don't know how the ♥♥♥♥ it would work.


Yeah, but with our technology our options are either to keep doing what we're doing, or stop entirely, and seeing as nobody wants to not see if there are aliens, we're going to keep on keeping on.
Besides, if we stopped funding these kinds of things, we'd never advance that kind of technology

forgive me but all i can think about is how 'gnosticism' sounds like agnosticism for gnomes


sorry this is probably going to be so far off topic in term of whats being discussed right now, under a spolier for just such reasons

[reputable citation needed]
[if I look this up I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up neck deep in conspiracy ♥♥♥♥ about NASA HIDIN THE ALIUMS]

EDIT: An inspection of the recent scientific literature reveals neither.

speaking of conspiracies, has anyone heard of/witnessed the snow falling over parts of the US and canada that doesnt melt normally when held up to a flame? i argued with an 11 year old for like two hours because they were trying to make others believe it was the government controlling the weather.

Hmm, Gnostic, from GardenersGnostic, and the origin of the being, Yaltabaoth (*spelling) the Demiurge.
It's pretty much a religion around the time of the birth of Christianity.
The morals, and tales I get from it is that everything that doesn't change state gets ♥♥♥♥, those that do adapt.
But that disregards that the lore of the religion is that the Demiurge is the failed child of the last child of the supreme creator, and sought to create another spiritual realm. It became the physical realm, and generally you can guess how the supreme creator feels about that.

At the very least, even the gods can be wrong, and they change.

Another I dislike is how the debates around which religious beliefs to follow tends to revolve around proving or disproving the existence of god or god(s). Having grown up going to Sunday school (actually mine was on Wednesday), I was never concerned that certain things didn't sound consistent with our modern understanding of physics; the issue for me was that God sounded like a ♥♥♥♥♥. Well maybe that's too strong of a word but if God wasn't "God" and just some guy I knew that happened to be omnipotent and omnipresent, I wouldn't have a great opinion of him. I found it a lot easier to sympathize with him in the sequel, but still a far cry from someone I would devoutly worship.

The sequel?

The point of monotheism is that you don't have to prove your god exists. He just exists.
It's also called orthodox when you have to follow all of the dogmas and ♥♥♥♥ of a religion. Orthodox Catholics inherently see homosexuality as a sin. They also believe all sins are forgiven and people go to heaven.

This is one of many problems orthodox religions have. Don't get me started on Zionists who bullied a girl who got Hebrew text tattooed on herself even though she wasn't Jewish. ♥♥♥♥ fascists.

but you do have to prove it when you're polytheistic?

not necessarily. A lot of polytheistic religions are symbolic, playful, and satirical.
But the whole God/Allah/Jehovah thing is pretty much srs business

I think this is a little silly.
Life as we know it requires a lot of very complex, long-chain organic molecules, which wouldn't be able to stay sufficiently complex under harsher conditions, presumably those they're ignoring. Too hot, cold, acidic, basic, etc. and these molecules wouldn't react correctly if at all.
There's the idea of silicon based life, but I gather that takes pretty cold temperatures for the silicon molecules to be sufficiently stable to form chains of any reasonable length and I don't know if they can get very long even near 0K, plus at 0K they probably wouldn't have enough energy to react much so it'd be difficult to form chains anyway.
Outside of that, I don't believe there are any elements we know of that are covalently stable enough to form the complex molecules needed for life as we know it. Granted, new elements are being discovered and though they're ridiculously unstable I do recall hearing about a theorized stability plateau (probably the wrong terminology) where elements after some large atomic weight would be stable again so maybe some of those would be viable, though creating them, especially in nature, would probably be pretty difficult.

All that said, there may very well be life that we can't identify as alive, but if we won't be able to tell it's alive, it make sense to assume it's not and focus on searching for life that we can identify. So assuming that the only planets with life are those with conditions in which long carbon chains could reasonably form, i.e. those fairly similar to earth, seems pretty reasonable to me.

Keep in mind I'm only looking at this from a chemical standpoint, I know little about biology and physics and I'm sure there's more to it than what I have to say. I may be wrong, but a conclusion like the one you're against was probably pretty well thought through by quite a lot of people who have a good idea of what it takes to make recognizable life.

Old Testament is the first book, New Testament the sequel in the analogy.
OT God is pretty jealous, spiteful, full of vengeance, and all that jazz. NT God is pretty chill and all-encompassing in his compassion and things like that. This is, of course, in general, there's a whole lot of text in there and a lot of people say a lot of things, God included.

The Qur'an is the sequel to the sequel.

Book of Mormon is fan fic

jk no offense to mormons

Have you guys heard of the Process Church of Final Judgement?
It's an offshoot of Scientology that believes God and Satan are both equally important in worship and work together later on when the rapture happens or some ♥♥♥♥.
It's weird.