If you're an atheist should you not at least believe in aliens?

[HeroOfPellinor]

Given that there are, what, 500,000,000,000 stars in just our galaxy and there are probably well more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

 

[So]

Why? We have a sample population of ONE. There is far too little information to 'believe' in aliens. You'd be a fool to rule them out given the evidence we have, but you'd be a bigger fool to decisively claim their existence.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Uh.. ok?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Given that there are, what, 500,000,000,000 stars in just our galaxy and there are probably well more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

If you're an atheist, you usually dont just "believe" in things. You need some sort of proof.

Since there is no proof, or any reasonable evidence pointing towards it, I'd have to say absolutely not.

Circumstantial evidence for aliens is no different than circumstantial evidence for a deity.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: So
Why? We have a sample population of ONE.

Ah yes. The primeval atom was a "sample population of one". The first amoeba to split on earth was a "sample population of one". The first fish to crawl onto dry land was a "sample population of one".

Given the gangbuster success of the previous sample populations of one, I don't see how can let that stop you.

Mathematically, would you say the probability is greater or less than 50%?

 

[tvbi]

I guess I'm no atheist

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Given that there are, what, 500,000,000,000 stars in just our galaxy and there are probably well more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

If you're an atheist, you usually dont just "believe" in things. You need some sort of proof.

Since there is no proof, or any reasonable evidence pointing towards it, I'd have to say absolutely not.

Circumstantial evidence for aliens is no different than circumstantial evidence for a deity.

The big bang. A missing link. Don't tell me atheists require more than circumstancial evidence.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Given that there are, what, 500,000,000,000 stars in just our galaxy and there are probably well more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

If you're an atheist, you usually dont just "believe" in things. You need some sort of proof.

Since there is no proof, or any reasonable evidence pointing towards it, I'd have to say absolutely not.

Circumstantial evidence for aliens is no different than circumstantial evidence for a deity.

Actually there is PLENTY of proof.. its just all classified beyond top secret by our so called leaders..

Governments dont spend billions on things like "project blue book" if they dont at least suspect things are real... and the findings even though declassified now were so edited for national security that there could be anything written in the briefs.

and what about our own professional sane... Military Pilots and Commercial pilots that see things and radar stations that confirm only to have the governement come and tell you "you didnt see anything"

bullcrap..

soemthing did happen at roswell.. area 51 is more than just a skunkworks aircraft and wep prooving ground...
and project bluebook and other programs have existed.

we are definatly not alone.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

What do aliens have to do with faith?

 

[Alex]

 

[sandorski]

Believe? No. Accept that it's very likely? Yes.

Weak attempt to start a flamewar. 1/10

 

[z0mb13]

god is probably an alien

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Given that there are, what, 500,000,000,000 stars in just our galaxy and there are probably well more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

If you're an atheist, you usually dont just "believe" in things. You need some sort of proof.

Since there is no proof, or any reasonable evidence pointing towards it, I'd have to say absolutely not.

Circumstantial evidence for aliens is no different than circumstantial evidence for a deity.

The big bang. A missing link. Don't tell me atheists require more than circumstancial evidence.

There's plenty of evidence of a big bang-- just because you don't understand it doesn't make it circumstantial. For example, all of the galaxies in the universe are moving away from one another.

The "missing link" is really a straw man that creationists put up. So few fossils of soft animals and plants are preserved that links between very diffierent groups are hard to find.. yet they exist. There areexamples of perfect links between dinosaurs and birds, archaeopteryx and Hongshanornis longicresta . I think there is also one named after Confucious.

There are fossils preserving various stages of human evolution, and branched off species similar to our own as well.

Talkinig about a "missing link" is like a detective referring to a "missing clue". It's kind of an oxymoron.


Atheists can usually distinguish between belief and knowledge. It would be foolish to assume that because the odds are good, that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but that doesn't mean that atheists can't believe that there are aliens whizzing around other stars and galaxies.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
god is probably an alien

Well, god isn't a terrestrial being/earthling, so I believe by definition god would be an alien.

 

[ForumMaster]

i consider myself and atheist. do i belive that there are creatures like ET or the vulcans waiting for us? no really. do i dismiss the possibilty of other life? not at all. there is just as much chance that there is other life in the universe but as So said, we don't really have enough data.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: z0mb13
god is probably an alien

Well, god isn't a terrestrial being/earthling, so I believe by definition god would be an alien.

Maybe, but Jesus prefers the term "undocumented immigrant" when he returns.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: So
Why? We have a sample population of ONE.

Ah yes. The primeval atom was a "sample population of one". The first amoeba to split on earth was a "sample population of one". The first fish to crawl onto dry land was a "sample population of one".

Given the gangbuster success of the previous sample populations of one, I don't see how can let that stop you.

Mathematically, would you say the probability is greater or less than 50%?

wtf is a primeval atom?

and mathematically, with a sample size of one, you cannot state if the probability is greater or less than 50%.

 

[moshquerade]

that would be an alienist

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Given that there are, what, 500,000,000,000 stars in just our galaxy and there are probably well more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

If you're an atheist, you usually dont just "believe" in things. You need some sort of proof.

Since there is no proof, or any reasonable evidence pointing towards it, I'd have to say absolutely not.

Circumstantial evidence for aliens is no different than circumstantial evidence for a deity.

The big bang. A missing link. Don't tell me atheists require more than circumstancial evidence.

There's plenty of evidence of a big bang-- just because you don't understand it doesn't make it circumstantial. For example, all of the galaxies in the universe are moving away from one another.

The "missing link" is really a straw man that creationists put up. So few fossils of soft animals and plants are preserved that links between very diffierent groups are hard to find.. yet they exist. There areexamples of perfect links between dinosaurs and birds, archaeopteryx and Hongshanornis longicresta . I think there is also one named after Confucious.

There are fossils preserving various stages of human evolution, and branched off species similar to our own as well.

Talkinig about a "missing link" is like a detective referring to a "missing clue". It's kind of an oxymoron.


Atheists can usually distinguish between belief and knowledge. It would be foolish to assume that because the odds are good, that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but that doesn't mean that atheists can't believe that there are aliens whizzing around other stars and galaxies.

sue me, but I kind of see the big bang as evidence of a god

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
that would be an alienist

or a scientologist

 

[bsobel]

Circumstantial evidence for aliens is no different than circumstantial evidence for a deity.

No different? It's completely different. The belief in an entity (in the Christian sense) presumes something that lives 'outside' the laws of nature while the concept that aliens could exist occurs within our laws of nature. Comparing the two is just stupid, and people who think its valid to do so really don't understand religion or science.

 

[chambersc]

Why does one have to believe anything? This is my argument against organized religion and political parties.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: chambersc
Why does one have to believe anything? This is my argument against organized religion and political parties.

cause if you don't believe in something you'll fall for anything.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Given that there are, what, 500,000,000,000 stars in just our galaxy and there are probably well more than 200,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

If you're an atheist, you usually dont just "believe" in things. You need some sort of proof.

Since there is no proof, or any reasonable evidence pointing towards it, I'd have to say absolutely not.

Circumstantial evidence for aliens is no different than circumstantial evidence for a deity.

The big bang. A missing link. Don't tell me atheists require more than circumstancial evidence.

They do. And in both examples there is plenty more than circumstancial evidence. That brainwashed religious zealots choose not to believe it is no fault of the atheists.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: So
Why? We have a sample population of ONE. There is far too little information to 'believe' in aliens. You'd be a fool to rule them out given the evidence we have, but you'd be a bigger fool to decisively claim their existence.

We have a sample planet size of one. We have a much larger sample size of forms of life. When you consider the number of times the planet has hit the reset button and life continues to florish, some (like I) take that as certaily a good sign that life is common. But I agree, until there is some proof elsewhere it certainly can't be claimed.

One other quick note. If you do believe in an infinite universe, you by definition believe in alien life Heck, in that case, this response is being generated a infinite number of times .