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

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: ariafrost

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%?

Mathematically, what are the chances the OP's brain can comprehend the existence of God? Nil.

Probabilities without even theoretical means to calculate them.

Carry on.

Um dude, the OP believes in God (well the Christian God to be more specific). But if you want to insult him, I'm not going to get in your way.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: msparish

Originally posted by: Vic
Let me repeat: the "proof" alien life is exactly the same as the "proof" of God, i.e. "we exist, so _____ exists."

You people are fooling yourself by thinking otherwise.

You are fooling yourself. I never said aliens exist either...just that it is much more likely. All I said is that we have proof that alien life is possible. No such proof for the possibility of a god.

Terrible logic. You cannot assume greater likelihood for aliens over god when both are equally unlikely (and equally likely as well). I will repeat: they. are. the. same.

Why do you think they are equally unlikely?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic
2 things that are equally unlikely are alo equally likely.

So belief in science is = belief in magic? That's effectively what you are arguing now.

Oooh... nice straw man :roll:

Where's the scientific proof for aliens? Oops, there isn't any... <^>

It's not a straw man at all. We have proof of how life has evolved on this planet. Given the billions of galaxies out there, it's pretty easy to imagine the same process occurring on another planet. We have no proof of a god. None. Plus, god is essentially what we would call a "magical" being. So, in effect, in order for your statement to be true, the belief in a magical being must equal the likelyhood that a proven scientific process occurred somewhere else among the billions of planets in the universe.

Am I saying it doesn't require any faith? No. I'm saying it doesn't require the same "type and level"... which is what you stated.

Okay, so given the majesty of "creation," the billions of billions of galaxies out there, it's pretty easy to imagine God creating the same process on another planet. Heck, the sheer complexity of it all must mean that God exists. Gotcha.

BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in God or aliens. I don't hold opinions on things that cannot be proven or disproven. For all we know, God is an alien. As usual though, AT wows me with the objective logical minds here...

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic
2 things that are equally unlikely are alo equally likely.

So belief in science is = belief in magic? That's effectively what you are arguing now.

Oooh... nice straw man :roll:

Where's the scientific proof for aliens? Oops, there isn't any... <^>

It's not a straw man at all. We have proof of how life has evolved on this planet. Given the billions of galaxies out there, it's pretty easy to imagine the same process occurring on another planet. We have no proof of a god. None. Plus, god is essentially what we would call a "magical" being. So, in effect, in order for your statement to be true, the belief in a magical being must equal the likelyhood that a proven scientific process occurred somewhere else among the billions of planets in the universe.

Am I saying it doesn't require any faith? No. I'm saying it doesn't require the same "type and level"... which is what you stated.

Let me stop you right there. We do not have proof of how life evolved..we only know that it did, and have some very good ideas how, but knowledge of the exact process and a way to test it is still lacking.

It's easy to imagine life on other planets, but it's just imagining. We likewise don't have enough information on other planets to know.

I suggest reading the book "Rare Earth" - there are dozens of probably very unlikely factors that came together in just the right combination to even allow the possibility of life to exist on earth. The main thesis of the book, which is well written and argued is that microbial life, which I suppose qualifies as aliens, is likely common - but intelligent life? That's probably very, very, very unlikely.

 

[Soybomb]

As an atheist and skeptic I tend to want to see proof before I say that something exists. I think the possibility of aliens existing is greater than the possibility of there being a god, but that doesn't mean that I also think they exist.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BD2003
The main thesis of the book, which is well written and argued is that microbial life, which I suppose qualifies as aliens, is likely common - but intelligent life? That's probably very, very, very unlikely.

I havent' read the book, but I find that quite believeable. After all, bacteria can survive in environments where all other creatures have no chance.


Vic, I only skimmed the thread, but are you suggesting that thinking "it is likely that bacteria exist elsewhere" and "it is unlikely that god exists" contradict each other?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin
Vic, I only skimmed the thread, but are you suggesting that thinking "it is likely that bacteria exist elsewhere" and "it is unlikely that god exists" contradict each other?

Only insofar as we have zero proof for either. Likelihood thus becomes a moot point, all arguments of likely or unlikely being nothing more than conjecture.


If you think about it, believing in even microbial alien life is pretty comparable to believe in intelligent design.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Vic, I only skimmed the thread, but are you suggesting that thinking "it is likely that bacteria exist elsewhere" and "it is unlikely that god exists" contradict each other?

Only insofar as we have zero proof for either. Likelihood thus becomes a moot point, all arguments of likely or unlikely being nothing more than conjecture.

There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

If you think about it, believing in even microbial alien life is pretty comparable to believe in intelligent design.

How do you figure that?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003
There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

there was a man who lived on earth a few years ago that *may* have been the son of god. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shred of possible evidence. ?

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Vic
Okay, so given the majesty of "creation," the billions of billions of galaxies out there, it's pretty easy to imagine God creating the same process on another planet. Heck, the sheer complexity of it all must mean that God exists. Gotcha.

Nope. You didn't get me at all. Believing in god still means believing in a magical being as opposed to simply believing that a known scientific process occurred elsewhere in the universe. Believing in a magical being takes a different type and level of faith, thus rendering the statement that started this debate false.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic
Basically, believing in God or believing in aliens requires the same type and level of faith. "Somewhere over the rainbow" there are magical beings that can save us. No proof of these magical beings exist, except for conjecture on both sides about how the universe (or creation, depending on which side you're on) is too big and too grand for them not to exist.

No, it's not the same. Believing in aliens doesn't require the same amount of faith because we have ourselves, plus the millions of other lifeforms on this planet, as proof that life does exist. The only question is whether or not life has arisen somewhere else among the billions of galaxies. There is no physical proof that any god exists.

Thank you for proving that the believing in aliens and God requires the exact same circular logic.
We exist, so aliens must exist.
-or-
We exist, so God must exist because he created us.

It. is. the. same.

Vic, I respect you, but your wrong. There is a huge difference. The difference is that life here shows that life elsewhere is 'possible' (not proven, not likely, but possible). However there is, has been (and I'll venture never will be) any scientific basis for a belief in God. The entity (as defined for the arugment) exists outside of what can be discovered by science. It requires faith as it can never be proven. We have proven that life can exist in many places where we presumed it could not. As such it's actually a minor leap to say life can exist elsewhere in the universe (and I'm not talking intelligent life for the moment, lets just start with simple organisms).

Life has started and stopped on this planet numerous times, and it's always thrived. It's developed in isolated areas (such as undersea vents and geothermal areas) uniquely from the rest of the planet. Where is the stretch to say scientifically that such life could exist elsewhere if the same conditions are found?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

there was a man who lived on earth a few years ago that *may* have been the son of god. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shred of possible evidence. ?

:disgust: One requires complete faith in what one man is subjectively saying, the other requires more complementary evidence in order to objectively determine what they were REALLY looking at when they surmised that it *might* be microbial fossils.

Completely different things.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: 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.

:tinfoilhat;

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic
Okay, so given the majesty of "creation," the billions of billions of galaxies out there, it's pretty easy to imagine God creating the same process on another planet. Heck, the sheer complexity of it all must mean that God exists. Gotcha.

Nope. You didn't get me at all. Believing in god still means believing in a magical being as opposed to simply believing that a known scientific process occurred elsewhere in the universe. Believing in a magical being takes a different type and level of faith, thus rendering the statement that started this debate false.

Do you know, scientifically, for a fact, that god is magical?

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

there was a man who lived on earth a few years ago that *may* have been the son of god. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shred of possible evidence. ?

I could claim I'm a leprechaun with a magical pot of gold. Does that mean there's now an shred of evidence for magical leprechauns?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic
Thank you for proving that the believing in aliens and God requires the exact same circular logic.
We exist, so aliens must exist.
-or-
We exist, so God must exist because he created us.

It. is. the. same.

Wow... weak logic there. The second is based on a belief in a "magical" being, the first just requires belief that life similar to what we know exists exists elsewhere. Not. The. Same.

Really? And how are aliens, flitting through the sky in their faster-than-light flying saucers, any less "magical" than God?

Vic, to clarify 'our' argument. By life I meant at a minimum biological processes occuring with the general scientific definition of 'life'. I am in no way equating that to intelligent life forms with ability to reach this planet being here or contacting us. I do agree that people who believe that (without facts) are using the same 'faith' that others use in God to account for their beliefs. I *really* hope you see the difference between what I argued to you and the above.

Would finding something like a volcanic tube worm on a moon of Saturn really surprise me? No. Finding grey's and Elvis in a secret moon base? Yes

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

there was a man who lived on earth a few years ago that *may* have been the son of god. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shred of possible evidence. ?

I could claim I'm a leprechaun with a magical pot of gold. Does that mean there's now an shred of evidence for magical leprechauns?

According to some people's logic, as I understand it, yes. Though it would be impossible to determine for sure.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

there was a man who lived on earth a few years ago that *may* have been the son of god. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shred of possible evidence. ?

I could claim I'm a leprechaun with a magical pot of gold. Does that mean there's now an shred of evidence for magical leprechauns?

According to some people's logic, as I understand it, yes. Though it would be impossible to determine for sure.

Rocks don't make outrageous claims like men do.

You can NEVER determine for sure whether someone is the son of god, as that would require first coming up with adequate evidence for a god, and THEN coming up with adequate evidence that he is the son of one. You're stuck at the first step, so you can't even approach the second.

But as far as martian rocks go, see for yourself.

Martian metor possible fossils:
http://www.solarviews.com/raw/mars/s12299.jpg

These shapes are VERY unlikely to have been formed naturally by weathering.

An example of terrestrial streptobacilli:
http://www.idph.state.il.us/images/anthraxmicro.jpg

They also found traces of organic molecules on the meteor. But since it's the first and only of it's kind that we have, and they're merely fossils and not live, we have nothing to compare them to, so have to hold our judgement.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Vic, I only skimmed the thread, but are you suggesting that thinking "it is likely that bacteria exist elsewhere" and "it is unlikely that god exists" contradict each other?

Only insofar as we have zero proof for either. Likelihood thus becomes a moot point, all arguments of likely or unlikely being nothing more than conjecture.


If you think about it, believing in even microbial alien life is pretty comparable to believe in intelligent design.

Not really, even if you lack proof, you can still consider things and thier likelihood.

Example: Two poeple come up to you, one says "there is a cat at cooridate 50°45'65' 12 6°34'1' right now" and the other says "there is a pink elephant at coordinate 50°45'65' 12 6°34'1' right now". Strictly speaking you have no proof, nor a way to prove it, so any official view should be "I don't know", and despite this, you certainly can tell which one is the likelier of the two.

The probmem is that you think all conjectures are created equal, which is most certainly not the case at all.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Rocks don't make outrageous claims like men do.

It is a man who claims that these rocks may be proof of alien life.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Martin
Not really, even if you lack proof, you can still consider things and thier likelihood.

Example: Two poeple come up to you, one says "there is a cat at cooridate 50°45'65' 12 6°34'1' right now" and the other says "there is a pink elephant at coordinate 50°45'65' 12 6°34'1' right now". Strictly speaking you have no proof, nor a way to prove it, so any official view should be "I don't know", and despite this, you certainly can tell which one is the likelier of the two.

The probmem is that you think all conjectures are created equal, which is most certainly not the case at all.

:thumbsup: That sums up nicely what I've been trying to say.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Rocks don't make outrageous claims like men do.

It is a man who claims that these rocks may be proof of alien life.

And you're a man thats arguing himself into the dunce chair.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Rocks don't make outrageous claims like men do.

It is a man who claims that these rocks may be proof of alien life.

And you're a man thats arguing himself into the dunce chair.

I guess we are done here. :roll:

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

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

mathematically you can calculate the probability of something with a sample size of zero.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Rocks don't make outrageous claims like men do.

It is a man who claims that these rocks may be proof of alien life.

And you're a man thats arguing himself into the dunce chair.

I guess we are done here. :roll:

Well, at least you're slowly learning to quit before making yourself seem completely retarded.

Some arguments are not worth making...especially those that essentially invalidate themselves.