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

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay
Wow this thread is a real eye opener for me. There are people who believe in science, and people who believe in religion. Each requiring its own amount of faith, belief, and interpretation. While science would be easier to accept by those who are of the "Ill believe it when I see it types" most of it is just read about in books.

Theres a big difference between books that were supposedly handed down by a supernatural god, and textbooks that contain reference to peer reviewed journals, containing a self-consistent framework of concepts that can be tested against your own reality and experience.

Sure, it's quite difficult to run your own DNA analyses and particle collider experiments without billions of dollars, but it's all about consistency. You take a few basic scientific ideas, test them against your own experience, and then the tougher concepts that you can't afford to or don't have the time to explore personally can be put up against your own framework and understanding of the basics that you've already acquired.

I respect your beliefs.

 

[Oceandevi]

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.

bingo! Try arguing this to bible thumpers though... its fun

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay
Wow this thread is a real eye opener for me. There are people who believe in science, and people who believe in religion. Each requiring its own amount of faith, belief, and interpretation. While science would be easier to accept by those who are of the "Ill believe it when I see it types" most of it is just read about in books.

Theres a big difference between books that were supposedly handed down by a supernatural god, and textbooks that contain reference to peer reviewed journals, containing a self-consistent framework of concepts that can be tested against your own reality and experience.

Sure, it's quite difficult to run your own DNA analyses and particle collider experiments without billions of dollars, but it's all about consistency. You take a few basic scientific ideas, test them against your own experience, and then the tougher concepts that you can't afford to or don't have the time to explore personally can be put up against your own framework and understanding of the basics that you've already acquired.

Yeah well, once those books handed down from God were "peer reviewed" too.

Well, the point of peer review is to constructively criticize and discuss, to further study. Sure, that happens in religion too, but the primary difference is that "science" has long dropped it's reliance on authority and sources that cannot be questioned.

I'm not knocking science. As I have already said in this thread, I adhere 100% to the scientific process and philosphy. My issue is with people who believe in science in a way that is not, shall we say, scientific.

At least we mostly agree there. Science doesn't require faith or belief. It requires a certain degree of acceptance of inconsistency, tentativeness, and uncertainty, but I wouldn't file that under belief.



Other than that, I agree with your

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

Hey man, whatever props your faith up. Just doing real science a favor and don't claim that your faith is based on science, cause it ain't.

I don't think you even know what we're talking about here. Gods, aliens, pink elephants or teapots - the particular subject is completely irrelevant.

What you're saying is this: "Given a set of statements for which there is no proof, it is impossible to say anything about their likelihood". This is simple is not true.

If you don't care to debate the likelihood for personal reasons, that's fine. Poeple do that and I don't care. But if you claim the above to be true, then you're wrong.

 

[bsobel]

And yes, it will. While it is true that earth is not accelerating away from the sun, and the sun is not accelerating away from the Milky Way, the Milky Way and it neighboring galaxies are accelerating away from other more distant galaxies in the universe, and that will impede our ability to visit them all. Not that it even matters, because (like I already said) it is no more possible to visit every planet in the universe than it would be shake every person's hand on earth, and for the exact same reason.

Vic, can you elaborate on the reason? The basic search theory holds we leave this rock, colonize two. Those two colonize four, those four.... etc. It's not the same problem as the shaking hands problem, that presumes one searcher. (Or did I misunderstand?)

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: bsobel

And yes, it will. While it is true that earth is not accelerating away from the sun, and the sun is not accelerating away from the Milky Way, the Milky Way and it neighboring galaxies are accelerating away from other more distant galaxies in the universe, and that will impede our ability to visit them all. Not that it even matters, because (like I already said) it is no more possible to visit every planet in the universe than it would be shake every person's hand on earth, and for the exact same reason.

Vic, can you elaborate on the reason? The basic search theory holds we leave this rock, colonize two. Those two colonize four, those four.... etc. It's not the same problem as the shaking hands problem, that presumes one searcher. (Or did I misunderstand?)

I think, if the universe expands at speeds greater than the speed of light, then we must travel at speeds greater than that to reach our destination?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: bsobel

And yes, it will. While it is true that earth is not accelerating away from the sun, and the sun is not accelerating away from the Milky Way, the Milky Way and it neighboring galaxies are accelerating away from other more distant galaxies in the universe, and that will impede our ability to visit them all. Not that it even matters, because (like I already said) it is no more possible to visit every planet in the universe than it would be shake every person's hand on earth, and for the exact same reason.

Vic, can you elaborate on the reason? The basic search theory holds we leave this rock, colonize two. Those two colonize four, those four.... etc. It's not the same problem as the shaking hands problem, that presumes one searcher. (Or did I misunderstand?)

I think, if the universe expands at speeds greater than the speed of light, then we must travel at speeds greater than that to reach our destination?

That only works if you picture the universe having edges, like the volume of a box where some are closer to the boundaries than others. Thats not how our universe is shaped. It doesn't have boundaries or edges.

 

[bsobel]

That only works if you picture the universe having edges, like the volume of a box where some are closer to the boundaries than others. Thats not how our universe is shaped. It doesn't have boundaries or edges.

Actually, we can only deal with our 'observable' universe. There are areas accelerating away from us faster than the speed of light. There are galaxies close to making that transition. Or visible bubble is about 15billion light years. Past that, we'll never get there (sans ftl). But this should probably pull out to its own thread.

Instead of my typing all day, see this

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: bsobel

And yes, it will. While it is true that earth is not accelerating away from the sun, and the sun is not accelerating away from the Milky Way, the Milky Way and it neighboring galaxies are accelerating away from other more distant galaxies in the universe, and that will impede our ability to visit them all. Not that it even matters, because (like I already said) it is no more possible to visit every planet in the universe than it would be shake every person's hand on earth, and for the exact same reason.

Vic, can you elaborate on the reason? The basic search theory holds we leave this rock, colonize two. Those two colonize four, those four.... etc. It's not the same problem as the shaking hands problem, that presumes one searcher. (Or did I misunderstand?)

I think, if the universe expands at speeds greater than the speed of light, then we must travel at speeds greater than that to reach our destination?

That only works if you picture the universe having edges, like the volume of a box where some are closer to the boundaries than others. Thats not how our universe is shaped. It doesn't have boundaries or edges.

ok.... if an object is moving away from you at speeds greater than light, then you must travel faster than light to reach it? What forces influence the expansion of the universe and would those forces influence us on our journey? Say we pick a planet directly opposite of earth. Will our journey to the center of the universe be affected by the expansion of the universe and vice versa for when we cross the center and proceed onto our destination?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: bsobel

And yes, it will. While it is true that earth is not accelerating away from the sun, and the sun is not accelerating away from the Milky Way, the Milky Way and it neighboring galaxies are accelerating away from other more distant galaxies in the universe, and that will impede our ability to visit them all. Not that it even matters, because (like I already said) it is no more possible to visit every planet in the universe than it would be shake every person's hand on earth, and for the exact same reason.

Vic, can you elaborate on the reason? The basic search theory holds we leave this rock, colonize two. Those two colonize four, those four.... etc. It's not the same problem as the shaking hands problem, that presumes one searcher. (Or did I misunderstand?)

I think, if the universe expands at speeds greater than the speed of light, then we must travel at speeds greater than that to reach our destination?

That only works if you picture the universe having edges, like the volume of a box where some are closer to the boundaries than others. Thats not how our universe is shaped. It doesn't have boundaries or edges.

ok.... if an object is moving away from you at speeds greater than light, then you must travel faster than light to reach it? What forces influence the expansion of the universe and would those forces influence us on our journey? Say we pick a planet directly opposite of earth. Will our journey to the center of the universe be affected by the expansion of the universe and vice versa for when we cross the center and proceed onto our destination?

There is no center of the universe.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: bsobel

That only works if you picture the universe having edges, like the volume of a box where some are closer to the boundaries than others. Thats not how our universe is shaped. It doesn't have boundaries or edges.

Actually, we can only deal with our 'observable' universe. There are areas accelerating away from us faster than the speed of light. There are galaxies close to making that transition. Or visible bubble is about 15billion light years. Past that, we'll never get there (sans ftl). But this should probably pull out to its own thread.

Instead of my typing all day, see this

I understand that completely. But "us" is assuming a single observer, which as you say, is not how we're going to do it.

The more I think about it, I'm not quite so sure about whether or not the rock hopping theory precludes us from reaching past what Earth's current observable universe, or whether we'll just be precluded from hearing about it back on Earth when it theoretically happens. Have to think about it more.

This final paragraph in your link makes me wonder:

The difference is due to a rather subtle fact: Even though the universe is "accelerating" in the sense that each galaxy moves faster as time goes on, the Hubble constant is actually decreasing with time -- in other words, the rate at which space is expanding, measured at a point which is at a fixed distance from us, gets smaller as time goes on. If we keep our eyes on an individual galaxy as it moves away from us, we will see it accelerate, but if we keep our eyes on a fixed point in space and watch many different galaxies go past that point, each galaxy's speed will be slower than the one before it. (As a very rough analogy, the universe behaves like a river with rapids. If you put a boat in the river and allow it to be carried by the flow, it will accelerate as it moves downstream and enters the rapids. But if you sit on the bank and measure the speed of the water at one location, it changes based on an entirely different set of factors -- for example, the rate at which the supply of water from upstream is changing. It is possible for the water speed at your location to decrease with time, even though each boat that you release accelerates as it heads into the rapids.) Because of this effect, if light is able to "swim against the tide" and remain at a roughly constant distance with respect to us (as would happen if it is emitted from a galaxy moving away from us at the speed of light), then as time goes on and the Hubble constant decreases, it will eventually be able to gain ground, "swim upstream" and traverse the necessary distance of space to reach us.

Need a little time to wrap my head around that.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: bsobel

And yes, it will. While it is true that earth is not accelerating away from the sun, and the sun is not accelerating away from the Milky Way, the Milky Way and it neighboring galaxies are accelerating away from other more distant galaxies in the universe, and that will impede our ability to visit them all. Not that it even matters, because (like I already said) it is no more possible to visit every planet in the universe than it would be shake every person's hand on earth, and for the exact same reason.

Vic, can you elaborate on the reason? The basic search theory holds we leave this rock, colonize two. Those two colonize four, those four.... etc. It's not the same problem as the shaking hands problem, that presumes one searcher. (Or did I misunderstand?)

I think, if the universe expands at speeds greater than the speed of light, then we must travel at speeds greater than that to reach our destination?

That only works if you picture the universe having edges, like the volume of a box where some are closer to the boundaries than others. Thats not how our universe is shaped. It doesn't have boundaries or edges.

ok.... if an object is moving away from you at speeds greater than light, then you must travel faster than light to reach it? What forces influence the expansion of the universe and would those forces influence us on our journey? Say we pick a planet directly opposite of earth. Will our journey to the center of the universe be affected by the expansion of the universe and vice versa for when we cross the center and proceed onto our destination?

There is no center of the universe.

How about you use your brain and understand what im trying to say instead of being a jerk? or are you just trying to "win".

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: bsobel

And yes, it will. While it is true that earth is not accelerating away from the sun, and the sun is not accelerating away from the Milky Way, the Milky Way and it neighboring galaxies are accelerating away from other more distant galaxies in the universe, and that will impede our ability to visit them all. Not that it even matters, because (like I already said) it is no more possible to visit every planet in the universe than it would be shake every person's hand on earth, and for the exact same reason.

Vic, can you elaborate on the reason? The basic search theory holds we leave this rock, colonize two. Those two colonize four, those four.... etc. It's not the same problem as the shaking hands problem, that presumes one searcher. (Or did I misunderstand?)

I think, if the universe expands at speeds greater than the speed of light, then we must travel at speeds greater than that to reach our destination?

That only works if you picture the universe having edges, like the volume of a box where some are closer to the boundaries than others. Thats not how our universe is shaped. It doesn't have boundaries or edges.

ok.... if an object is moving away from you at speeds greater than light, then you must travel faster than light to reach it? What forces influence the expansion of the universe and would those forces influence us on our journey? Say we pick a planet directly opposite of earth. Will our journey to the center of the universe be affected by the expansion of the universe and vice versa for when we cross the center and proceed onto our destination?

There is no center of the universe.

How about you use your brain and understand what im trying to say instead of being a jerk? or are you just trying to "win".

Because what you're saying doesnt make sense! Your question can't be answered, because it's based upon a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

[randay]

grats you win, im out of quarters.

 

[SolMiester]

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.

I have always thought that myself.
If you think about it, the plausible story could go along the lines of, alien being comes accross earth (cave drawing thousand of years old showing spacemen), a few homo type beings wandering around with no civilisation/morals etc etc, decides to inseminate to advance the species, deciedes to invent self as a God to give direction of life to said beings, story followings on from there with periodic visits by aliens to check on our progress....LOL

 

[krunchykrome]

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.

I would if I had some proof. Show me some eveidence and I'll believe.

 

[gwarbot]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
god is probably an alien

Oh my hell! If god is an alien, that means we were probed.......... That would mean there a digital signals being sent to our brains to have faith! What? So those of us who don't beleive are just experiencing a bug in the program.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

you just dont get it

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

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.

I have always thought that myself.
If you think about it, the plausible story could go along the lines of, alien being comes accross earth (cave drawing thousand of years old showing spacemen), a few homo type beings wandering around with no civilisation/morals etc etc, decides to inseminate to advance the species, deciedes to invent self as a God to give direction of life to said beings, story followings on from there with periodic visits by aliens to check on our progress....LOL

Well, you're close. "Most people today simply don't understand the ancient world of our past. A time of co-existence with half alien and half human races, monstrous beasts created by DNA tampering and perversions, and entire races and civilizations devoted to devil worship, human sacrifices, paganism and wickedness."

You can read more at sherryshriner.com, she has all kinds of great suppressed truths there, like "If you're tired of the NWO Mind Control mood altering agenda and their ELF zapping from cellphone and every other tower out there..bury one of these in the vicinity of the tower and it will stop the mind control and ELF harassment!! You can clear an entire area from being ELF'd if you neutralize the towers. Protect the area you live in!"
I kid you not. That last quote came from http://www.orgoneblasters.com/ but it's still our fool Sherry. Oh by the way, you can buy a twelve-pack of oregone for seventy bucks, have a nice day. :laugh:
EDIT: BTW, don't think that all (or even most) theists are delusional like this, I've met a lot of them, and even am one, and none of them were at all like this.

 

[WildHorse]

Google this guy:

Monsignor Corrado Balducci

 

[iskim86]

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.

of course i believe in aliens. simple organisms on far away planets with water. they're considered aliens too.

 

[wetcat007]

I believe in aliens, they cross our borders all the time.

 

[Siddhartha]

OP,

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

No.

 

[JSFLY]

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.

Actually I think atheists are more apt to believe that aliens exist than christians.

Simply because the existance of aliens would weaken the "we were created in god's image, we are special... blah blah blah" theory that christians tend to believe.

 

[gwarbot]

Originally posted by: iskim86

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.

of course i believe in aliens. simple organisms on far away planets with water. they're considered aliens too.

Ok, I oficially believe in aliens. Look at mars, and doom3. Yup im convinced.