Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Infohawk
No. I am not agreeing with you. Read closer. Attack pigs != all alien life. There is some evidence for aliens generally. I probably should have used another example. Replace pigs with chevrolets. The point is that it's not unreasonable to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence. As others have tried to point out to you, there IS some evidence (even if it is not conclusive and not evidence as the 100% type of evidence) that alien life would exist.
And appreciating faith is fine, but attacking basic logical principles is not.
Sorry, aliens = attack pigs. There is NO more evidence for alien life than there is for attack pigs (lovely hedge there). Attacking basic logical principles is thinking that you can change your argument simply by changing the level of absurdness.
And while you might think it not unreasonable, it is still illogical to believe or not believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, either for or against. You are still expressing a belief, even if that belief is in the negative. The only logical answer is to say, "I don't know." Because otherwise, you can switch the question around positive and negative at your leisure and amusement, and that gets even more absurd. The only absence of belief is not to have any belief whatsoever, neither positive or negative.