Atheist "Logic": ET Life is Superstitious and Unreasonable

[Aedus]

1. Your Wiki reference means nothing and does not directly address what I said, hence even more proof your are trying to misrepresent atheists' views.

Ok. Then I would love to hear your reasoning for having disbelief in God if it's not lack of evidence.

When was the last time someone flew planes into buildings because they thought ET wanted them to? When was the last time someone went broke donating money to the church of ET? When was the last time that ET inspired a collective effort to attack evolution?

How about the 1938 War of the Worlds radio interpretation that caused mass panic?

Second, the ONLY commonality between atheists is a lack of belief in god(s).

Wrong, since nobody but atheists use the "lack of belief" definition and it's not defined that way in any dictionary.

Thirdly, not all atheists think there is no possibility of ET life.

And not all atheists think there is no possibility for God either. Didn't Richard Dawkins say the possibility of God existing was like 99.8%?

If you know anything about statistics, you'd know that you must have proper assumptions upon which to base the calculations.  These assumptions themselves have no support when attempting to estimate the probability of something like the existence of a deity as evidence by a paper in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society by Bartholomew (1988) *:

Perhaps atheists should have thought about that before they took a position of disbelief in God?

Atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence of God.

There is no scientific evidence for ET life either.

Proof for aliens:
1. Life exists on Earth.
2. There are planets is space that are similar to Earth or could sustain some of Earth's life forms.
3. Life could exist on other planets.

Proof for aliens:

3. Life could exist on other planets.

Proof

could exist

could =/= does =/= proof

Because there is evidence of life existing PERIOD, it is not unreasonable to believe an unknown life-form exists in an unknown place.

Then is it unreasonable to believe an unknown all-powerful entity exists outside the universe just because entities exist PERIOD? It's a good thing that philosophers who thought they could accomplish something using only logic and no empirical evidence to back it up have become all but useless, to be replaced by scientists who use logic & evidence in unison.

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence for why ET life could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little green men roam other planets just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

[Whitney]

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence for why ET life could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little green men roam other planets just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

As far as I remember, no one in this thread mentioned little green men other than you.  Scientists (and anyone who isn't unhealthily obsessed with sci fi movies) suspect that our first encounter with ET will be in the form of a bacteria or something else very simple and small.  If you understand how scientists think life formed on Earth and also understand the size of the universe, it's not unreasonable to consider it probable that life formed elsewhere.  The issue would be someone knowing that life definitely exists on another planet because we haven't found it yet....I don't think anyone has claimed to know, some have just said they believe (there is a difference).

[LoneMateria]

Aedus you are using poor arguments based on flawed assumptions of who atheists are again.  I see a banning did not drive an inkling of common sense into you.  Not only that but you did not learn a damn thing from your last experience here.  Your whole post is one giant facepalm you not only distort and misrepresent situations but you compound your errors with the smugness that only comes from enjoying the smell of your own farts.  

Your whole post is beyond ironic btw.  Aren't you a person who refuses to take a side until sufficient evidence is presented?  It's very hypocritical for you to take a side on this issue if thats the case.  In any case until you actually make a post with some substance that isn't laced with logical fallacies and personal opinion that you treat as facts i'm not going to waste my energy to type a message ... instead i'm only going to post this:

[youtube:20398x29]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc[/youtube:20398x29]

And I encourage everyone to do the same.

[Tom62]

My 2cts. I don't give a shit about semantic discussions, because in 99.9% of all cases they are pointless, irrelevant and a waste of time. You could have endless discussions about word definitions, without reaching a common agreement about what the word exactly means. Since you are interested in little green men from outer space   ". With other words, this whole thread just seems to be an exercise in pointless futility.

[Squid]

Second, the ONLY commonality between atheists is a lack of belief in god(s).

Wrong, since nobody but atheists use the "lack of belief" definition and it's not defined that way in any dictionary.

That IS the only commonality.

Thirdly, not all atheists think there is no possibility of ET life.

And not all atheists think there is no possibility for God either. Didn't Richard Dawkins say the possibility of God existing was like 99.8%?

And  here is your "tell"...there are two subcategories of atheism, most commonly divided into "strong/gnostic" and "weak/agnostic". I would prefer to utilize a continuum view rather than a static categorical view.  For instance, I see no significant evidence to warrant a belief in a diety/dieties and therefore reject that hypothesis.  This conclusion is tentative and may be amended with the presentation of new evidence.  Most would label me "weak/agnostic".  Some would say that's agnosticism, however, it is not as a conclusion has been made.

If you know anything about statistics, you'd know that you must have proper assumptions upon which to base the calculations.  These assumptions themselves have no support when attempting to estimate the probability of something like the existence of a deity as evidence by a paper in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society by Bartholomew (1988) *:

Perhaps atheists should have thought about that before they took a position of disbelief in God?

Another dodge.  The distinction between belief in ET life and deities is fallacious, you don't seem to realize that.

[Aedus]

LoneMateria - sorry, but "lalala I can't hear you" is not a valid debate tactic.

Another dodge.  The distinction between belief in ET life and deities is fallacious, you don't seem to realize that.

Prove it. As far as I'm concerned there is no definite assumptions for God nor ET life. The Drake equation for example relies on pure hypothesis/guess-work instead of basing probability on actual evidence. For all we know the probability of ET life as predicted by the Drake equation could be off by several orders of magnitude.

I don't give a shit about semantic discussions

Semantics is the basis of all of language, without which civilization would fall apart. Why not just get it over with and say "I don't give a shit about rational discussions"?

Any way, I'm not a kind of person, who loves to put labels on people or seeks hidden meanings behind words.

No, you just enjoy crusading against religion and avoiding any burden of proof by labeling yourself as something you're not. It must be lots of fun, I admit, but there are those of higher moral stature, such as myself, that are confident enough in their own beliefs with deriding others'.

[SSY]

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence for why ET life could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little green men roam other planets just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

Ignore my post why don't you.

Ellainix wrote:
Because there is evidence of life existing PERIOD, it is not unreasonable to believe an unknown life-form exists in an unknown place.

Then is it unreasonable to believe an unknown all-powerful entity exists outside the universe just because entities exist PERIOD? It's a good thing that philosophers who thought they could accomplish something using only logic and no empirical evidence to back it up have become all but useless, to be replaced by scientists who use logic & evidence in unison.

 "Then is it unreasonable to believe an unknown all-powerful entity exists outside the universe just because entities exist PERIOD?" Yes, it is wrong to believe this. The life thing is reasonable, because the laws of physics seem to be the same all over the universe, we know there are other planets in the universe, so it can be assumed that what can happen on this planet, can happen on other planets. Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe, and we don't know if anything all powerful can exist at all. This is just "coulds" now, actually moving from could, to is, is a whole different ball game. (Note in my case, I say life couldexist on other planets, not does)


 Just because lizards exist in America for instance, it is not reasonable to assume 1000 foot tall lizards that breathe fire and shoot lasers from their eyes exist on the moons of Jupiter.

[Renegnicat]

Aedus, I'm not going to try and refute you. Not out of some strange debating tactic, but you seem to want to deride atheists. In fact, if I understand correctly, you seem to want to be saying that atheists are unreasonable, and that atheists are full of crap, etc etc.

I see no reason why I shouldn't let you have that victory. So, if, in the end, you want to say these things about atheists, and you want to be considered correct in saying them, go ahead. I would say it's a small price to pay, but it's really not a price to pay at all.  

[Aedus]

Ignore my post why don't you.

That's because you apparently don't know what evidence is. But let's have at it:

The reason I, an atheist, do not believe in god, is the lack of evidence I have seen to indicate his existence. I do believe that ET life is very likely though. I base this belief on evidence.

The evidence is quite simple, we know life can form on planets, we know that there are many other planets, at other places in the universe, therefor, life could form out there in the universe, the matter of how much of it, and how likely it is etc etc are of course, completely different. Simple no? Feel free to reply when your ban is up.

The claim that "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists" would be considered a non-sequitur, not evidence. In a technical discussion such as this one, evidence is something that can be measured in a lab or observed. Since no such things exist for God or ET life, your "evidence" goes out the airlock.

Logic is not evidence. Logic alone will usually fail unless it's supported by empirical evidence. For example, Einstein once "proved" that black holes don't exist, which ended up being wrong. Or this one philosopher (can't remember his name) put forth the idea that it's impossible to cross a river since an infinite number of points exist between the two banks, and it's impossible to traverse an infinity.

Again, I require something more than vague rationalizations before I take your claim that ET life could exist seriously, such as real evidence. Again, until a borg cube holds orbit and destroys the white house your claims have about as much clout as any religion.

Yes, it is wrong to believe this. The life thing is reasonable, because the laws of physics seem to be the same all over the universe, we know there are other planets in the universe, so it can be assumed that what can happen on this planet, can happen on other planets. Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe, and we don't know if anything all powerful can exist at all.

I didn't ask you which you thought was more likely.  Even if one option is seemingly less ridiculous than the other, they're still both ridiculous. By your standards, both ET life & God should be unreasonable since there's no evidence for either.

Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe

If we've been living under a rock and ignoring the latest scientific developments, then yes. It's common knowledge among physicists that parallel universes exist, and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is currently the subject of research. Here is the proof: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... the-m.html

The laws of physics can work the same outside this universe as inside - therefore it's possible that life exists outside this universe. If you disagree then the burden of proof is on you.

This is just "coulds" now, actually moving from could, to is, is a whole different ball game. (Note in my case, I say life couldexist on other planets, not does)

Ever heard of the phrase garbage in, garbage out? No matter how much more rational you think one option is compared to another, you still get a garbage conclusion when you start from a garbage premise i.e. god is likely to exist, or ET life is likely to exist.

To calculate the odds of whether something is likely to exist, you have to know for certain the assumptions that go into it, which nobody does for God or ET life, making both premises worse than useless. This is supposed to be common knowledge to anyone familiar with the Drake equation.

[LoneMateria]

[youtube:3gqk1tyk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc[/youtube:3gqk1tyk]

[Aedus]

rofl. It's amazing how butthurt some atheists get when their own beliefs come under the microscope instead of the other way around, and when they're forced to use their brains instead of spewing out standard atheist drivel.

I find that the main difference between dogmatic theists and dogmatic atheists is that the atheists aren't as blatant in their anti-science views.

[SSY]

So much wrong, I'll be in red today

Ignore my post why don't you.

That's because you apparently don't know what evidence is. But let's have at it:
Or becuase you seem intent on misrepresenting what I say

The reason I, an atheist, do not believe in god, is the lack of evidence I have seen to indicate his existence. I do believe that ET life is very likely though. I base this belief on evidence.

The evidence is quite simple, we know life can form on planets, we know that there are many other planets, at other places in the universe, therefor, life could form out there in the universe, the matter of how much of it, and how likely it is etc etc are of course, completely different. Simple no? Feel free to reply when your ban is up.

The claim that "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists" would be considered a non-sequitur, not evidence. In a technical discussion such as this one, evidence is something that can be measured in a lab or observed. Since no such things exist for God or ET life, your "evidence" goes out the airlock.
I never said "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists", I said life formed on this planet, therefor, life could form on other planets, reading comprehension might be difficult, but it really helps when trying to have a discussion, much more than constructing strawmen. For your information though, the evidence I observe, in a rather large lab, is that life exists on this planet, and planets exist elsewhere in the universe, the conclusion I draw from these facts, is that life could form on those other planets. I am a really nice guy, so am going to construct an argument that seems to be more on your level. There is fluff in my belly button, you have a belly button, therefor, there could be fluff in your belly button. If you ever finish being smug, get back to me on whether or not there is.


Logic is not evidence. Logic alone will usually fail unless it's supported by empirical evidence. For example, Einstein once "proved" that black holes don't exist, which ended up being wrong. Or this one philosopher (can't remember his name) put forth the idea that it's impossible to cross a river since an infinite number of points exist between the two banks, and it's impossible to traverse an infinity.

Yes, it is wrong to believe this. The life thing is reasonable, because the laws of physics seem to be the same all over the universe, we know there are other planets in the universe, so it can be assumed that what can happen on this planet, can happen on other planets. Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe, and we don't know if anything all powerful can exist at all.

I didn't ask you which you thought was more likely.  Even if one option is seemingly less ridiculous than the other, they're still both ridiculous. By your standards, both ET life & God should be unreasonable since there's no evidence for either.

Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe

If we've been living under a rock and ignoring the latest scientific developments, then yes. It's common knowledge among physicists that parallel universes exist, and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is currently the subject of research. Here is the proof: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... the-m.html
One thing that never gets old, is people with no formal education in physics telling me how physics works. Just so you know, I speciallised in QM at undergrad, and am continuing to study it to a post graduate level. Now, your many worlds theory, is really an interpretation, with no evidence supporting it at all, not only that, there never could be any evidence supporting it, as universes, by definition, cannot interact with other universes. The article you linked to, shows the laughable, derisory standards of evidence you hold yourself to. With all your high minded talk of evidence in the previous paragraph, evidence in labs etc, I thought you would at least link to a paper about it, not just some fluff nonsense written on a pop science website. Even your website shows no evidence whatsoever, the only paragraph that pertains says that there is possibly, maybe a way of explaining a paradox, mathematically under this interpretation, not that this interpretation is real(no scientist worth his salt would ever try and present evidence for this theory btw). Please try harder, like harder than naming something you read about in a comic book once.


The laws of physics can work the same outside this universe as inside - therefore it's possible that life exists outside this universe. If you disagree then the burden of proof is on you.
They could indeed be the same, but we have no evidence to suggest that they could be, we know nothing about the outside of the universe (in as much as that term even makes sense), I made no claims about what was or what was not possible outside the universe, all I said was we don't know what it is like out there.

This is just "coulds" now, actually moving from could, to is, is a whole different ball game. (Note in my case, I say life couldexist on other planets, not does)

Ever heard of the phrase garbage in, garbage out? No matter how much more rational you think one option is compared to another, you still get a garbage conclusion when you start from a garbage premise i.e. god is likely to exist, or ET life is likely to exist.
In drawing my conclusions abot ET life I used two premises, that life exists on this planet, and that other planets exist, which one of these premises do you have a problem with? If you are not saying anything about my argument in particular, and just filling the thread with basic logic theory, then thanks, but I can think of more appropriate people to school me on such matters.



To calculate the odds of whether something is likely to exist, you have to know for certain the assumptions that go into it, which nobody does for God or ET life, making both premises worse than useless. This is supposed to be common knowledge to anyone familiar with the Drake equation.
I never calculated the odds of ET Life existing, other than saying the chance was more than zero.

[LoneMateria]

Excellent post SSY.  You are very civilized in this discussion where I don't have the patience and Aedus doesn't have the ability.  I think its personally hilarious that he has been banned once for being an ass and as soon as his ban was lifted he went right back to it.  Its okay because we all know Aedus is :

[youtube:6mv967lb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc[/youtube:6mv967lb]

on every subject he has talked about so far.  I guess he needs to be an ass to try and make up for his obvious lack of knowledge.

[McQ]

Aedus, what is the fascination with ET? You have been shown it is a bad analogy, yet continue to try to use it.

As for the possibility that life could exist elsewhere than Earth, you need only look at Earth to be assured of that evidence. Take this out of the Terra-centric viewpoint you are using. The universe exists, much larger than we imagined. Earth is in the universe. Life exists on Earth. Therefore, life can exist in the universe. Almost anywhere, at any time.

Done.

[Aedus]

LoneMateria - unfortunately your guys' circle-jerking does not amuse me as much as it does you. Also, good work on adding nothing of value to the conversation. I guess you're butthurt because you really don't have anything of value to add.

I never said "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists", I said life formed on this planet, therefor, life could form on other planets, reading comprehension might be difficult, but it really helps when trying to have a discussion, much more than constructing strawmen. For your information though, the evidence I observe, in a rather large lab, is that life exists on this planet, and planets exist elsewhere in the universe, the conclusion I draw from these facts, is that life could form on those other planets. I am a really nice guy, so am going to construct an argument that seems to be more on your level.

There's no need to convince me; I think it is very likely that life exists on other planets. You should first convince yourself that you apply this same logic to God as you do to everything else.

There is fluff in my belly button, you have a belly button, therefor, there could be fluff in your belly button. If you ever finish being smug, get back to me on whether or not there is.

I see no fluff in my belly button - another case of atheist logic being wrong yet again.

One thing that never gets old, is people with no formal education in physics telling me how physics works. Just so you know, I speciallised in QM at undergrad, and am continuing to study it to a post graduate level. Now, your many worlds theory, is really an interpretation, with no evidence supporting it at all,

There is far more evidence than that - you're disputing a fact that is almost common knowledge in theoretical physics. I'm talking about info from the WMAP satellite or the fact that our universe itself was smaller than an electron during the big bang, combined with the uncertainty principle, pretty much forces the idea of parallel universes upon us. I'm surprised because all the atheist scientists out there are pushing for a multiverse so that our universe's fine-tuning can no longer be used as an argument for God.

not only that, there never could be any evidence supporting it, as universes, by definition, cannot interact with other universes.

This is simply retarded. Most of science is done indirectly. Just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we won't be able to, and your claim that unvierses can't interact with universes is based on nothing. Dark matter for example is exactly the kind of way that parallel universes might interact with ours. Gravity wave detectors are among one of the things that could potentially test for parallel universes in the future.

Again, I'm glad not everyone has the "if there's no 100% evidence for it, it doesn't exist" mentality.

Life exists on Earth. Therefore, life can exist in the universe.

This non-sequitur is not any more compelling now than the first time I heard it.