Atheist "Logic": ET Life is Superstitious and Unreasonable

[Recusant]

:up:

 

...he [Aedus] has been banned once for being an ass and as soon as his ban was lifted he went right back to it.

I think that I can see a modification of Aedus' tactics, which I commend.  From where I sit, safely on the sidelines (please don't call me a coward, Aedus , but I've enjoyed his recent posts a bit more than the pre-time-out style.

[Squid]

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.

At what point did I say anything about definite assumptions?  I didn't, you did.  I also said nothing about the Drake equation.  You are still making the mistake of oversimplification with generalization - not all atheists are sold on the idea of there being or not being other life in the universe just as not all atheists staunchly proclaim absolutely that there is no possibility of a deity as evidenced by the paraphrase you posted from Dawkins.  There is no one unified "atheist ideal" on the subjects as you have implied, therein lies your problem.  The major difference I have been trying to get across to you is the conclusion.  You chose to say, "I don't/can't know".  I have chosen to say, "I currently see no compelling evidence to warrant support for the existence of a deity" - this is called a tentative conclusion which may be amended with the introduction of new evidence to the contrary of that conclusion - this is where such deduction becomes a correlate of scientific reasoning.

[Sophus]

The problem is cosmologists first tried to make an educated guess at the probability of their being life on other planets based solely on how many planets are earth like. Yet, until an Abiogenesis theory or some other is proven right, we won't really know what else is required in order for life to begin or how common it would be. So, while if I had to guess I would say we are probably not alone (even if that means there is just some bacteria swimming in the water recently found on the moon) I don't claim to know... even as far as the likelihood of it goes. Technically that make me an "Agnostic" on the matter. Then again, being an Epistemological Nihilist, I'm agnostic on every matter.  

[Ellainix]

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.

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.

Nice straw man argument. My proof was to indicate that it is logically acceptable to believe or assume their existence, not that they actually existed. Although, I suppose you are right. No one has any evidence that three-headed albino shark demons don't exist, so you could suggest it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they exist and also that they can travel between dimensions and kill their children on crosses for humanity's right to live?

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.

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

An even greater straw man argument.

I don't understand your point. We don't believe in God. Most of us probably don't care if aliens might or might not be real. It seems to me that you just finished Star Trek and Star Wars and thought to yourself I can't believe Atheists believe this stuff.

You don't understand my fundamental point. We can hypothesize the existence of life on other planets because we have studied life here on Earth. When you hypothesize the existence of God, you have nothing to base it on. You're just making stuff up or interpreting old books.

[SSY]

Blue

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.
Great, construct an argument of this nature to show that god could exist, uses premises such as "we observe x, therefor x* could exist in the universe", I would be surprised if you managed this.

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.
I said "COULD", are you denying there could be fluff in your bellybutton?

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.
Great, now all you have to do is prove it, don't worry that the greatest minds in theoretical physics have not managed to do so, you obviously know something they do not.The WMAP shows the CMB is flat, and the universe was indeed very tiny at one time (by the way, an electron has no physical extension, if you wish to consider it a point particle with a definite position, then it would have zero size, the universe, to the best of our knowledge, has never been smaller than nothing.). You still have not said how tiny universe and a flat CMB create multi universes, Pro Tip, if you do figure it out, you will be getting a Nobel prize, please mention me in your speech

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.

Sigh, How can you measure something that does not interact with you in anyway? How do I know that something in another universe can not interact with us? From the definition of universe.

"The Universe comprises everything we perceive to physically exist, the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them."

Please explain how we could interact with something that falls outside those criteria. I have already had the Multiverse debate on here with someone much more informed about it, you could look it up.


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.

I am leaning towards trolling now, he seems to be deliberately ignoring what we say, substituting what he wants, then going off on a tirade. He is also, really bad at physics

[LoneMateria]

I am leaning towards trolling now, he seems to be deliberately ignoring what we say, substituting what he wants, then going off on a tirade. He is also, really bad at physics

Thats why i gave up on actually taking time out to respond to him.  His posts are summed up by the youtube link I keep posting.  I agree with Recusant that Aedus has taken a small step or two to being less of an ass ... however he is still generalizing and trying to pass off opinion as truth and still ignores everything you say to the contrary of his personal opinion while being condescending toward the main users of this forum.

By the way SSY your posts on this subject are wonderful reading as is Squids.

[SSY]

             

[Aedus]

LoneMysteria is trolling this thread - he should be warned/infracted.

My proof was to indicate that it is logically acceptable to believe or assume their existence, not that they actually existed.

I don't disagree with that. I disagree that you apply this logic to God. You demand evidence for God, but your last two points of your "proof" have no evidence whatsoever.

Although, I suppose you are right. No one has any evidence that three-headed albino shark demons don't exist, so you could suggest it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they exist and also that they can travel between dimensions and kill their children on crosses for humanity's right to live?

Why don't you crusade against those sharks' existence? That's about as stupid as what all the atheists on this forum are doing now.

I am leaning towards trolling now, he seems to be deliberately ignoring what we say, substituting what he wants, then going off on a tirade.

The problem here is that you're not intelligent enough to understand my argument. You and the rest of the pseudo-intellectuals reading this thread think that you are accomplishing something by proving that it's logical that ET life can exist, when in reality you're just playing into my trap because:
1) There is still no evidence of ET life.
2) The entire point of my argument is that you don't apply this same kind of logical reasoning to God as to ET life.

Great, construct an argument of this nature to show that god could exist, uses premises such as "we observe x, therefor x* could exist in the universe", I would be surprised if you managed this.

We observe intelligent creators here in this universe, therefore an intelligent creator could exist outside this universe.

I said "COULD", are you denying there could be fluff in your bellybutton?

Apart from word games, you have no empirical evidence to support your claims. Theists can play word games too, but see how much clout I give to their arguments.

Great, now all you have to do is prove it, don't worry that the greatest minds in theoretical physics have not managed to do so, you obviously know something they do not.

Other physicists research this topic and accept it as much as they do anything else that has extremely large amounts of indirect evidence, such as macroevolution. Ever heard of the phrase "Everything which is not forbidden, is compulsory"? Parallel universes are not forbidden anywhere, and are in fact predicted by many different theories. The fact that you're too close-minded and inflexible to accept new ideas is not a valid argument for why they don't exist.

(by the way, an electron has no physical extension, if you wish to consider it a point particle with a definite position, then it would have zero size the universe, to the best of our knowledge, has never been smaller than nothing.)

ROFL!

Two things:
1) An electron with zero volume does not exist in reality. Point particles are idealized objects that make calculations in physics easier. A simple google search would have told you that Lorentz's prediction of the electron's radius is about 1/1000 of a Bohr radius. We haven't been able to measure far down enough to know the exact size of an electron - that does not mean it's zero. It's funny that when theists run into a gap in our knowledge they claim that "goddidit" but when atheists run into a gap in our knowledge they conclude that there is nothing else to be learned. Such narrowmindedness angers me. How are humans supposed to make any progress with this shitty attitude?
2) The universe, when it started inflating, did in fact have zero volume.

I find it ironic and hilarious that you accuse me of being bad at physics. Go back to school you bum.

You still have not said how tiny universe and a flat CMB create multi universes, Pro Tip, if you do figure it out, you will be getting a Nobel prize, please mention me in your speech

Uhm, no, the info I'm talking about is the CMB cold spot. This is potential evidence. You're the one who requires 100% proof to believe in anything, not me.

YSigh, How can you measure something that does not interact with you in anyway? How do I know that something in another universe can not interact with us? From the definition of universe.

My bad for assuming that we were talking about the actual relevant definition of the universe, the one predicted by string theory or the many-worlds theory. In a technical debate, guess what, it just so happens that the technical definition applies! Try to muster up an actual argument instead of playing word games.

Again, just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we won't be able to. For example, it might be possible for physicists to ignite a baby-universe in the lab, given enough energy. Stop being so close-minded. I can't believe you majored in QM.

I have already had the Multiverse debate on here with someone much more informed about it, you could look it up.

Our conversation about this topic is over, as you've already proven your ignorance on this subject and I can't spot a difference between you and all those other atheists who know dick about science/cosmology, yet talk about it anyway. Also, it's taking the thread off-topic. I am not going to try to convince you that there is 100% evidence for parallel universes, because there's not. But it's almost as accepted by the scientific community as evolution, or any other theories based on indirect evidence. Parallel universes have been predicted for decades i.e. the Einstein-rosen bridge, string theory, or the many-worlds theory. Mathematically, it has been proven that these universes are possible.

Max Tegmark of MIT, who is, unlike you, an expert in this field, claimed that "The existence of such "parallel universes" will be no more controversial than the existence of other galaxies - then called "island universes" - was 100 years ago." Now, I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but I almost feel like you've been ignoring all the latest developments in physics for the past 20 years. Again, stop being so narrow-minded.

[Ellainix]

Although, I suppose you are right. No one has any evidence that three-headed albino shark demons don't exist, so you could suggest it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they exist and also that they can travel between dimensions and kill their children on crosses for humanity's right to live?

Why don't you crusade against those sharks' existence? That's about as stupid as what all the atheists on this forum are doing now.

We don't crusade. You're the one who crusaded into our forum trying to convince us that we should believe in god because we believe in aliens. Actually, you kind of just came in here and assumed we believe in aliens. Nobody stepped up and said "I believe in aliens", that was your doing. This isn't a forum dedicated to people who have thoughts on alien life.

There is no evidence that aliens exist.
There is evidence that aliens could exist.
There is no evidence that gods exists.
There is no evidence that gods could exist.

Please tell me what is it about gods that make you think one might exist?

2) The entire point of my argument is that you don't apply this same kind of logical reasoning to God as to ET life.

Hey, let me let you in on a secret. We don't treat these subjects the same because they are completely different.

Great, construct an argument of this nature to show that god could exist, uses premises such as "we observe x, therefor x* could exist in the universe", I would be surprised if you managed this.

We observe intelligent creators here in this universe, therefore an intelligent creator could exist outside this universe.

Right. Now identify the part where it is logical to assume that if these exo-universe intelligent creators exist, they are in any way gods.

I said "COULD", are you denying there could be fluff in your bellybutton?

Apart from word games, you have no empirical evidence to support your claims. Theists can play word games too, but see how much clout I give to their arguments.

Actually, there are mountains of evidence to suggest that "fluff" does in fact occur in the belly buttons of humans. For more on the scientific theory of naval lint, read here.

[SSY]

Well, let us go round in another circle.

We observe intelligent creators here in this universe, therefore an intelligent creator could exist outside this universe.

We have not observed places outside this universe, we have observed other planets in this universe, that is the difference.this is the important bit, since you seem to have given on multiple universes, you have an uphill battle to prove that places outside the universe exist. Once you have done this, you need to prove that things that exist in this universe, can exist outside it, wherte the laws of physics could be completley different, again, an uphill battle. I will understand if you try and weedle out of it, you have not made a strong enough argument for you to defend.

If by word games, you mean being correct, then yes, I am playing word games, if I wanted to say exists, i would have said that, not could exist.

Other physicists research this topic and accept it as much as they do anything else

Please name them, then link me to the papers that prove that multiple universes exist.

if you wish to consider it a point particle with a definite position

I said this because I know an electron is not a point particle, I said "if you wish to consider it a point particle", your reading skills must be hindered by the froth emmenating from your mouth. Also, we only know the universe down to about 10^-35 seconds after the big bang, at which point it had a non zero volume, as yet, no one has probed back further than this, they do not know that the universe had zero volume, a singularity is predicted by a lot of people, but the simple fact is, we have no proof that it ever was zero volume. You may also note, I said smaller than nothing, which is the not the same as zero volume, I in fact said that to highlight the incorrect statements in your post.

Please explain how the CMB cold spot is evidence for multiple universes.

The reason I do not use the definition of the universe predicted by those two theories is that they have no experimental verification. If you want to use the multiverse definition of the universe, to prove the multiverse, you may be consumed by a cloud of your own fail. Just because you read about some super awesome new theory in some sci-fi rag does not make it a fact. Even a string theorist will admit that their theory has no experimental verification., it does not make predictions we can measure. Peer reviewed journals are the places where real science takes place, that is where the serious debate goes on, relying on pop science publications for second hand knowledge, filtered through some journalist with a second rate understanding is not a good idea.

Your best friend is the unverified statement, like "But it's almost as accepted by the scientific community as evolution" which is frankly pifle, you have no evidence at all to back this up, you even admitted it has not got enough ( any ) evidence to prove it, then you go on to say scientists believe it anyway.

All Max needs now is some evidence for me to take him seriously.

[karadan]

Maybe ET seeded Earth with the building blocks for life and left us to it. I like that hypothesis far more than the invisible wizard who 'poofed' us all into existence over the course of seven days.

If we are talking about the proof thing, then sure, there is no real proof ET or the god of the bible exists. I prefer to go with logic though. Logic suggests that if we are alive on this planet then life should also exist somewhere else simply based upon the vast numbers of galaxies and stars out there.
As soon as someone starts to tell me that an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent super being who presides over us, judging us for every action and/or inaction before we are born, during our lives and after our death is REAL, then I have a hard time accepting that. Plainly on reasons of logic, this notion is utterly absurd.

Why would a deity have such weird tendencies anyway? Why would it give a shit about sex before marriage or abortion? Why does it seemingly display a completely messed up moral compass? So messed up that most people on this planet are actually moralistically purer than this so-called god of the bible. Surely something with the ability to create 'the heavens' from scratch would have a loftier ability to discern right from wrong. If it really gave a shit about us instead of hiding behind the veil of 'I work in mysterious ways' then we wouldn't see all of the crap in its name we do today, would we? So, god speaks to some people in their heads? He cares for them personally? Why, exactly? You don't need actual evidence to see the absurdity of this.

In reality, all the evidence points towards the bible having been written by humans a couple of hundred years after jebus was supposed to have been alive. There may not be any true evidence for the existence of ET but then there is no book saying they created us. People don't worship ET in the same way christians worship god. There aren't wars fought over who has the best invisible ET looking after them. People don't behead 'infidels' in the name of ET. There is no rule book or code of conduct supposedly created by ET on which we have to base our lives. The ET thing is simple - are we alone? There isn't a massively complicated code of conduct based upon it. It is really just a simple question.

You seem to have compared two things which aren't really comparable. I think your angst is misplaced.

[LoneMateria]

Here is a link that might shed a little light on alien life and some possibilities of why we don't see it.

[Kylyssa]

There may not be any true evidence for the existence of ET but then there is no book saying they created us. People don't worship ET in the same way christians worship god. There aren't wars fought over who has the best invisible ET looking after them. People don't behead 'infidels' in the name of ET. There is no rule book or code of conduct supposedly created by ET on which we have to base our lives. The ET thing is simple - are we alone? There isn't a massively complicated code of conduct based upon it. It is really just a simple question.

Right on.  I didn't get physically and emotionally abused in school for having parents that didn't believe in ETs.  I didn't get broken hands and ribs from a pack of fools doing ETs work.  I didn't get spat on (literally) by a person I thought was a friend because she found out I didn't believe in ETs.  My friend didn't lose her job when she was outed for not believing in ETs.  I didn't get "Die Not Believing in ET Cunt" scratched into my car.  My ex-husband didn't scream in my face about me being worthless because I didn't believe in ETs.  Dozens of people didn't contact me or comment on my editorials with threats of death and violence because I don't believe in ET.

ET believers aren't pounding through laws to take away human rights.  ET believers aren't refusing to get medical help for their dying children.  ET believers aren't kicking their homosexual teens out on the street.  In other parts of the world, ET believers aren't pouring acid into the mouths of children to exorcise evil ETs.  Thirteen year old girls getting raped in the Middle East aren't getting stoned to death for losing their virginity by ET believers.  Millions of women aren't kept as near property, hidden behind masks, and denied basic human rights by ET believers.

The ET question has zero effect on my life.  Since the number of zany ET believing zealots ready to kill, harass, oppress or legislate in ET's name is negligible I don't spare them a thought unless they make the news.  And then I simply shake my head and think, "What a bunch of nutjobs."

But, in case you hadn't noticed, we're surrounded by zany, God believing zealots ready to kill, harass, oppress or legislate in God's name.  As soon as the ET believers start screwing with people wholesale like God believers are doing, I'll start bitching about them, too.

[Ellainix]

My boyfriend refuses to publicly admit that he doesn't believe in gods because of that kind of stuff. Kylyssa's post really shows light to the real issue that is ignored in this thread.

[Whitney]

LoneMysteria is trolling this thread - he should be warned/infracted.

Leave the moderating to the mods.  We have a report feature which can be used if you feel the need to complain in the future...it is not appropriate to do so in thread.

Why don't you crusade against those sharks' existence? That's about as stupid as what all the atheists on this forum are doing now.

The problem here is that you're not intelligent enough to understand my argument. You and the rest of the pseudo-intellectuals reading this thread

I find it ironic and hilarious that you accuse me of being bad at physics. Go back to school you bum.

^If I see anything else like the above bolded parts I'm going to ban you Aedus and this time it will be a lot longer than a week.  So, it's your choice, either quit being so rude (ad homs) or get banned.