Happy Atheist Forum

Alright, so this is like my other post about ghosts...just with ghosts being replaced with UFOs. I do not believe in god, but I do have some pretty strong convictions about extraterrestrials. There's photo and video evidence in favor of UFOs. Whens the last time you talked to a snake? Or lived in a whale....errr "big fish." There's a staggering amount of individuals that have seen UFOs, surely all these people aren't apart of some bizarre conspiracy. And furthermore, I think that a lot of the miraculous things described in the bible (old testament especially) could be uncovered by substituting god with aliens. People in those times weren't accustomed to air crafts, especially not E.T. So they used terms they were familiar with to define the amazing sights that they saw. There simply cannot be science in scripture because the two historical time periods are separated by so much.  But alas, I catch myself rambling and I digress. With that nonsense being said, how many believe like I do? If not, what is your stance on the subject?

I hope I'm not breaking rules in posting this topic in the "laid back lounge." I apologize before hand if I have.

First off most UFOs are just that, flying objects that are unidentified. Secondly extraterrestrial life exists, what we don't know is where and what they are.

There are lots of way we could explain away the bible, aliens wouldn't even be in my top thrity. Time travelers, mental illness, elves, deception and what have you.

My stance on aliens is that they exist, but it is really unlikely that they've visited us. We probably wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of a starfaring race, we'd be nothing more than a curiosity at best. What's much more likely is that we'll stumble across them once we start extrasolar colonization/exploration.

I've read that there are cave drawings and drawings in the tombs of Egyptians depicting ET's and/or UFOs...err flying objects that are unidentified. scattered all across the globe. Surely not everyone of these bands of people had a spontaneous, random idea at or around the same time periods. In being what I am, I've picked up on not believing everything that you read, but as with anything else in life. I have to ask why. With the photos and videos of flying crafts, you would have to intensely investigate before coming up with a "yes or no" conclusion. And deception is a very plausible explanation, seeing as how men are a fucked up species. Or it could be a combination of the two, or multiple things. God damnit I'm rambling again....my apologies

As a people we've always been facinated by the sky, Birds, stars, and astrology hold our fancy. A frisbee at night is a UFO, if you saw an alien space craft it wouldn't be a UFO... it would be an alien space craft.

Vistors from another planet, and strange things in the sky are just two of a number of recurring motifs in human history. Like the god archetypes, reincarnation, the afterlife, sacared hospitality, divination, luck, tricksters, monsters in the dark, monsters in the deep, and the dangers of whistling are all also things that pop up in many cultures and peoples.

Quote from: "JuggernautJon"There's photo and video evidence in favor of UFOs.

Crappy grainy  photos used to be presented as proof, with nearly everyone carrying a phone/camera these days I'd expect a huge increase in photos, if there was something there.  

Quote from: "JuggernautJon"Whens the last time you talked to a snake?

It's been a few years, it didn't talk back as far as I could tell.

A most bizarre thread! With the exception of The Magic Pudding, every poster confessed faith in extraterrestrials. This one confession is closest to blind faith:

Quote from: "Byronazriel"My stance on aliens is that they exist, but it is really unlikely that they've visited us. We probably wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of a starfaring race, we'd be nothing more than a curiosity at best. What's much more likely is that we'll stumble across them once we start extrasolar colonization/exploration.

Atheism shows keeness of spirit and a desire to question received notions, I'll grant you that. But replacing religion with goblins from another planet requires a remarkable lack of discernment.

...The Magic Pudding is the only confirmed atheist on this thread!

Also, probability dictates that life exists outside of our little planet. Even if only one out of every million planets have some form of life, that's still a HUGE amount of life. The universe is a huge place, even if it is finite (which may or may not be the case, but that's a different discussion.) it's still inconceivably huge.

It would be unimaginably arrogant of us to think that we're all there is. That no where in the trillions upon trillions of worlds life other than our own exists.

The building blocks of life arise from chemicle reactions, and become more complex through evolution. Plantets other than our own exist, and the universe is big. These factors, among others, mean that life can and WILL arise elsewehere. Simple as that.

Edit: Check this out, it isn't perfect but it elaborates some of the points I was making. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Quote from: "AreEl"A most bizarre thread! With the exception of The Magic Pudding, every poster confessed faith in extraterrestrials. This one confession is closest to blind faith:

Quote from: "Byronazriel"My stance on aliens is that they exist, but it is really unlikely that they've visited us. We probably wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of a starfaring race, we'd be nothing more than a curiosity at best. What's much more likely is that we'll stumble across them once we start extrasolar colonization/exploration.

Atheism shows keeness of spirit and a desire to question received notions, I'll grant you that. But replacing religion with goblins from another planet requires a remarkable lack of discernment.

The universe is big, really big, if I estimate the likelihood of life reaching our degree of technological advancement elsewhere at 95%, I  consider this as an expression of probability, not faith.  It seems unlikely aliens control our governments, harvest people for anal probing, or do unkind things to livestock.  

I don't believe Stargate is based on a real program operated by the US government from a base under Cheyane mountain, but if it is could they please take a bit more care so as to not piss off advanced species.  Oh and pointing machine guns at people isn't a good way to make friends.

I definitely don't think extra-terrestrials have visited this planet.  If you would travel the speed of our spacecraft Voyager, it would take about 17,000 years to get to the nearest star system (4 light years away).  It's possible that if intelligent life exists out there, it may exist on a planet several thousand or hundred thousand light-years away.  If it's just a few hundred light-years away, even, they would not have received our earliest radio transmissions to even know for sure intelligence exists on Earth.  Just like it's probable that life exists elsewhere because of the vastness of the universe, it's also very probable that the vastness of the universe has worked against any other intelligent life visiting here.

Quote from: "AreEl"A most bizarre thread! With the exception of The Magic Pudding, every poster confessed faith in extraterrestrials. This one confession is closest to blind faith:

Quote from: "Byronazriel"My stance on aliens is that they exist, but it is really unlikely that they've visited us. We probably wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of a starfaring race, we'd be nothing more than a curiosity at best. What's much more likely is that we'll stumble across them once we start extrasolar colonization/exploration.

Atheism shows keeness of spirit and a desire to question received notions, I'll grant you that. But replacing religion with goblins from another planet requires a remarkable lack of discernment.

I'd take aliens over god any day. As it stands, i don't believe we've been visited. I don't think we'll ever be visited. There probably is life out there, however.

"I do not believe in god" therefore I am an atheist. It has been confirmed all I'm saying is there are photographs, videos, sightings from a shit ton of people (a lot of whom are describing the same craft, and also having seen the same thing at the same time), and testimonies from various people stating government cover-ups, etc. Aside from the occasional "I saw jesus in a tortilla shell" I don't think there have been much sightings of angelical beings...that couldn't be explained with DMT, that is.  I look at most everything with a skeptic's eye, as did I with this particular subject. But I've been fascinated with it for a long time, and have seen many sides of the argument.. I haven't seen anything with my own eyes, however, therefore I cannot make a concrete conclusion on whether or not I believe. That's the beauty of language...convictions, in the form that I've used in this thread, means the act of being convinced. I would, however, lean more to the side of ET having something to do with us rather
than divine intervention. Just saying

Quote from: "JuggernautJon""I do not believe in god" therefore I am an atheist. It has been confirmed all I'm saying is there are photographs, videos, sightings from a shit ton of people (a lot of whom are describing the same craft, and also having seen the same thing at the same time), and testimonies from various people stating government cover-ups, etc. Aside from the occasional "I saw jesus in a tortilla shell" I don't think there have been much sightings of angelical beings...that couldn't be explained with DMT, that is.  I look at most everything with a skeptic's eye, as did I with this particular subject. But I've been fascinated with it for a long time, and have seen many sides of the argument.. I haven't seen anything with my own eyes, however, therefore I cannot make a concrete conclusion on whether or not I believe. That's the beauty of language...convictions, in the form that I've used in this thread, means the act of being convinced. I would, however, lean more to the side of ET having something to do with us rather
than divine intervention. Just saying

Most videos and pictures can be debunked.  There are ideas about the videos and pictures that have yet to be debunked as to what they really are.  Just because we can't offer a ready explanation for something to say for certain it isn't extra terrestrial does not mean it's evidence in favor of ETs coming to Earth.  

I saw the TV show about how a bunch of people who claimed abductions and had never met each other described the aliens in the same way.  We can see these descriptions now in Spielberg movies.  That description, as it turns out, matches an alien from a comic called Buck Rodgers and the 21st Century that was released back in the 1920s.  That's how details wind up being correlated between many people.  They see what they expect to see.  This is the same as in near death experiences when people see Jesus or whatever.

As for government cover-ups... any time someone with a conspiracy theory has absolutely no proof (JFK conspiracies), the easy answer is that the government must have covered up the evidence.  Why is it that the aliens always abduct Farmer Joe and his toothless Waffle House waitress wife Thelma?  Why do they never abduct Donald Trump or President Obama?  How is it that government cover-ups can involve the number of people this one would have to?  There is no way that would happen.

There is a great website for all of these things.  http://www.skepdic.com/ (http://www.skepdic.com/).  Their articles on Roswell, Alien Abductions, and UFOs should help.  We cannot prove that ETs haven't visited this planet or that Farmer Joe and Thelma weren't abducted, but that isn't evidence that these things did happen.

Nice. Thank you Mr. Fester. Very informative.

This is tongue-in-cheek and intended to make you think:

Hmmm....

-The Virgin Mary's image has popped up on toast, and in a ketchup stain on a Peruvian farmer's shirt. Do you consider these to be evidence as valid as photos and sightings of UFOs? (Personally, I prefer a good Bloody Mary. A B-52 also makes a fine IFO.)

-You are all right! The universe is so huge that some super-duper-intelligent life has probably evolved on some star-system zillions of light-years from us! The only problem is that we can never know for sure because the universe is so huge. So...why not just assume they exist! We'll be just like the religion folks, only smarter! We know fer shure because our delusion is logical!

Oh! there is a great religion for you guys:  http://www.rael.org (http://www.rael.org)    

Rael is atheistic, and they have their own planet and flying saucers. Just perfect for that weekend getaway to Epsilon Eridani 4.

 

haha! I watch the move Religulous....religiously. In the extra stuff on the DVD, Bill Maher interview the leader of Rael...and it is quite comical and a little disturbing

It's theoretically possible that in a finite universe we are the only life ever, but if the universe is in any way infinite then it becomes an impossibility. It is still however ridiculous to assume that we're all there is.

I don't think any of us are claiming to KNOW anything about aliens, and neither do I think any of us are taking this on faith. If we are given evidence that contradicts our position, I'm sure we'll believe differently. We're, or at least I am open to the possibility of being wrong.

Quote from: "AreEl"-You are all right! The universe is so huge that some super-duper-intelligent life has probably evolved on some star-system zillions of light-years from us! The only problem is that we can never know for sure because the universe is so huge. So...why not just assume they exist! We'll be just like the religion folks, only smarter! We know fer shure because our delusion is logical!

Oh! there is a great religion for you guys:  http://www.rael.org (http://www.rael.org)    

Rael is atheistic, and they have their own planet and flying saucers. Just perfect for that weekend getaway to Epsilon Eridani 4.

 

Theists seem to be carrying around this heavy burden of ludicrous thought, and they frequently encourage us to chain ourselves to some bizarre notions because it's so liberating.  No thanks, I'll try to keep my delusions to a minimum if you don't mind.
Live long and prosper.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Theists seem to be carrying around this heavy burden of ludicrous thought, and they frequently encourage us to chain ourselves to some bizarre notions because it's so liberating.  No thanks, I'll try to keep my delusions to a minimum if you don't mind.
Live long and prosper.

My posts here have not been from the point of view of theism at all. I could have been a #10 hard-atheist and written the same thing. So, in my opinion, your reaction has more to do with the Christian label on my profile than sober consideration of what I wrote. What does that say about you?

The fact remains that without a single shred of evidence re extraterrestrial life, any assumption that it does/probably does exist must come from faith. Here is a definition of faith from my Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Faith:...2a, firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof. Uncritical grounds for belief.

Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith.

I don't care if you have faith - I really don't - and I won't rub your nose in it.

Some problems with your statement here:

Quote from: "AreEl"The fact remains that without a single shred of evidence re extraterrestrial life, any assumption that it does/probably does exist must come from faith. Here is a definition of faith from my Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Faith:...2a, firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof. Uncritical grounds for belief.

Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith.

I don't care if you have faith - I really don't - and I won't rub your nose in it.

The definition cites "firm or unquestioning belief", while you used the words "does/probably" and "believes in the posibility". The problem here is that when you say something like "probably" and "believes that there might be a possibility," you're already stating that it's not the same as "firm or unquestioning."

Saying, "Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith." is categorically wrong, especially by the definition of faith that you provided. Now if someone said that there definitely was other life in the universe without a shred of evidence, that would be faith.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Theists seem to be carrying around this heavy burden of ludicrous thought, and they frequently encourage us to chain ourselves to some bizarre notions because it's so liberating.  No thanks, I'll try to keep my delusions to a minimum if you don't mind.
Live long and prosper.

My posts here have not been from the point of view of theism at all. I could have been a #10 hard-atheist and written the same thing. So, in my opinion, your reaction has more to do with the Christian label on my profile than sober consideration of what I wrote. What does that say about you?

The fact remains that without a single shred of evidence re extraterrestrial life, any assumption that it does/probably does exist must come from faith. Here is a definition of faith from my Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Faith:...2a, firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof. Uncritical grounds for belief.

Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith.

I don't care if you have faith - I really don't - and I won't rub your nose in it.

The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that often have planetary systems not unlike our own.  Although christians have brutally murdered people in the past for saying so, I think most of us accept this now.  So we know one star intimately, and it supports life, there are a billion billion more stars so we recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere.  I don't consider this a leap of faith, it is not unquestioning or uncritical, the difficulty of extrapolating from one instance of life the probability of other life is not ignored.  So if I estimate it's 50% likely there is life within 100 light years this is faith? 50% faith?
Can a 0.00000000000000000001% belief/faith in Jesus get me into heaven if I'm wrong?  Did you actually read that definition you quoted?  And did you know there are other definitions for the word, lets have a look at good old Wordweb.

1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2) Complete confidence in a person or plan etc
3) An institution to express belief in a divine power
4) Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person

I've seen christians stick this faith virtue of theirs on Atheists as a proof of their wrongness.  The thing is we don't have to know, the answer can be left open without resorting to fantasy, though the reasoned search for answers is a great thing.  The defence of goat herder whimsy is bad for ones brain, in extreme cases it renders a person unable to understand the simplest of definitions.

There's a series on the History Channel called "Ancient Aliens" that is pretty entertaining. My favorite episode is the one that asserts that Hitler and the Nazis were secretly getting instructions for advanced weaponry and aircraft from extraterrestrial visitors. You just can't make that stuff up... oh wait, yes you can. But I love the ancient alien concept, and all the imagery left behind from ancient civilizations that suggest they learned this or that from extraterrestrial visitors. It is so farfetched, yet there is something so intriguing that makes me want to believe it (cue Fox Mulder).

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that often have planetary systems not unlike our own.

Above is a faith-based statement. More accurate and fitting observation would be: The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that may have planetary systems like our own.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Although christians have brutally murdered people in the past for saying so, I think most of us accept this now.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing but it does serve to reveal that you do see our discussion as a theist/atheist debate. Remember what I said:

Quote from: "AreEl"My posts here have not been from the point of view of theism at all. I could have been a #10 hard-atheist and written the same thing. So, in my opinion, your reaction has more to do with the Christian label on my profile than sober consideration of what I wrote.

Remember: both the theist and the atheist who believe in extraterrestrial life are doing so on faith alone. Both are in the same situation; one isn't ''better'' than another. This isn't a theist/atheist discussion at all. Indeed, our discussion has more to do with hypothesis, knowledge, logic, opinion and reasoning.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"So we know one star intimately, and it supports life, there are a billion billion more stars so we recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. I don't consider this a leap of faith,

It is a leap of faith. Without one shred of hard evidence, you have determined that there probably is (or may be) life elsewhere in the universe. You have based your belief solely on the universe's size and number of stars. You are rationalizing your faith - and that is fine - but recognize what you are doing.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Did you actually read that definition you quoted? And did you know there are other definitions for the word, lets have a look at good old Wordweb.

I did read the definition of ''faith'' I provided. The definition I quoted was two sentences from an entry 3 paragraphs long written in 6 point type. It fits perfectly with the faith you manifest in ET life. The definitions you quoted are also interesting, especially #2 and #4:

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"2) Complete confidence in a person or plan etc

#2, you seem to be defending what you perceive to be atheist dogma in relation to ET life. Whoever said that atheism (or theism!) and ET life have anything in common? These concepts have nothing to do one with the other, period. Think independently! stop following the crowd.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"4) Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person

#4, You have a twisted allegiance to what you perceive to be atheist dogma. There is no such thing as atheist dogma! Think independently!

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I've seen christians stick this faith virtue of theirs on Atheists as a proof of their wrongness.

I'm not doing what you perceive. Everything I wrote, I could have written as a #10 hard atheist but...you are too mired in your loyalty to your dogma to see that (see #4 above).

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"The thing is we don't have to know, the answer can be left open without resorting to fantasy, though the reasoned search for answers is a great thing.

Congratulations. You have said something intelligent above. Somewhere under your dogma and the dislike of religion stifling your mind, there is evidence of intelligence.

Strive to think independently. This will always serve you well.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that often have planetary systems not unlike our own.

Above is a faith-based statement. More accurate and fitting observation would be: The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that may have planetary systems like our own.

Not the same thing as a faith-based statement.

Gliese 581c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c)
GJ 1214b (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/super-earth/)
Found 500 exosolar planets in just 20 years after the first exosolar planet is discovered (http://www.space.com/116-500th-alien-planet-discovered-hundreds.html)

Quote from: "AreEl"Remember: both the theist and the atheist who believe in extraterrestrial life are doing so on faith alone. Both are in the same situation; one isn't ''better'' than another. This isn't a theist/atheist discussion at all. Indeed, our discussion has more to do with hypothesis, knowledge, logic, opinion and reasoning.

Yes, one who believes in extraterrestrial life is doing so on faith.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"So we know one star intimately, and it supports life, there are a billion billion more stars so we recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. I don't consider this a leap of faith,

It is a leap of faith. Without one shred of hard evidence, you have determined that there probably is (or may be) life elsewhere in the universe. You have based your belief solely on the universe's size and number of stars. You are rationalizing your faith - and that is fine - but recognize what you are doing.

It is not a leap of faith to recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. It would be leap of faith if one said there was (or wasn't), but not so long as one is only accepting that there is a possibility. Accepting a possibility means one is open to there both being life elsewhere and not being elsewhere.

Quote from: "AreEl"Congratulations. You have said something intelligent above. Somewhere under your dogma and the dislike of religion stifling your mind, there is evidence of intelligence.

Please refrain from insulting people, especially in the Laid Back Lounge.

I think arel is a bit confused on the difference between faith and probability.  I don't have faith that there is extra-terrestrial life.  I don't know one way or another until there is proof.  Based on the vastness of the universe and number of star systems out there, I believe there is a decent probability that the processes that formed Earth and the life on it occurred elsewhere, but I don't know for sure, and I don't claim that extra-terrestrial life definitely exists... until there is proof.  

If I were to make such a claim without proof, then that would be faith.  Those who believe in God do so on faith, as they don't have any proof.

I do, in fact, believe without proof that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. You can call it faith if you want. The difference between my belief in extraterrestrials and any belief in theism is the supernatural factor. To me, there is no difference between Jesus and the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. When they start delivering presents to children all over the world in a single night, or flying around at night collecting children's teeth in exchange for money, or transmuting water into booze, it's just a dealbreaker.

The idea that the right mixture of molecules can cause a chemical reaction resulting in conscious organisms just blows my mind, and it's fascinating to think how differently life forms could have evolved elsewhere in the universe. The idea of sentient beings that look and behave in ways that we could never imagine, having sensory receptors that we could never ever comprehend, maybe even having some entirely different way of functioning than a central brain with nerve impulses. It's something totally beyond us. It's almost agonizing to know that we'll never see any of it.

Quote from: "Davin"It is not a leap of faith to recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. It would be leap of faith if one said there was (or wasn't), but not so long as one is only accepting that there is a possibility. Accepting a possibility means one is open to there both being life elsewhere and not being elsewhere.

Hmmm...the part about your sentence that bugs me is in italics, above. I'm fine with the possibility of ET life but when you say ''likelihood'' you are expressing hope. Hope is evidence of something not seen and for which there is no evidence.* Check the dictionary definition of ''hope'' and you'll see that there's a important component of faith there.

Quote from: "Davin"Please refrain from insulting people, especially in the Laid Back Lounge.

I didn't insult The Magic Pudding. I'm sorry you took it that way. I meant the comment you quoted as a compliment. If he feels insulted, he need only contact me and I'll apologize.

Quote from: "fester30"I think arel is a bit confused on the difference between faith and probability. I don't have faith that there is extra-terrestrial life. I don't know one way or another until there is proof. Based on the vastness of the universe and number of star systems out there, I believe there is a decent probability that the processes that formed Earth and the life on it occurred elsewhere, but I don't know for sure, and I don't claim that extra-terrestrial life definitely exists... until there is proof.

I'm not confused about the difference between faith and probability; you seem to be, though, as one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You may want to re-read the part I put in italics above and explain - to yourself - how you can ''...believe there is a decent probability'' of ET life.

Quote from: "fester30"If I were to make such a claim without proof, then that would be faith. Those who believe in God do so on faith, as they don't have any proof.

The sentence quoted above has nothing to do with the discussion but it does show that my Christian label has tainted your thinking here. Be careful of that. It tells me that you are not focused.

Quote from: "februarystars"I do, in fact, believe without proof that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. You can call it faith if you want. The difference between my belief in extraterrestrials and any belief in theism is the supernatural factor.

An honest admission, congratulations. Honesty will serve you well in life. However, while theism may** have a supernatural factor, belief in ET life has a ''science-fiction'' factor.


*exosolar planets are not evidence of ET life. They are evidence of exosolar planets.
**there are atheistic religions; these are without supernatural elements.

Quote from: "AreEl"An honest admission, congratulations. Honesty will serve you well in life. However, while theism may** have a supernatural factor, belief in ET life has a ''science-fiction'' factor.

You're absolutely right, but in regard to your footnote down there, I did mention that my problem lies with theism, i.e. belief in one or more deities, and not necessarily with atheistic religions â€" though atheistic religions may still have the supernatural factor that just really holds no shred of possibility as far as my own personal beliefs are concerned.

My description of the idea of alien life is without question science fiction. But this belief is based on what I think is the reality of the origin of life-forms on earth, so it makes perfect sense for me to come to the conclusion that the same thing might happen anywhere else in the universe. This is definitely all speculation, but it is derived from what I know of science, and scientific evidence is the only truth I know.

AreEl, could you define 'hard evidence'? As others have already said (i think?) the sheer volume of the universe is evidence in itself, for it renders the probability of life occuring elsewhere very great. That's how all evidence works: by increasing or decreasing the probability of things. Ie. finding X's fingerprints on a murder weapon increases the probability of X being the murderer.

If you're saying that the laws of probability themselves could be 'faith based,' then you could also expand this to include such basic assumptions as a) the universe exists and b) it's possible to gain knowledge from it, in which case it's a little trite to ask for evidence when you might as well just jump ahead to the 'all evidence is faith-based' bit. Anyway, as it happens, if this is what you are saying, then I sort of agree with you. Except on one point: even if you don't openly accept these things as 'true', and from some lofty intellectual level you denounce even your own existence, you still can't avoid behaving as if you accept them fully. You have no choice but to act on the presumed truths you've extrapolated from the world as you've experienced it, finding patterns, balancing probabilities and so on, however superficial you may consider this system to be. You only get up to go to work in the morning on the basis that the world probably still exists. It's pragmatically impossible to evade or rise above or grow out of that kind of 'faith'. However, this is not so with the kind of faith people put in, say, God, which is a voluntary faith that can very easily be done without. That would be the important difference for me.

The chemical elements life, made out of mainly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, are among the most common in the universe (there's nothing rare about our chemistry, we're made of common nuclear waste) since they are among the lightest, having come into existence through nuclear fusion from the simplest - hydrogen - which is the most abundant in the universe. Organic compounds (carbon molecules) have even been found in asteroids. Life depends on complex molecules, and we're organic based (named that way because of carbon, which allows for very long and complex chains to form) but some speculate whether other chains could give rise to life, such as silicon. Not as good as carbon, but could it? After what point does something go from becoming complex chemistry to alive?  

Even if we one day find a non intelligent lifeform, as simple and complex as a bacteria, it would in no way be a secondary prize, because there are chances are it's different from us in it's chemistry and constitution, having not shared a common ancestor with us. Even if we found something that came from another strand here on Earth it would be amazing.  

The presence of liquid greatly increases the chance for complex molecules to form because they increase the odds of molecules reaching and clashing into eachother, as opposed to a place where there is no liquid where molecules are stationery. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Water is the universal solvent, which in us aids chemical communication, but maybe life could be based on a liquid that is not water, we don't have the knowledge to know.

Scientists have not figured out the details of how life could've started, but pieces here and there (like the cellular membrane forming, amino acids which are a constituent part of the building blocks of RNA and DNA etc) suggest that life is the inevitable chemical occurrence when placed in a specific condition, or chemical and energetic context. Parts organise themselves based on what they are and how they interact with their surroundings.

We only have what we know to assume if there could be extra-terrestrial life elsewhere. Therefore we assume that there are higher odds of life on rocky planets with liquid water close enough to an energy source (either solar or geothermal) which aren't very different from our own (narrow search options, IMO, but like I said, we base higher odds based on what happened here). Rocky planets are extremely difficult to detect with instruments so we rely on estimates based on what we do detect as our instruments get better. One I've come across is a figure of roughly 100 million habitable environments per galaxy, which in the visible universe would be 10 to the 18th power, or 10 million trillion. Even if you want to halve that number, it's still quite a number. The habitable zone is where liquid water can exist, as opposed to ice or vapor, but one of Jupiter's moons, which is way outside this solar system's habitable zone could have liquid water under it's ice sheets because of the energy (heat) it gets from Jupiter's gravity compressing and decompressing it. Some speculate there might be life there.

So you see, we only have what we know based on life on Earth to speculate. The universe could be teeming with lifeforms beyond our wildest imagination and we probably wouldn't even recognise it as "life" at first if we saw it.  There's even debate on what is alive and what's not here on Earth!

Intelligent life needs time to evolve, which lessens the odds. The chances of simple lifeforms having arisen in the universe is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than intelligent life able to send messages through space, and simple lifeforms are not restricted to narrower conditions for life. Just look at archaebacteria and extremophiles we have here...mega tough little critters.

And even if technological intelligent life did arise out there and is still alive, just because we have instruments to detect signals, the fact that we don't doesn't mean much. Once again, take us for instance, our earliest transmissions have been travelling through space for just as long as we have radio and TV, which would be about 60-70 years. That got our message just past the nearest star. The milky way is huge, and the visible universe much more. Assuming those transmissions survive, it'll take a bit less than 100 000 years to cross just our galaxy. If there's something there, it'll only know after all that time. It would be like sending a text message and having to wait for it to reach it's destination, for them to send another and for their message to reach us. To the other side of the milky way a reply would take almost 200 000 years, which is more or less the time Homo sapiens have been around. Hardly practical.

As Carl Sagan pointed out, how close would you have to be to our own planet to see that there's intelligent life here? Have you ever thought of that? From not too far away it just looks like another waterworld, if an alien were to look through an optical telescope. For them to watch our TV shows, they would have to be within the 60-70 lightyears, which is nothing[/u] in galaxtic distances.  

The odds are high for simple life, but stacked against us of finding intelligent life out there. Don't confuse the two.  

It's a speculative belief based on a little more than blind faith, as you seem so eager to suggest it is...

***edited for clarity.

***edited again to add some additional info

Quote from: "Melmoth"AreEl, could you define 'hard evidence'? As others have already said (i think?) the sheer volume of the universe is evidence in itself, for it renders the probability of life occuring elsewhere very great. That's how all evidence works: by increasing or decreasing the probability of things. Ie. finding X's fingerprints on a murder weapon increases the probability of X being the murderer.

The dictionary definition of ''evidence'' is what I go by. The size of the universe is not evidence for ET life; at best, it is only evidence for...size. Here's an analogy: in a lottery, there is only one winner whether there are 5000 entries or 5-zillion entries. There may be 5 winning tickets among all the entries and each ticket will have the same winning number. The ''winning number'' - life in this analogy - may have something to do with the number of entries but many other factors are involved.

 

Quote from: "Melmoth"If you're saying that the laws of probability themselves could be 'faith based,

That's not what I've been saying. The rest of your paragraph shows signs of nihilism:

Quote from: "Melmoth"then you could also expand this to include such basic assumptions as a) the universe exists and b) it's possible to gain knowledge from it, in which case it's a little trite to ask for evidence when you might as well just jump ahead to the 'all evidence is faith-based' bit. Anyway, as it happens, if this is what you are saying, then I sort of agree with you. Except on one point: even if you don't openly accept these things as 'true', and from some lofty intellectual level you denounce even your own existence, you still can't avoid behaving as if you accept them fully. You have no choice but to act on the presumed truths you've extrapolated from the world as you've experienced it, finding patterns, balancing probabilities and so on, however superficial you may consider this system to be. You only get up to go to work in the morning on the basis that the world probably still exists. It's pragmatically impossible to evade or rise above or grow out of that kind of 'faith'. However, this is not so with the kind of faith people put in, say, God, which is a voluntary faith that can very easily be done without. That would be the important difference for me.

I'm not a nihilist. Nor am I sitting on a mountaintop handing out wisdom. You're funny!

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The odds are high for simple life, but stacked against us of finding intelligent life out there. Don't confuse the two.

Simple life? Maybe...but this is still hoping for a secondary prize.  I'll deal with this matter of hope/hypothesis when I get back from work this evening.

Quote from: "AreEl"Simple life? Maybe...but this is still hoping for a secondary prize.  I'll deal with this matter of hope/hypothesis when I get back from work this evening.

Hope? Who's hoping?  
Who was that recent theist who based their arguments on weird definitions and who is no longer with us?
Hope I don't burn the toast, ahhh!  I'm a Toastafarian!

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Melmoth"AreEl, could you define 'hard evidence'? As others have already said (i think?) the sheer volume of the universe is evidence in itself, for it renders the probability of life occuring elsewhere very great. That's how all evidence works: by increasing or decreasing the probability of things. Ie. finding X's fingerprints on a murder weapon increases the probability of X being the murderer.

The dictionary definition of ''evidence'' is what I go by. The size of the universe is not evidence for ET life; at best, it is only evidence for...size. Here's an analogy: in a lottery, there is only one winner whether there are 5000 entries or 5-zillion entries. There may be 5 winning tickets among all the entries and each ticket will have the same winning number. The ''winning number'' - life in this analogy - may have something to do with the number of entries but many other factors are involved.

When I go into google and search 'define:evidence', this is what I get: "your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief." So this is what I'll continue with, for now.

Not sure I follow your analogy. Perhaps because I don't know how lotteries work, having never done one! ;) .

Quote from: "AreEl"The rest of your paragraph shows signs of nihilism

Showing 'signs', like some sort of decadent neurosis. I like that idea. But you don't have to be a nihilist to see that your fundamental bases for belief in anything might be wrong - you just have to be conscious of your own fallibility.

Quote from: "Melmoth"number'' - life in this analogy - may have something to do with the number of entries but many other factors are involved.

Not sure I follow your analogy. Perhaps because I don't know how lotteries work, having never done one! [/quote]

Lotteries, I think numbered tickets are sold and one number is picked, one winner.
Lotto, or whatever you call it locally, numbered balls are chosen at random and more than one winner is possible.
Lotto is blasphemous, god looks unfavourably on any who partake of this ungodly gamble.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Melmoth"number'' - life in this analogy - may have something to do with the number of entries but many other factors are involved.

Not sure I follow your analogy. Perhaps because I don't know how lotteries work, having never done one!

Lotteries, I think numbered tickets are sold and one number is picked, one winner.
Lotto, or whatever you call it locally, numbered balls are chosen at random and more than one winner is possible.
Lotto is blasphemous, god looks unfavourably on any who partake of this ungodly gamble.[/quote]

We have "charitable bingo" at the churches down here in the Bible Belt.  They don't seem to think that counts as gambling.

Quote from: "fester30"We have "charitable bingo" at the churches down here in the Bible Belt.  They don't seem to think that counts as gambling.

Well we'd have to look at the bingo cards and see if more than one winner is possible, this would show if retribution is warranted.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Davin"It is not a leap of faith to recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. It would be leap of faith if one said there was (or wasn't), but not so long as one is only accepting that there is a possibility. Accepting a possibility means one is open to there both being life elsewhere and not being elsewhere.

Hmmm...the part about your sentence that bugs me is in italics, above. I'm fine with the possibility of ET life but when you say ''likelihood'' you are expressing hope. Hope is evidence of[...]

Back it up a little bit: how is saying "or likelihood" expressing hope?

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Davin"Please refrain from insulting people, especially in the Laid Back Lounge.

I didn't insult The Magic Pudding. I'm sorry you took it that way. I meant the comment you quoted as a compliment. If he feels insulted, he need only contact me and I'll apologize.

I'm not an admin, you don't need to defend yourself against me, I was simply asking politely for you to stop insulting people, especially in the Laid Back Lounge.

Quote from: "AreEl"*exosolar planets are not evidence of ET life. They are evidence of exosolar planets.

My citations of extrasolar planets was not evidence for extrasolar life, they were used to demonstrate that you were incorrect to say that, "The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that often have planetary systems not unlike our own." was a faith based statement, because there is evidence to support that statement.

Quote from: "AreEl"The dictionary definition of ''evidence'' is what I go by. The size of the universe is not evidence for ET life; at best, it is only evidence for...size. Here's an analogy: in a lottery, there is only one winner whether there are 5000 entries or 5-zillion entries. There may be 5 winning tickets among all the entries and each ticket will have the same winning number. The ''winning number'' - life in this analogy - may have something to do with the number of entries but many other factors are involved.

"There is only one winner" and "There may be 5 winning tickets" are contradictory statements in your analogy. Also the analogy implies that there is only one way life can come about, because we don't know that our planet is the only way for life to come about, this is a baseless assumption.

So... yeah... ArEl, does this mean I can mark you down for a big fat negatory on the UFOs in the Bible thing?

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"The odds are high for simple life, but stacked against us of finding intelligent life out there. Don't confuse the two.

Simple life? Maybe...but this is still hoping for a secondary prize.  I'll deal with this matter of hope/hypothesis when I get back from work this evening.

Secondary prize? Are you mad?  :|

Quote from: "Melmoth"

Quote from: "AreEl"The dictionary definition of ''evidence'' is what I go by. The size of the universe is not evidence for ET life; at best, it is only evidence for...size. Here's an analogy: in a lottery, there is only one winner whether there are 5000 entries or 5-zillion entries. There may be 5 winning tickets among all the entries and each ticket will have the same winning number. The ''winning number'' - life in this analogy - may have something to do with the number of entries but many other factors are involved.

Not sure I follow your analogy. Perhaps because I don't know how lotteries work, having never done one! ;) .

Why only one winner? Do you know about enough about life to know that it can only happen one way? What is life, AreEl?

I think AreEl is confused, so I'll rephrase: nobody here is saying they have evidence for aliens (I doubt he applies that same definition of 'evidence' to his theistic beliefs). No one is saying that the universe is huge therefore...aliens exist. What we're all saying is that given enough room, the odds of something like Earth happening elsewhere is increased.

Comments:

Quote from: "februarystars"My description of the idea of alien life is without question science fiction. But this belief is based on what I think is the reality of the origin of life-forms on earth, so it makes perfect sense for me to come to the conclusion that the same thing might happen anywhere else in the universe. This is definitely all speculation, but it is derived from what I know of science, and scientific evidence is the only truth I know.

Fair enough. I can live with that.

Quote from: "Melmoth"you don't have to be a nihilist to see that your fundamental bases for belief in anything might be wrong - you just have to be conscious of your own fallibility.

Excellent observation!

Quote from: "Davin""There is only one winner" and "There may be 5 winning tickets" are contradictory statements in your analogy. Also the analogy implies that there is only one way life can come about, because we don't know that our planet is the only way for life to come about, this is a baseless assumption.

You are right! my wording wasn't clear. Here is my rephrase: ''There is only one winning set of numbers. There may be five winning tickets.''  On your second sentence (which I've quoted in italics), you are also right. I had not considered that life may come about differently elsewhere. This, however, is pure speculation; but for the purposes of this discussion, you do have a point.

Quote from: "fester30"So... yeah... ArEl, does this mean I can mark you down for a big fat negatory on the UFOs in the Bible thing?

   There are UFOs in the Bible? The Raelians believe there are UFOs recorded there (as do others). This is what you get for reading stuff into something: stupid.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"What is life, AreEl?

Get a dictionary and look it up. Whenever you are uncertain about something, consult a reference. If you ever wonder what I mean by a word, look it up in a dictionary.

+++

As for my promise to get back to this discussion with an explanation of Hope & Hypothesis as it pertains to ET life, this is more complex than I first imagined. I don't know where to start. I need more time.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"What is life, AreEl?

Get a dictionary and look it up. Whenever you are uncertain about something, consult a reference. If you ever wonder what I mean by a word, look it up in a dictionary.

Damn, that was almost as unsatisfactory as 'something god gave us'. If I wanted a shallow answer, I would've consulted a dictionary. Seems I took the shortcut and asked you to define what you thought it was *eyeroll*.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"What is life, AreEl?

Get a dictionary and look it up. Whenever you are uncertain about something, consult a reference. If you ever wonder what I mean by a word, look it up in a dictionary.

Damn, that was almost as unsatisfactory as 'something god gave us'. If I wanted a shallow answer, I would've consulted a dictionary. Seems I took the shortcut and asked you to define what you thought it was *eyeroll*.

Don't consult a dictionary with more that one definition though, they can't be trusted.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Don't consult a dictionary with more that one definition though, they can't be trusted.

Right...where do I get a dictionary that looks like it came out of Orwell's book 1984 ? In very simple Newspeak, please.  

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"What is life, AreEl?

Get a dictionary and look it up. Whenever you are uncertain about something, consult a reference. If you ever wonder what I mean by a word, look it up in a dictionary.

Damn, that was almost as unsatisfactory as 'something god gave us'. If I wanted a shallow answer, I would've consulted a dictionary. Seems I took the shortcut and asked you to define what you thought it was *eyeroll*.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Don't consult a dictionary with more that one definition though, they can't be trusted.

I just looked up ''Life'' in my dictionary and the definition is exaustive. A dictionary is a basic tool, like a screwdriver. If you don't own one, that tells me somethings about you.

Quote from: "AreEl"I just looked up ''Life'' in my dictionary and the definition is exaustive. A dictionary is a basic tool, like a screwdriver. If you don't own one, that tells me somethings about you.

perhaps your dictionary is different. Mine says:

life n. (pl. lives) 1 the condition of being alive and able to grow, breathe and reproduce. 2 the existence of an individual human being or animal 3 a particuler type or aspect of people's existence (eg. school life) 4 living things and their activity 5 the period during which something continues to exist, function or be valid. 6 vitality or energy. 7 informal, a sentence of imprisonment for life.

Of those, the only ones that are relevant to the question are 1 and possibly 4, and they don't really answer it. Going by what 1 alleges, for instance, fire is alive. Fire grows, breathes, consumes, multiplies and dies. And thus, the existence of ET life was proven by the Oxford English Dictionary, and a man pointing at the sun.

Jesting aside, dictionaries may be simple tools (veeery simple) but words themselves are not. Hence the problem with dictionaries. They're utterly shallow, loose and subjective. Useless for this kind of conversation. Your definition of life, going by the way you use it, is clearly more sophisticated than the ones listed above.

Looks as though my thread grew a giant, painful erection and seems to be fucking those who gaze at it. And for that, I am sorry. However, with my OP I was simply implying that the terms used to describe other miracles in the bible could be an inferior human's way to describe things that they may have experienced and seen. Thebibleufoconnection.com is the website that I saw a lot of it. I believe.

Quote from: "AreEl"I just looked up ''Life'' in my dictionary and the definition is exaustive. A dictionary is a basic tool, like a screwdriver. If you don't own one, that tells me somethings about you.

 :D

Jesting aside, dictionaries may be simple tools (veeery simple) but words themselves are not. Hence the problem with dictionaries. They're utterly shallow, loose and subjective. Useless for this kind of conversation. Your definition of life, going by the way you use it, is clearly more sophisticated than the ones listed above.[/quote]

Thanks for saying basically what I meant.  

In this context, the relevant definition of "life" has 7 qualifications.
All 7 qualifications must be met.

1) Life metabolizes energy
2) Life adapts to its environment
3) Life maintains homeostasis
4) Life grows and develops
5) Life reproduces and passes on genetic material
6) Life evolves
7) Life has cellular organization

Use the correct resources... in this case, that is not a dictionary (as Melmoth said). Try this newfangled internet thingy (you're on it right now ) or any biology textbook instead

Quote from: "Melmoth"Jesting aside, dictionaries may be simple tools (veeery simple) but words themselves are not. Hence the problem with dictionaries. They're utterly shallow, loose and subjective. Useless for this kind of conversation. Your definition of life, going by the way you use it, is clearly more sophisticated than the ones listed above.

I guess it depends which dictionary you use. Mine defines ''Life'' so well that it took me 10 minutes to read it through. Anyway, Heretical Rants had an even better idea:

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Use the correct resources... in this case, that is not a dictionary (as Melmoth said). Try this newfangled internet thingy (you're on it right now  ) or any biology textbook instead

With this in mind, why not discover for yourselves the meanings of the following (with your keyboard or with your favorite reference works):

-Imagination
-Hypothesis
-Reasoning
-Knowledge

Each of these ideas has a bearing on our discussion with reference to the faith you need to accept ET life as probable. When you get through the above, here are two more ideas for those who want a deeper understanding:

-Induction
-Logic

+++

Quote from: "JuggernautJon"Looks as though my thread grew a giant, painful erection and seems to be fucking those who gaze at it. And for that, I am sorry. However, with my OP I was simply implying that the terms used to describe other miracles in the bible could be an inferior human's way to describe things that they may have experienced and seen. Thebibleufoconnection.com is the website that I saw a lot of it. I believe.

Inferior human?!  I guess you meant ''less technologically advanced'' or something along that line.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"In this context, the relevant definition of "life" has 7 qualifications.
All 7 qualifications must be met.

1) Life metabolizes energy
2) Life adapts to its environment
3) Life maintains homeostasis
4) Life grows and develops
5) Life reproduces and passes on genetic material
6) Life evolves
7) Life has cellular organization

Use the correct resources... in this case, that is not a dictionary (as Melmoth said). Try this newfangled internet thingy (you're on it right now :D ) but under that definition a virus is not alive (they don't fall under numbers 1, 3 and 7). To me they're lipo-proteic chemical "machines" with genetic material that "strive" to "survive" and pass on their genes. IMO, looks like they're midway between being alive as you defined it above and not alive. Some people discuss broadening the definition of "life" or even allowing for a different kind of "life" for them, but they're certainly not like us.

It's where these things get blurry that I find the most interesting.  

Quote from: "AreEl"With this in mind, why not discover for yourselves the meanings of the following (with your keyboard or with your favorite reference works):

-Imagination
-Hypothesis
-Reasoning
-Knowledge

Each of these ideas has a bearing on our discussion with reference to the faith you need to accept ET life as probable. When you get through the above, here are two more ideas for those who want a deeper understanding:

-Induction
-Logic

Asking me to tell you what those things are is meaningless unless you give me a context, and even then most of them are far more subject to debate than "What is life?"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"Yes, I would prefer a biology book over a dictionary (biology - study of...life, so there :crazy:

Yeah, same here. For example, I can imagine some form of alien life that would be crystalline rather than cellular in nature, while exhibiting all of the other traits of life, but if we found such a thing we'd probably consider its crystalline structure to be equivalent to a cellular structure.

A virus, on the other hand, I don't even consider to be half-alive. I like the silverware analogy here: what if an alien species were observing us, but they focused on our silverware as being the living being, in their eyes?  The silverware 'tricks' us to make more of it, because of its utility, and we use the old successful/popular designs of silverware to produce the next 'generation.' If viruses are alive, then so are our plates.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "AreEl"With this in mind, why not discover for yourselves the meanings of the following (with your keyboard or with your favorite reference works):

-Imagination
-Hypothesis
-Reasoning
-Knowledge

Each of these ideas has a bearing on our discussion with reference to the faith you need to accept ET life as probable. When you get through the above, here are two more ideas for those who want a deeper understanding:

-Induction
-Logic

Asking me to tell you what those things are is meaningless unless you give me a context, and even then most of them are far more subject to debate than "What is life?"

My original idea was to present a synthesis of these ideas and their relation to ET life with the view to showing that belief in ET life is faith-based, and nothing more. Then, I decided that no one would be interested as faith is never overcome by reason. Faith is deeper and stronger than reason. Plus, the task I set for myself was daunting and would require a lot of my time. I am on this board for Fun, not for anything else.

 

Quote from: "AreEl"My original idea was to present a synthesis of these ideas and their relation to ET life with the view to showing that belief in ET life is faith-based, and nothing more. Then, I decided that no one would be interested as faith is never overcome by reason. Faith is deeper and stronger than reason. Plus, the task I set for myself was daunting and would require a lot of my time. I am on this board for Fun, not for anything else.

I don't think you'll any disagreement that believing in ET life without supporting evidence is faith. My only objections to what you were saying was that just thinking that ET life is possible was also faith.

Quote from: "AreEl"My original idea was to present a synthesis of these ideas and their relation to ET life with the view to showing that belief in ET life is faith-based, and nothing more. Then, I decided that no one would be interested as faith is never overcome by reason. Faith is deeper and stronger than reason.

Ummm...... OK. You do realize that 95% of the people on this forum will dissagree with you on that one, right? You could probably compile an entire book from the arguments against that that I've seen here.

I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I just wanted to point that out.


The real reason no one would be interested is closer to what Davin said. Speculation is not equivalent to faith. The people who are absolutley unequivocally certain that UFOs=contact with alien life are the ones with faith here....and they're nutters.

Quote from: "AreEl"My original idea was to present a synthesis of these ideas and their relation to ET life with the view to showing that belief in ET life is faith-based, and nothing more. Then, I decided that no one would be interested as faith is never overcome by reason. Faith is deeper and stronger than reason. Plus, the task I set for myself was daunting and would require a lot of my time. I am on this board for Fun, not for anything else.

 

I was actually looking foward to seeing you try.

But then again I guess you're admitting defeat, since the belief that alien life could exist is one based on not knowledge but reason (and thus speculative) which is not faith as you put it.

Quote from: "Davin"I don't think you'll [find] any disagreement that believing in ET life without supporting evidence is faith. My only objections to what you were saying was that just thinking that ET life is possible was also faith.

OK...I understand now that you meant simply ''Thinking that ET life is possible without supporting evidence'' is faith...sorry, I didn't get that at first. To clear things up, I would agree that simply thinking ET life is possible would not be faith-based, as long as you leave it at that. If you start dreaming up foreign worlds and civilizations, you've crossed a line.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "AreEl"My original idea was to present a synthesis of these ideas and their relation to ET life with the view to showing that belief in ET life is faith-based, and nothing more. Then, I decided that no one would be interested as faith is never overcome by reason. Faith is deeper and stronger than reason.

Ummm...... OK. You do realize that 95% of the people on this forum will dissagree with you on that one, right? You could probably compile an entire book from the arguments against that that I've seen here.

I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I just wanted to point that out.


The real reason no one would be interested is closer to what Davin said. Speculation is not equivalent to faith.

95% of the people may disagree with me but of that percentage, how many people really know what they are talking about? Belief is belief and speculation is speculation. I am old enough to know that most people confuse the two, or pervert them, or convolute them.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"I was actually looking foward to seeing you try.

But then again I guess you're admitting defeat, since the belief that alien life could exist is one based on not knowledge but reason (and thus speculative) which is not faith as you put it.

You really do have a bad habit of reading into what I write. Stop it! It doesn't tell me anything good about your deductive reasoning; you would be a mystical nutcase if you were a theist! I know you're smart...so start acting smart.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"they're nutters.

Quote from: "AreEl"You really do have a bad habit of reading into what I write. Stop it! It doesn't tell me anything good about your deductive reasoning; you would be a mystical nutcase if you were a theist! I know you're smart...so start acting smart.

No more comments here.

QuoteYeah, same here. For example, I can imagine some form of alien life that would be crystalline rather than cellular in nature, while exhibiting all of the other traits of life, but if we found such a thing we'd probably consider its crystalline structure to be equivalent to a cellular structure.

You make some good points here.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"No more comments here.

I just read your posts in The World Today and Islam, so I know that you are smart.  I found you to be a little soft with the Muslim guy on that thread but...you must be a nicer person than I am.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"No more comments here.

I just read your posts in The World Today and Islam, so I know that you are smart.  I found you to be a little soft with the Muslim guy on that thread but...you must be a nicer person than I am.

More reasonable, probably, but then I again I'm capable of stretching what 'reasonable' is to breaking point and nice to people who do not deserve it. iSok has done nothing to make me not want to be nice to him and be reasonable in my approach to his beliefs, which I place more or less on the same page as yours.  

Well thank you. I think that you're smart too.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"More reasonable, probably, but then I again I'm capable of stretching what 'reasonable' is to breaking point and nice to people who do not deserve it. iSok has done nothing to make me not want to be nice to him and be reasonable in my approach to his beliefs, which I place more or less on the same page as yours.

OK...Remember this link if you feel yourself getting soft on Islam:

www.thereligionofpeace.com (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com)

I went through an Erich Van Daniken / Velikovshy phase and find the topic of ancient astronauts interesting.

It now seems to me more likely that we haven't been visited by ETs because of the difficulties of traversing the distances involved.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were life - and probably intelligent life, too - out there.

I don't have much faith we'll ever get to a Star Trek level where we go out and meet all kinds of aliens who are basically just regular people like us.

But that doesn't mean science fiction isn't a fun genre to enjoy!

This is really off-topic, and probably not worth getting into, but

Quote from: "AreEl"OK...Remember this link if you feel yourself getting soft on Islam:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com)

Do you have a good reason for excusing or ignoring the
crusades, the inquisition, etc. in olden days,
and the anti-birth control, anti-gay, and anti-human rights sects, abortion center shootings, etc. in modern times,
while still condemning Islam?

I mean, some would consider my position to be soft on Islam, but I at least try to be consistent...

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"More reasonable, probably, but then I again I'm capable of stretching what 'reasonable' is to breaking point and nice to people who do not deserve it. iSok has done nothing to make me not want to be nice to him and be reasonable in my approach to his beliefs, which I place more or less on the same page as yours.

OK...Remember this link if you feel yourself getting soft on Islam:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com)

I don't want to further derail the thread, but it's something I have to ask: why Islam specifically? I mean, it's not a peaceful religion...granted, but care to look at religions in general for a bit? How about yours for starters?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Do you have a good reason for excusing or ignoring the
crusades, the inquisition, etc. in olden days,
and the anti-birth control, anti-gay, and anti-human rights sects, abortion center shootings, etc. in modern times, while still condemning Islam?

Not to mention the kind of damage that christian missionaries are causing in Africa in modern times, where societies are substantially backward. There are those who take Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live very seriously there. And then there's also the bible sanctioned killing of homossexuals. There's the spreading of the AIDS virus due to the Catholic church and a bunch of fundie loonies proclaiming condoms to be contrary to the divine order of things. Doesn't matter if the virus is alive, semi-alive or a different kind of alive, it kills people.

Read: http://www.hvk.org/articles/1008/97.html for a glimpse. Christianity is the religion of love, just as Islam is the religion of peace.

Sorry AreEl, but if your arguments are coming from emotionally charged loyalty to Christianity, they just aren't going to taken as seriously as you'd wish here. Christianity has just as much potential for damage as Islam and the fact that we didn't live through it's *worse times - prior to a more antropocentric view in the Western world - or in places plagued by missionaries nowadays doesn't lessen that.  

* "Worse" as in more similar to Islam and to the things in the link you posted.

What do you want to see happen to Muslims and by extension, Islam?  

Quote from: "proudfootz"But that doesn't mean science fiction isn't a fun genre to enjoy!

I love science fiction :shake:

*Edited to add info.

Brian was abducted by aliens, and his life resembled that of Jesus in many ways, so it is quite possible Jesus got taken as well.  I'm thinking the aliens didn't want humans advancing and threatening them, so they planted this anti rational thinking virus (religion).  It all makes sense, what country has the most advanced space program? What country has the most reports of alien interference?  I'll give you a clue, it's the western country with the highest percentage of believers. :borg2:

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"I don't want to further derail the thread, but it's something I have to ask: why Islam specifically? I mean, it's not a peaceful religion...granted, but care to look at religions in general for a bit? How about yours for starters?

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"This is really off-topic, and probably not worth getting into, but

Quote from: "AreEl"OK...Remember this link if you feel yourself getting soft on Islam:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com)

Do you have a good reason for excusing or ignoring the
crusades, the inquisition, etc. in olden days,
and the anti-birth control, anti-gay, and anti-human rights sects, abortion center shootings, etc. in modern times,
while still condemning Islam?

I mean, some would consider my position to be soft on Islam, but I at least try to be consistent...

It is a bad idea to judge a philosophy by its abuse. States like the USSR, the People's Republic of China, and North Korea - to name but three - have all engaged in murder/torture. To say these nations did this because of state-atheism would be just stoo-pid. Some Christians link atheism with violence just as you link theism with violence. This is simplistic to say the least.  Perhaps a propensity towards violence and heaping abuse on your opponent is part of human nature. This would be consistent with what we observe.

My disagreement with Islam is on a more secular level. When immigrating in large numbers, Arab Muslims do not integrate well in the West. They come from violent societies and carry this violent culture into their host countries. They have a bizarre worldview that blames others for their problems. You will not notice this until you have one-on-one contact with them.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"This is really off-topic, and probably not worth getting into, but

Quote from: "AreEl"OK...Remember this link if you feel yourself getting soft on Islam:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com)

Do you have a good reason for excusing or ignoring the
crusades, the inquisition, etc. in olden days,
and the anti-birth control, anti-gay, and anti-human rights sects, abortion center shootings, etc. in modern times,
while still condemning Islam?

I mean, some would consider my position to be soft on Islam, but I at least try to be consistent...

It is a bad idea to judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Classic.

Quote from: "AreEl"My disagreement with Islam is on a more secular level. When immigrating in large numbers, Arab Muslims do not integrate well in the West. They come from violent societies and carry this violent culture into their host countries. They have a bizarre worldview that blames others for their problems. You will not notice this until you have one-on-one contact with them.

If there is any violent culture that Arabs bring into host countries (I haven't seen much evidence of this), it's not due to their religion, but rather to the implications of being an immigrating minority.  Anytime you are a recognizable minority (skin color, language/accent, funny hats) immigrating into another land, the host nation will often blame you for taking their jobs.  If you fail to assimilate your culture into the host majority's (continue to wear funny hats, talk funny, or fail to change your skin tone) the host will attribute some of your practices and behaviors to inferiority, and use these things as reasons to hate you.  If you look at some of the mistreatment of American muslims in places like Michigan and Tennessee you'll see that they just want to live in peace and work and make a life for their families in the land of opportunity, but are often the VICTIMS of violence, not the purpetrators.  It's only so long before a peaceful minority becomes a violent one in those cases.

By your reasoning, Christians do not migrate very well into other lands, either.  There are a lot of Hispanics migrating to the USA from the south, and there is the occasional news story about violence and drug-running that finds its way to the newspapers or CNN (or top prime time Fox News story).  These Hispanics are primarily Roman Catholic.  Therefore, apparently Christians bring violence with them when they migrate.

I've also never noticed this "bizarre worldview that blames others for their problems" that you speak of in my Muslim friends.  Their worldview is actually closer to Christian worldview than mine is, as they view politics, religion, and morality very much the same as Christians (they want to ban abortion, think homosexuality is immoral, and wish to have more Islamic influence in government and law).  In fact, one of them agrees with many Christians that creation should be taught along with the big bang in public schools.   I think if YOU actually had enough one-on-one time (actual friendship) with some Muslims without any prejudicial views of them, you'd find that they are strikingly similar to you.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"blah blah blah blah
while still condemning Islam?

I mean, some would consider my position to be soft on Islam, but I at least try to be consistent...

It is a bad idea to judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Classic.

Yeah, he's repeating my own implied argument back at me like it's a separate contradicting point, then changing his original argument to something just as contradictory in order to accommodate for it!

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"
quote="proudfootz"]But that doesn't mean science fiction isn't a fun genre to enjoy!

I love science fiction :shake:[/quote]
I can understand why films would want to make the aliens humanoid - it helps viewers get into the story and is much cheaper to put antenna on an actor's head than come up with a really alien alien.

Now that we got CGI maybe things will open up a bit and we'll start seeing aliens who aren't just humans painted blue...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... fishAliens (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens)

Quote from: "fester30"If there is any violent culture that Arabs bring into host countries (I haven't seen much evidence of this), it's not due to their religion, but rather to the implications of being an immigrating minority. Anytime you are a recognizable minority (skin color, language/accent, funny hats) immigrating into another land, the host nation will often blame you for taking their jobs. If you fail to assimilate your culture into the host majority's (continue to wear funny hats, talk funny, or fail to change your skin tone) the host will attribute some of your practices and behaviors to inferiority, and use these things as reasons to hate you. If you look at some of the mistreatment of American muslims in places like Michigan and Tennessee you'll see that they just want to live in peace and work and make a life for their families in the land of opportunity, but are often the VICTIMS of violence, not the purpetrators. It's only so long before a peaceful minority becomes a violent one in those cases.

I read your whole post and I gather that you must be from the USA. As things now stand, the USA has a very small Muslim population, an even smaller Arab population, and a still smaller Muslim Arab population. It is this last group that are the contentious ones. Another thing an American has to realize is that this Muslim Arab (MA) population will not start affirming itself until its numbers grow substantially. You need to see what has come about in Europe to understand what I'm talking about. In France, in Belgium, in Holland, in Sweden and even in Israel, whole areas of major cities are given over to MA with the police not enforcing local laws within these areas.  By accident, I entered a MA area in Paris last summer and on our walk from the parking garage to the subway every member in our party was afraid. We also went to Brussels but this time the guide book advised which neighborhoods to avoid. Ditto for Amsterdam when I was there in 2008. In other words, you still have it good in America.

Quote from: "fester30"By your reasoning, Christians do not migrate very well into other lands, either. There are a lot of Hispanics migrating to the USA from the south, and there is the occasional news story about violence and drug-running that finds its way to the newspapers or CNN (or top prime time Fox News story). These Hispanics are primarily Roman Catholic. Therefore, apparently Christians bring violence with them when they migrate.

Excellent example you brought up, excellent! In the USA, Hispanics are close to a plague and they have filled your prisons, street gangs and cheap labor.  Here in Canada where the hard winters seem to discourage people from southern coutries from immigrating, our Latinos are model citizens. Why? we don't have too many of them and they do not exile themselves in ghettos. It isn't religion as such, it is the population of an ethnic group within the total population which allows or discourages bad elements from expressing themselves. If I am with a bum, the bum will behave himself. If I am with two bums, the bums will affirm each other and act like bums.  

Here in Canada, we have a lot of immigration from north African countries like Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia, Lybia and Egypt; as well as from Lebanon and Syria. These people speak French and so can easily come to Canada by virtue of this alone. Our MA are your Latinos. There is a mosque 3 blocks away from where I live. Another one is 7 blocks away.

Quote from: "fester30"I've also never noticed this "bizarre worldview that blames others for their problems" that you speak of in my Muslim friends. Their worldview is actually closer to Christian worldview than mine is, as they view politics, religion, and morality very much the same as Christians (they want to ban abortion, think homosexuality is immoral, and wish to have more Islamic influence in government and law). In fact, one of them agrees with many Christians that creation should be taught along with the big bang in public schools. I think if YOU actually had enough one-on-one time (actual friendship) with some Muslims without any prejudicial views of them, you'd find that they are strikingly similar to you.

You need new friends! You don't really know me so you can't say that your Muslim friends' worldview is ''strikingly'' similar to mine. And even if we come to similar conclusions about some moral issues, we arrive at those conclusions in a very different manner. Bernie Madoff became incredibly rich, as did Warren Buffet; one is a crook, one is honest. If all you see is the result, you're missing something.

I have a Muslim friend, but he's secular and non-Arab; he's Turk. I am familiar with the Koran and have 2 copies here in my home (both printed in Maryland!). I'm also 54 years old, so I've had plenty of contact with MA, especially when I was in the shmatter business.  I travel frequently to Europe and I've seen that continent's degradation over the years. I am not engaged in an anti-Muslim KKK-style rant and I see no reason to be politically correct on this matter. My Turk friend feels the same way I do.

Quote from: "proudfootz"I can understand why films would want to make the aliens humanoid - it helps viewers get into the story and is much cheaper to put antenna on an actor's head than come up with a really alien alien.

Now that we got CGI maybe things will open up a bit and we'll start seeing aliens who aren't just humans painted blue...

 

Eventually.

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"

Quote from: "proudfootz"I can understand why films would want to make the aliens humanoid - it helps viewers get into the story and is much cheaper to put antenna on an actor's head than come up with a really alien alien.

Now that we got CGI maybe things will open up a bit and we'll start seeing aliens who aren't just humans painted blue...

 

Eventually.

District 9, a low budget offering that relied heavily on CGI did a pretty convincing job with the 'Prawns'.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwatchstuff.com%2F2009%2F06%2F24%2Fdistrict-9-warning.jpg&hash=0ca81104ced0fdd0da8cc583983039f57f00b7ef)

Quote from: "Tank"District 9, a low budget offering that relied heavily on CGI did a pretty convincing job with the 'Prawns'.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwatchstuff.com%2F2009%2F06%2F24%2Fdistrict-9-warning.jpg&hash=0ca81104ced0fdd0da8cc583983039f57f00b7ef)

That's still entirely humanoid. It looks like a bipedal insect robot, sure, but the body plan is still that of a human.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Tank"District 9, a low budget offering that relied heavily on CGI did a pretty convincing job with the 'Prawns'.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwatchstuff.com%2F2009%2F06%2F24%2Fdistrict-9-warning.jpg&hash=0ca81104ced0fdd0da8cc583983039f57f00b7ef)

That's still entirely humanoid. It looks like a bipedal insect robot, sure, but the body plan is still that of a human.

Agreed. The question would be how far can one move from a human body plan and still feel empathy (if that is what you want to elicit). I'm sure the boundaries will be stretched over time.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.babble.com%2Fbeing-pregnant%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F03%2Fjabba%2Bthe%2Bhut.jpg&hash=7dc68f6c585901b43888efe9e390287009ff271f)

There was the odd unusual alien on star trek, the nasty blob of black goo, the whale like space things and some sprite like things.
The snake guys in Star Gate aren't humanoid though they use human bodies.  This is as mainstream as Sci-Fi gets and they make some effort to use non humanoid forms.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "Tank"District 9, a low budget offering that relied heavily on CGI did a pretty convincing job with the 'Prawns'.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iwatchstuff.com%2F2009%2F06%2F24%2Fdistrict-9-warning.jpg&hash=0ca81104ced0fdd0da8cc583983039f57f00b7ef)

That's still entirely humanoid. It looks like a bipedal insect robot, sure, but the body plan is still that of a human.

Agreed. The question would be how far can one move from a human body plan and still feel empathy (if that is what you want to elicit). I'm sure the boundaries will be stretched over time.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fa%2Faf%2FSTTroubleTrib.jpg&hash=5fd5f053403ac5b3e745669625e15eb8a2fe8074)

If Tribbles cannot elicit emotional responses, what can?

I do agree though about empathy.  Even non-alien "lifeforms" normally take on at least a moderately human appearance in movies.  Look at robots like Johnny 5 or Wall-E.  They have "eyes" that can move in certain ways to give off appearance of emotions, and hands and such that can help with the body language (head down, slumped shoulders, sad sad sad).

Wall-E is one of my favourite films and characters. I love the minimal dialogue it makes the story telling so engaging.

Quote from: "Tank"Wall-E is one of my favourite films and characters. I love the minimal dialogue it makes the story telling so engaging.

Wall-E is on my top 5 list all time.  I just can't get enough of that movie.  I love when they're going through space, when he has to use the fire extinguisher.  The artwork there is just breathtaking.  It looks almost 3D.

With this anthropomorphic thing we do I'll probably see a bizarre thing  from Regules Six as akin to cousin Joe.

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "Tank"Wall-E is one of my favourite films and characters. I love the minimal dialogue it makes the story telling so engaging.

Wall-E is on my top 5 list all time.  I just can't get enough of that movie.  I love when they're going through space, when he has to use the fire extinguisher.  The artwork there is just breathtaking.  It looks almost 3D.

There was a TV programme on recently about Pixar's 25th(?) anniversary and one of the scenes they chose was the space dance. I didn't know this but Pixar will only make films that have been suggested by their own staff. Their reasoning is that only people who have worked at Pixar and on a Pixar film understand what Pixar is all about. It seems to work for them. I had dismissed 'Cars' as being too 'Disney' but they played it after the TV programme. I'm now making sure I see all Pixars film  

I guess the author of the post may have watched this series, but seeing as nobody else has posted it.

There theories have as much validity as religion.

[youtube:3ud08s4o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qtjI8eGtvM[/youtube:3ud08s4o]

Why is it that American TV is so condescending?

Quote from: "Crow"I guess the author of the post may have watched this series, but seeing as nobody else has posted it.

There theories have as much validity as religion.

[spoiler:rcilrcfz][youtube:rcilrcfz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qtjI8eGtvM[/youtube:rcilrcfz][/spoiler:rcilrcfz]

Why is it that American TV is so condescending?

I didn't post a video, but I did mention it on page 2.

I quite like the series, if only for the entertainment value of the wild assertions.

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "Tank"Wall-E is one of my favourite films and characters. I love the minimal dialogue it makes the story telling so engaging.

Wall-E is on my top 5 list all time.  I just can't get enough of that movie.  I love when they're going through space, when he has to use the fire extinguisher.  The artwork there is just breathtaking.  It looks almost 3D.

That in itself is not very impressive at all, since they're using 3D models. Once you've made the model, you can pose it however you like and the computer renders it.

I must say, though...Pixar is extremely good at animating their 3D models. Breathtakingly good.

Quote from: "februarystars"I didn't post a video, but I did mention it on page 2.

I quite like the series, if only for the entertainment value of the wild assertions.

Haha sorry about that guess i wasn't paying enough attention whilst trying to read through as many posts as quickly as possible.

I also enjoyed the series for the same reasons but also highlights some really interesting archeological finds that i wasn't aware prior to watching the show. Its a theory I would like to be true to an extent just because it would be an incredibly interesting time in humanity and would massively rock the foundations of all religions.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "Tank"Wall-E is one of my favourite films and characters. I love the minimal dialogue it makes the story telling so engaging.

Wall-E is on my top 5 list all time.  I just can't get enough of that movie.  I love when they're going through space, when he has to use the fire extinguisher.  The artwork there is just breathtaking.  It looks almost 3D.

That in itself is not very impressive at all, since they're using 3D models. Once you've made the model, you can pose it however you like and the computer renders it.

I must say, though...Pixar is extremely good at animating their 3D models. Breathtakingly good.

Pixar is also one of the first to do so too, right? I remember their animations from way back, always one of a kind.

Yea, Toy Story was the first.

There are plenty of other studios making them now, of course (most notably DreamWorks), and you can make one on your own if you have enough free time, assuming you have access to a computer. Spend enough hundreds of hours fiddling with a scene and you may even produce something of the same level of quality as Pixar has.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Yea, Toy Story was the first.

There are plenty of other studios making them now, of course (most notably DreamWorks), and you can make one on your own if you have enough free time, assuming you have access to a computer. Spend enough hundreds of hours fiddling with a scene and you may even produce something of the same level of quality as Pixar has.

I was old enough to be awed by that animation :P

Quote from: AreEl on March 18, 2011, 11:54:12 AM
A most bizarre thread! With the exception of The Magic Pudding, every poster confessed faith in extraterrestrials. This one confession is closest to blind faith:

Quote from: Byronazriel
My stance on aliens is that they exist, but it is really unlikely that they've visited us. We probably wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of a starfaring race, we'd be nothing more than a curiosity at best. What's much more likely is that we'll stumble across them once we start extrasolar colonization/exploration.

Atheism shows keeness of spirit and a desire to question received notions, I'll grant you that. But replacing religion with goblins from another planet requires a remarkable lack of discernment.

Except that believers do not worship UFOs, but trying to figure out what it is rather than just conveniently saying it is just another fairy tale. How would UFO same as myth like goblins? Does Goblins have UK National Archive to support the evidence?
No one knows UFOs are, and no one claims to know. For all I know it might not Alien, but phenomenon exist, and worth the investigation. Being an Atheist doesn't mean we have to deny everything in default, reject anything relate to the idea of "believing."
I'm a man of evidence, and I believe UFO phenomenon exists, and Alien exists.

Quote from: Laduch on May 30, 2011, 01:04:01 PM

Quote from: AreEl on March 18, 2011, 11:54:12 AM
A most bizarre thread! With the exception of The Magic Pudding, every poster confessed faith in extraterrestrials. This one confession is closest to blind faith:

Quote from: Byronazriel
My stance on aliens is that they exist, but it is really unlikely that they've visited us. We probably wouldn't even be a blip on the radar of a starfaring race, we'd be nothing more than a curiosity at best. What's much more likely is that we'll stumble across them once we start extrasolar colonization/exploration.

Atheism shows keeness of spirit and a desire to question received notions, I'll grant you that. But replacing religion with goblins from another planet requires a remarkable lack of discernment.

Except that believers do not worship UFOs, but trying to figure out what it is rather than just conveniently saying it is just another fairy tale. How would UFO same as myth like goblins? Does Goblins have UK National Archive to support the evidence?
No one knows UFOs are, and no one claims to know. For all I know it might not Alien, but phenomenon exist, and worth the investigation. Being an Atheist doesn't mean we have to deny everything in default, reject anything relate to the idea of "believing."
I'm a man of evidence, and I believe UFO phenomenon exists, and Alien exists.

The problem with the UFO/E.T. thing is the believers take on religious fervor.  There still is not any evidence that has passed scientific muster, yet there are plenty that will take archaeological items and lie about them to promote their ideas.  Just watch Ancient Aliens on the History Channel, then look up what they call "evidence" on websites that show the real archaeology behind the items.  You'll see people like Erich Von Daniken make stuff up.  If scientists lie so boldly they're ostracized in the scientific community.  These people have a voice because of the enthusiastic, uneducated followers they've managed to dupe; people who don't do simple things like looking up the information to see if it's the truth.  The idea that we look at an object that is UNIDENTIFIED, meaning we don't know what it is, and assume that because we don't know what it is it must be extra terrestrial, is argument from ignorance.

There are UFO's, but they're called that because they're unidentified.  Until they are identified, we don't know what they are.  There may be alien life out there somewhere.  To assume aliens are the source of the UFO's, however, is to me like assuming a bouncing light on a set of train tracks must be a ghost.

Quote from: AreEl on March 18, 2011, 11:54:12 AM
A most bizarre thread! With the exception of The Magic Pudding, every poster confessed faith in extraterrestrials. This one confession is closest to blind faith:

Given that life exists on at least one planet and given that it is estimated that there are 300 sextillion stars in our Universe alone. And possibly a number tending towards infinity of Universes within Space. To me it would seem somewhat ridiculous to suggest that earth is the only planet with life.

I think most of the sightings we hear about are nothing more than unidentified flying objects, it in no way means aliens are behind the controls. When it comes to abduction stories, it appears the people are delusional. Belief in alien life tends to be overzealous, much like a belief in god.

With that said, I think there is a very high probability of their being alien life somewhere. I also doubt they have discovered us yet.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 30, 2011, 09:57:31 PM
I think most of the sightings we hear about are nothing more than unidentified flying objects, it in no way means aliens are behind the controls. When it comes to abduction stories, it appears the people are delusional. Belief in alien life tends to be overzealous, much like a belief in god.

With that said, I think there is a very high probability of their being alien life somewhere. I also doubt they have discovered us yet.

That was my point... the abduction stories make me laugh.  It's never someone like the President, Warren Buffet, Jack Nicholson, Stephen Hawking, etc.  It's always somebody that wears overalls for a living.  If you were E.T.s that just traveled so far to find a planet like Earth, wouldn't you want a true representative sample of the population if you were conducting human research?

Quote from: fester30 on May 30, 2011, 11:25:26 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 30, 2011, 09:57:31 PM
I think most of the sightings we hear about are nothing more than unidentified flying objects, it in no way means aliens are behind the controls. When it comes to abduction stories, it appears the people are delusional. Belief in alien life tends to be overzealous, much like a belief in god.

With that said, I think there is a very high probability of their being alien life somewhere. I also doubt they have discovered us yet.

That was my point... the abduction stories make me laugh.  It's never someone like the President, Warren Buffet, Jack Nicholson, Stephen Hawking, etc.  It's always somebody that wears overalls for a living.  If you were E.T.s that just traveled so far to find a planet like Earth, wouldn't you want a true representative sample of the population if you were conducting human research?

Nah, I'd want one that when he opened his mouth to say he was abducted, nobody with half a brain would believe him! :P

Quote from: Heretical Rants on April 10, 2011, 05:00:05 AM
Yea, Toy Story was the first.

There are plenty of other studios making them now, of course (most notably DreamWorks), and you can make one on your own if you have enough free time, assuming you have access to a computer. Spend enough hundreds of hours fiddling with a scene and you may even produce something of the same level of quality as Pixar has.

Maybe it's just me and the people I've been teaching, but it's not as easy as you make it sound. At least if you want some high quality work. I'd be willing to wager that without learning from other people who have learned from other people and learned a great deal themselves, that it would take more than hundreds of hours just to make one model of Buzz or Woody. Because while there may be several good ways to do something, there are so many more wrong ways and the wrong ways are very noticeable.

Once you have the model done, texturing is another beast that takes a lot of work. U|V mapping alone would take a newb days, let alone doing it correctly so there is no tearing or warping.

After texturing you have lighting the scene, which takes either hundreds of renders of trial and error when one doesn't know what they're doing or much less trial and error when one does know what they're doing.

If you wanted to pose the model then you'll either have to model the model in that pose or rig the model, and rigging a model is another bitch of a job that an unskilled newb will mess up a lot or simply not be able to do. And doing it right without thousands of hours practice and/or learning from people that know what they're doing to is extremely unlikely.

So I'd put a lot of money down on a newb taking much more than thousands of hours to be able to produce just an image of the same quality as a frame from a Pixar movie, and even throw in never because most give up after finding out how much more difficult it is than what they thought it would be (I mean the computer does all the work right?). I've seen and known many people think it's easy, but I've yet to meet a person that thinks so after learning how to do it.

I do think anyone can do it, but please look for tutorials and examples before you just dive in and expect that just hard work and time will get you to your goal. Also expect it to be a lot more difficult, take a lot more knowledge, take a lot more skill and take a lot more time than it seems.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 31, 2011, 12:12:54 AM

Quote from: fester30 on May 30, 2011, 11:25:26 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 30, 2011, 09:57:31 PM
I think most of the sightings we hear about are nothing more than unidentified flying objects, it in no way means aliens are behind the controls. When it comes to abduction stories, it appears the people are delusional. Belief in alien life tends to be overzealous, much like a belief in god.

With that said, I think there is a very high probability of their being alien life somewhere. I also doubt they have discovered us yet.

That was my point... the abduction stories make me laugh.  It's never someone like the President, Warren Buffet, Jack Nicholson, Stephen Hawking, etc.  It's always somebody that wears overalls for a living.  If you were E.T.s that just traveled so far to find a planet like Earth, wouldn't you want a true representative sample of the population if you were conducting human research?

Nah, I'd want one that when he opened his mouth to say he was abducted, nobody with half a brain would believe him! :P

Yea, me too.

Quote from: Davin on May 31, 2011, 03:05:35 AM

Quote from: Heretical Rants on April 10, 2011, 05:00:05 AM
Yea, Toy Story was the first.

There are plenty of other studios making them now, of course (most notably DreamWorks), and you can make one on your own if you have enough free time, assuming you have access to a computer. Spend enough hundreds of hours fiddling with a scene and you may even produce something of the same level of quality as Pixar has.

Maybe it's just me and the people I've been teaching, but it's not as easy as you make it sound. At least if you want some high quality work. I'd be willing to wager that without learning from other people who have learned from other people and learned a great deal themselves, that it would take more than hundreds of hours just to make one model of Buzz or Woody. Because while there may be several good ways to do something, there are so many more wrong ways and the wrong ways are very noticeable.

Once you have the model done, texturing is another beast that takes a lot of work. U|V mapping alone would take a newb days, let alone doing it correctly so there is no tearing or warping.

After texturing you have lighting the scene, which takes either hundreds of renders of trial and error when one doesn't know what they're doing or much less trial and error when one does know what they're doing.

If you wanted to pose the model then you'll either have to model the model in that pose or rig the model, and rigging a model is another bitch of a job that an unskilled newb will mess up a lot or simply not be able to do. And doing it right without thousands of hours practice and/or learning from people that know what they're doing to is extremely unlikely.

So I'd put a lot of money down on a newb taking much more than thousands of hours to be able to produce just an image of the same quality as a frame from a Pixar movie, and even throw in never because most give up after finding out how much more difficult it is than what they thought it would be (I mean the computer does all the work right?). I've seen and known many people think it's easy, but I've yet to meet a person that thinks so after learning how to do it.

I do think anyone can do it, but please look for tutorials and examples before you just dive in and expect that just hard work and time will get you to your goal. Also expect it to be a lot more difficult, take a lot more knowledge, take a lot more skill and take a lot more time than it seems.

I wasn't really talking about modeling, (more the animation process itself), the first few hundred hours would obviously be spent learning and pulling hair, and "enough hundreds of hours" includes tens of hundreds ;)

I've played with Blender before for modeling and made some paths based 3D animations, it's really not all that bad. I'm not going to bother doing it seriously, either, but that's just because I prefer other media for my work.

An amateur animation that I rather like, basically produced by one person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
Something a bit more skillfully crafted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ePWK0qfisE

Quote from: Heretical Rants on June 04, 2011, 06:43:21 AM
An amateur animation that I rather like, basically produced by one person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
Something a bit more skillfully crafted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ePWK0qfisE

Those were done with Blender? :o

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 04, 2011, 08:10:27 PM

Quote from: Heretical Rants on June 04, 2011, 06:43:21 AM
An amateur animation that I rather like, basically produced by one person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5FdySs
Something a bit more skillfully crafted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ePWK0qfisE

Those were done with Blender? :o

Eh, probably not, but if you're surprised because of any level of quality, here are some examples of things that WERE made in Blender:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.3dm3.com%2Ftutorials%2Fblender%2Ffly%2Findex.jpg&hash=884aafe215c415a599de9fc6960d72b600ce4cd0)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.templates.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FNeorenaissance-girl-by-Zooly76.jpg&hash=264846d5affed7f804cc8ba065ea4e73eec8840b)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth04.deviantart.net%2Ffs41%2FPRE%2Fi%2F2009%2F033%2F2%2F2%2FChess_Set_Created_in_Blender_by_BraveSirKevin.png&hash=df73eefa2d00b9f25e2a9fa11905938bb91a6c5a)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc04.deviantart.net%2Ffs70%2Ff%2F2010%2F171%2F5%2Fa%2FFace_Rig_by_DennisH2010.jpg&hash=d7e0f323679b467cab92ec7598befff3e4bf1cfb)

Those are quite stunning actually. And just to think about 5 or more years ago I was contemplating taking a course in Macromedia Flah animation.

Blender is free to download, but it's tricky as hell, at least for me.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 06, 2011, 12:03:38 AM
Those are quite stunning actually. And just to think about 5 or more years ago I was contemplating taking a course in Macromedia Flah animation.

Blender is free to download, but it's tricky as hell, at least for me.

We got Blender from the UFO that crashed in Roswell.  Or we didn't.  It's one of those.

Quote from: fester30 on June 06, 2011, 11:31:53 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 06, 2011, 12:03:38 AM
Those are quite stunning actually. And just to think about 5 or more years ago I was contemplating taking a course in Macromedia Flah animation.

Blender is free to download, but it's tricky as hell, at least for me.

We got Blender from the UFO that crashed in Roswell.  Or we didn't.  It's one of those.

LOL