Are most atheists just hypocrites?

[Mr Rayon]

Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite the fact that it's not scientifically proven?

 

They are not ready to accept in the existence of some form of a god however they are willing to believe and have faith that aliens exist? Could anything be any more ridiculous?

[mississippichem]

Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite the fact that it's not scientifically proven?

 

They are not ready to accept in the existence of some form of a god however they are willing to believe and have faith that aliens exist? Could anything be any more ridiculous?

 

Did you ever quit beating your wife?

[Mr Skeptic]

Because there is on the balance, more evidence for their existence than evidence that they don't exist. This evidence consists largely of the combination of the existence of life, plus the absence of any reason why life should only exist on Earth.

 

I'll turn the question around: Do you think most theists are willing to accept the same level of evidence for another god that they accept for the existence of their god?

[DrRocket]

Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite the fact that it's not scientifically proven?

 

They are not ready to accept in the existence of some form of a god however they are willing to believe and have faith that aliens exist? Could anything be any more ridiculous?

 

OK, let's drop the straw man and address the question from a different perspective.

 

Please explain the reason or reasons why you believe in God. Please be clear as to the concept of God that relates to those reasons.

[Mr Rayon]

Because there is on the balance, more evidence for their existence than evidence that they don't exist. This evidence consists largely of the combination of the existence of life, plus the absence of any reason why life should only exist on Earth.

 

I think that's a bit of a leap in logic however for the sake of argument let's say that there is extra-terrestrial life somewhere in a distant and unknown planet. If we did encounter it and see it, how would it even look like? Would it have tentacles or release some type of toxic radiation? Would it be a solid, liquid or in a gaseous form? If it was gaseous, how would we distinguish it to other things that may be non-living? It may be somewhere in between or perhaps even indistinguishable. You could even go further by labelling it a 'supernatural' being and if it were a more sophisticated and superior being than us humans, some people may even call it a god. Certainly it would be different to the Abrahamic God and it may not be a god at all but if we keep investigating and finding more different extra-terrestrial life (assuming they exist) than those on Earth how would we distinguish this from the supernatural?

 

I'll turn the question around: Do you think most theists are willing to accept the same level of evidence for another god that they accept for the existence of their god?

 

It depends on the situation really and the quality/quantity of evidence being presented, there are too many variables to consider. However from personal experience I can say for sure that most theists are quite open-minded to different possibilities and are often quite determined and creative people.

 

OK, let's drop the straw man and address the question from a different perspective.

 

Please explain the reason or reasons why you believe in God. Please be clear as to the concept of God that relates to those reasons.

 

My root believe is in some form greater entity. I am particularly drawn to the Abrahamic God mainly because I was raised in a religious household.

 

I do have doubts sometimes but the concept of a Creator, who is perfect in everyway seems more logical in that in actually provides (proposes) answers to the questions that we've all been so curious about. I'm not saying we should stop looking for alternative answers but perhaps focus more on proving/disproving the currently existing models for why God exists. As much as I am concerned no one seems to have debunked the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon or Torah or any of those other scriptures. They present possible answers and we should all be trying our best to find out which is the real one true religion.

 

Some religions suggests that God sent prophets over the time over His existence. If God didn't exist, how could He have let these proclaimed prophets perform miracles and other supernatural phenomena which were witnessed by many people. How could some people have fooled so many over the years into believing a false deity/belief system? There had to have been a strong and solid reason why so many people embraced all these different faiths worldwide. I mean Mormonism is pretty new, they couldn't all have been idiots right? One of these religions has to be right and my bet is it's one of the Abrahamic religions.

 

Everything just doesn't make sense and religion proposes some of these answers which science cannot provide for as right now. Maybe there's a reason why God is not appearing before us in a visible form to prove that He exists, I'm sure there's a reason for it. I'm sure we'll find out in the Afterlife, maybe by doing this He is testing us for certain qualities which we cannot perceive nor comprehend at the moment in our imperfect human form.

 

There's a lot in this world that we humans cannot physically perceive nor understand. For example, certain animals can hear and even see colours that go undetected in the human eye. I'm sure it's something like this.

[swansont]

Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite the fact that it's not scientifically proven?

 

They are not ready to accept in the existence of some form of a god however they are willing to believe and have faith that aliens exist? Could anything be any more ridiculous?

 

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps it's time for a little refresher course in logical fallacies. Making a straw-man position and then ridiculing it for being laughable is the appeal to ridicule fallacy. Basing your argument on logical fallacies is against the rules. Bashing any group of people is also against the rules.

 

You need to reformulate the premise and argument of this thought.

 

Do not derail this thread further by responding to this warning.

 

[pwagen]

They are not ready to accept in the existence of some form of a god however they are willing to believe and have faith that aliens exist?

Emphasis mine. Ignoring the fact that atheism has nothing to do with belief in aliens, unless you attribute aliens god-like characteristics, it's not about belief or faith, but probability. Considering there are 2-400 billion stars in the Milky Way, and there are something like 100 billion galaxies in the universe, the chances of Earth being the only planet with life is quite unlikely. We can't be 100% sure, naturally, since we thus far only have one sample of a planet with life. However, considering the vast size of the universe, and the insane amount of stars with potential hospitable planets, chances are high.

 

Thus, a lot of people (regardless of their religious disposition) believe there might be alien life out there due to statistical probability, not blind faith.

[Marat]

The answer seems simple. Given that life has come into existence on earth, and given the large number of potential earth-like environments among the huge number of planets elsewhere in the universe, it seems statistically likely that there is life somewhere else in the universe. So belief in the possibility of aliens who might actually come to or come into contact with earth is at least rational.

 

But since 'God' is defined as an infinitely wise, infinitely good, and infinitely powerful being, yet there obviously exists suffering in his creation which appears unnecessary, his existence is palpably self-contradictory, since his infinite goodness and power exclude the existence of facts we know exist. So believing in God is simply self-contradictory.

[Moontanman]

Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite the fact that it's not scientifically proven?

 

 

 

Voltman, are you trying to be intentionally insulting? No intelligent human being would believe in extraterrestrial life any more than they would believe in a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus, what is believed is that extraterrestrial life is possible, chemistry would indicate there is no reason to assume life only exists on the earth. BTW not only Atheists believe this is possible but a great many intelligent people both theist and atheist believe this.

 

They are not ready to accept in the existence of some form of a god however they are willing to believe and have faith that aliens exist? Could anything be any more ridiculous?

 

Yes something could be more ridiculous, believing in something which there is absolutely no evidence for and basing this ridiculous belief on writings based on what bronze age savages believed who also believed the earth was flat and was topped by a crystal dome which they also included in their book that is supposed to be the inerrant word of God who obviously was too stupid to know the Earth was round, not flat and not the center of the universe. Why would anyone accept the existence of something as ridiculous as God with no evidence of this being except for the bronze age writings that are obviously WRONG but people continue to believe in this ridiculous stuff no matter what the reality of the situation really is. And to add insult to injury they commonly lie to try and convince others of their beliefs because religious belief cannot stand the test of observable facts....

Edited May 25, 2011 by Moontanman

[Marat]

It is important not to assume that all beliefs are the same sort. Empirical beliefs are really just the confidence that something is probably true, but believers are prepared to change their views if evidence is presented to them which contradicts their initial commitment. Empirical beliefs are constructed as implications of empirical data, and although they may contain elements which are, in isolation, theoretical or not individually empirically supportable, the belief as a whole is accepted as a plausible, economical, rational way of explaining the observed data. Atheists who support the existence of alien beings would do so from the examination of empirical data, offering the posit of alien beings as the best and most economical way to account for what has been observed.

 

But religious belief typically refuses correction by any amount of empirical data to the contrary. It is also not economically and rationally derived from empirical data, but always posits way more theory structure than the data can sensibly require. 'Rational' theory constructions out of empirical data are those consistent with the analogy of nature -- with things ordinarily accepted as real -- and resort to strange or supernatural hypotheses is resisted as much as possible, even if the data seem to require them.

 

Thus when Newton found he had to posit gravitational action at a distance to account for the observed motions of the planets in his new system of mechanics, that posit was rejected by contemporaries as supernatural, since they were committed to explaining everything by particles in motion, thanks to the dominance of Cartesian theorizing. But the important point is that Newton accepted action at a distance only as a last resort, and even tried to back away from it in the Opticks. In contrast, religious theorizing seems to leap too readily to supernatural posits.

[lemur]

No intelligent human being would believe in extraterrestrial life any more than they would believe in a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWYXIuuI-Rg

 

 

and if you have red/cyan 3D glasses:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9M8XsI_8jc

and just think how low the probability was that this pop song would ever discover life on SFN!

[DrRocket]

I mean Mormonism is pretty new, they couldn't all have been idiots right?

 

I suggest that you do some research, and form an opinion on the basis of original-source data and documented historical studies. Read the scholarly biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie.

 

You might also look at the text of some of the revelations (available at the official site), say the one calling on Emma Smith by name, to accede to Joseph Smith's participation in plural marriages (Doctrine and Covenants 132):

" 54And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and ^acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be ^bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law."

 

 

[Realitycheck]

Let's face it, most extraterrestrial "life" is most likely to be on par with prions (very simple "life" that doesn't utilize dna) in terms of complexity. Since proteins have easily been demonstrated on how they can develop autonomously, the development of prions probably wasn't very complicated either. In other words, the complexity of life is most likely inversely proportional to its abundance. The idea that atheism is somehow correlated to believing in extraterrestrial life doesn't really hold any water when you consider the infinitely vast number of planets out there and the simplicity of life that exists. I wonder how long it would take Craig Venter to develop a prion from scratch.

[Light Storm]

Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite the fact that it's not scientifically proven?

 

Math! Because life is possible on one planet, it's safe to assume it could happen else where. Based on the number of systems in our galaxy, even with a minuscule percentage chance leaves thousands of systems that could support life.

 

They are not ready to accept in the existence of some form of a god however they are willing to believe and have faith that aliens exist? Could anything be any more ridiculous?

 

Odds are favourable that popular mythology is no different from the beliefs the ancient Greeks or Egyptians that believed in interesting stories created by the cleverness of a few and based on the fears of many.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Light Storm

[Ophiolite]

Math! Because life is possible on one planet, it's safe to assume it could happen else where.

Wholly false logic. We do not know which specific conditions were necessary for the emergence of life on this planet. We therefore cannot, at this stage, know if such conditions have been met, are likely to be met, or can ever be met again. You cannot extrapolate meaningfully from a sample size of one.

[John Cuthber]

"Why do so many atheists believe in the existence of extra-terrestrial life despite the fact that it's not scientifically proven?"

Because life is a lot less complicated than a "God that can create life".

More complicated things are less likely to happen.

[Light Storm]

Wholly false logic. We do not know which specific conditions were necessary for the emergence of life on this planet. We therefore cannot, at this stage, know if such conditions have been met, are likely to be met, or can ever be met again. You cannot extrapolate meaningfully from a sample size of one.

 

 

Lets break this down for you, Milky way contains 100-400 billion stars. Based on what we know so far it's estimated to have at least 50 billion planets and at least 500 million of those could be located in a 'habitable Zone'

 

 

You take even 1% chance one of those 500 million has some sort of life on them, you have 5 million planets

You take even 1% chance of that 5 million that another planet could have intelligent life on it, you have 50 thousand planets in our galaxy alone.

 

Pretend, the milky way contains the low end of that estimation for stars at 100 billion. 50,000 planets that could support life is 0.0000005% chance (Chances of winning the lottery is higher!). I would like to think odds are more favourable, but I'm a skeptic at heart. There seems to be growing evidence that Mars could have supported life in it's very distant past. And if one system could have not 1, but 2 planets that could support life... odds get increasingly better.

 

 

(All Links Wiki)

Edited May 25, 2011 by Light Storm

[swansont]

Lets break this down for you, Milky way contains 100-400 billion stars. Based on what we know so far it's estimated to have at least 50 billion planets and at least 500 million of those could be located in a 'habitable Zone'

 

 

You take even 1% chance one of those 500 million has some sort of life on them, you have 5 million planets

You take even 1% chance of that 5 million that another planet could have intelligent life on it, you have 50 thousand planets in our galaxy alone.

 

Pretend, the milky way contains the low end of that estimation for stars at 100 billion. 50,000 planets that could support life is 0.0000005% chance (Chances of winning the lottery is higher!). I would like to think odds are more favourable, but I'm a skeptic at heart. There seems to be growing evidence that Mars could have supported life in it's very distant past. And if one system could have not 1, but 2 planets that could support life... odds get increasingly better.

 

 

(All Links Wiki)

 

I think Ophiolite's point is that you don't really know what those odds are, and have to acknowledge that even given a set of probabilities, the probability that no life exists elsewhere is still not zero. That's the problem with any probability that isn't identically 1 or 0.

[Light Storm]

I think Ophiolite's point is that you don't really know what those odds are, and have to acknowledge that even given a set of probabilities, the probability that no life exists elsewhere is still not zero. That's the problem with any probability that isn't identically 1 or 0.

 

Based on the premise that we are having this conversation

The question to wether or not life can exist is defiantly not 0

 

Now, if someone where to ask me the odds of time lines co-exsisting where sentient beings where close enough to contact each other, I would start tossing out possibilities.

[DrRocket]

Based on the premise that we are having this conversation

The question to wether or not life can exist is defiantly not 0

 

 

Prove it. No unsupportable assumptions allowed.

 

Hint: To even begin such an argument you need to have a supportable value for the "probability" that life emerges under some specified circumstances. There is no way to assign such a value given the current state of ignorance.

 

Probability theory is the most commonly misapplied branch of mathematics.

 

Ophiolite is correct.

[Light Storm]

Prove it. No unsupportable assumptions allowed.

 

Just so that we are clear on what you are asking...

 

You need evidence from me, to confirm that there is life here on earth...

 

...

 

lol

 

 

 

[DrRocket]

Just so that we are clear on what you are asking...

 

You need evidence from me, to confirm that there is life here on earth...

 

...

 

lol

 

 

 

 

You made the statement "The question to wether or not life can exist is defiantly not 0."

 

Prove it.

 

The existence of life on Earth is NOT proof. Probability zero events can occur. They just correspond to sets of probability measure zero.

 

If you intend to use the theory of probability, use it correctly. Start with a probability space. Justify it as a model of the physical system at issue. Proceed from there.

Edited May 26, 2011 by DrRocket

[Light Storm]

If you intend to use the theory of probability, use it correctly. Start with a probability space. Justify it as a model of the physical system at issue. Proceed from there.

 

Well... clearly I am undone... someone should just pack up that field in science called Astrobiology. Clearly they are all wasting their time.

 

 

The existence of life on Earth is NOT proof.

 

lol!

[Marat]

Apart from this statistical cat-fighting, we can at least distinguish the reasoning of atheists about the possibility of alien intelligent life existing on other planets from that of theists about the possibility of God existing. Atheists 'believe' in alien beings as a possibility, not as a certainty to which they are unshakeably committed: the use of the common word 'belief' for the two types of mental orientation confuses the issue, because for atheists with respect to alien beings 'belief' means 'have some confidence that it could be possible as an ordinary physical reality,' while for theists with respect to God, 'belief' means 'having an unshakeable moral commitment to the reality of something whose existence could never be empirically demonstrated, for which no ordinary, objective, empirical evidence can be cited, which contains supernatural aspects, and which appears self-contradictory in its infinite power and goodness while presiding over an evil world.' The atheists' belief in aliens is more in the nature of believing that there might be a new and as yet undiscovered species of giraffe in Africa, rather than in a supernatural, metaphysical concept unlike anything else we have ever known to have empirical reality actually existing.

[Ophiolite]

Lets break this down for you, Milky way contains 100-400 billion stars. Based on what we know so far it's estimated to have at least 50 billion planets and at least 500 million of those could be located in a 'habitable Zone'

It was kind of you to establish that you have a superficial knowledge of the topic. That let's me pitch this at the right level.

 

The issue is greatly simplified by the fact that we are talking about the emergence of life and not the emergence of intelligent life. If it were the latter we would have to exclude a substantial proportion of hypothetical planets because their residence time in the habitable zone would be inadequate, or they were adversely affected by supernovae, gamma ray bursters and the like. Since we are considering only the origin of life all of these concerns can be set aside. We are left, largely, with issues of chemistry.

 

On the one hand we have no problem in assembling a nice array of prebiotic molecules. The GMCs are full of them. Comets and asteroids carry them. There are many routes to building up more complex molecules by lightning strikes, adherence to mineral surfaces, cometary impact and so on. Almost anywhere we look we see simple organic molecules and ways of populating the primitive Earth with them to yield Darwin's "warm pond" filled with "all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c.,".

 

But on the other hand we have not determined the pathway by which we might move from this eclectic mix to the first, simple life-form. There are a dozen or more general descriptions of how this may have occured, but nothing established even to the point where we can say "life may not have originated in this manner, but it most certainly could have originated in this manner". We are, in all regardless, in a highly speculative and provisional state of understanding.

 

We know life did originate, but in the absence of a clear, detailed process we cannot assess the probability of any stage of this process and certainly not the probability of the overall process. Eventually, I feel confident, we shall be able to do so. I suspect we shall find the probability is high - indeed I shall be surprised if it is not. But at present, with our current knowledge, it is impossible to quantify what that probability is.