Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life? (1 Viewer)

[Mike375]

The atheist does not need "the crutch" (virtually an anagram of "the church"). We have real legs. The faithful tore off their legs in order that the crutches become an integral part of their lives.

However do not mistake that an atheist necessarily believes in the absence of spirit and automatically accept the notion that all of reality is mechanistic in the prevailing scientific tradition.

Spirituality is not the foundation of existence but the next step from consciousness.

The Creator hypothesis is superfluous and unsupported by observation. The faithful have it all backwards, got stuck on dogma and are thus incapable of enlightenment. This is what makes them so dangerous.

Atheists seem to always assume that anyone who is not an atheist is a religious type creationist. Not so.

 

[Galaxiom]

To be honest in most parts of the world - when you walk down the street its not the god fearing folk, that I would tend to feel may endanger you?

Is it?

Generations of children around the world who were physically, mentallly, emotionally and sexually abused by preists would disagree.

If it takes a fear of God to keep them in line then I certainly would not trust them either. The religious are particularly adept at twisting their perspective to justify whatever they feel compelled to do.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Your inability to "convince" is because you lack good solid ammunition.

But, to the truly faithful, there is no good ammunition. The truly faithful are supposed to believe in god above all else. If evidence were to appear, then god put that evidence there to test the faithful. There is no argument that can convince the truly faithful.

I think it is the atheist who needs the crutch or if you like takes a pre determined locked in position.

I like to think of myself as a religious independent who caucuses with the atheists, agnostics, humanists, secularists, etc. In my experience, none of these people have a locked in position other than logic. If a magical being were to descend to the earth, the above groups wouldn't disbelieve in it. They'd change their position quite quickly; because their position is based on what is logical and reasonable.

In my experience people who have at least a reasonable education and who believe "something is out there" do so because it is the most logical explanation up to this point.

I suppose it depends on how you define "something is out there". Could something be random chance? Other intelligent life? Or, by "something is out there" do you mean an all-powerful creator?

The first 2, I'd agree with your statement. The last is only considered a reasonable explanation due to brainwashing and indoctrination.

 

[Mike375]

I suppose it depends on how you define "something is out there". Could something be random chance? Other intelligent life? Or, by "something is out there" do you mean an all-powerful creator?

The first 2, I'd agree with your statement. The last is only considered a reasonable explanation due to brainwashing and indoctrination.

"Something out there" can be whatever you like but "it or they" can play with a set of cards we will never have.

There are two possible scenarios. Firsty, I think any reasonable person will agree with the idea that there must be zillions of earth like planets in the universe. We have all seen the sort of numbers, that is, if only .00001% of the stars have planets then there will be a zillion earth type planets or whatever.

Scenario 1: Earth is the only one of the zillion planets with intelligent life like us and the others have never had such life. With that scenario I think the logical outcome would be head to the church and grab a bible To go the other way and say it was just chance that there was one in a zillion would be taking the faith of atheism to levels not even imagined by a religious fundamentalist

Scenario 2: If there a zillions of planets then there must be life that is so far advanced compared to us that for practical purposes it is god like as in can bend the natural laws, make new laws etc.

In the case of either scenario the answers are not and will not be available to us and because either scenario means a "god like" form of life.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Scenario 1: Earth is the only one of the zillion planets with intelligent life like us and the others have never had such life. With that scenario I think the logical outcome would be head to the church and grab a bible To go the other way and say it was just chance that there was one in a zillion would be taking the faith of atheism to levels not even imagined by a religious fundamentalist

I think that there is definitely life on other planets. Intelligent life? Most likely. However, even if there isn't (or we just never see it), that doesn't make religion more reasonable. Religion has been wrong on so many things, that even if they got 1 right (which I don't think they did), it doesn't suddenly make them correct.

Scenario 2: If there a zillions of planets then there must be life that is so far advanced compared to us that for practical purposes it is god like as in can bend the natural laws, make new laws etc.

I would hazard a guess that there is intelligent life out there somewhere that is far more advanced than us. As far as bending/making new laws, who knows? Would it be magic, though? As in, by thy will, it be done? I can't imagine so. It would be able to be logically explained once you understood it (and if you had the capacity to understand it).

In the case of either scenario the answers are not and will not be available to us and because either scenario means a "god like" form of life.

I disagree here. The bottom line is that no one really knows what is out there. Some people are ok with that, excited about learning more about the universe, etc. Other people are not ok with that, and thus choose to believe a story that explains everything that we have no way of knowing. Furthermore, some of these people try to force everyone else to believe in their fairy tale.

We cannot control what people think, and everyone should be free to believe what they want. But their beliefs should be kept at home.

 

[Mike375]

I think that there is definitely life on other planets. Intelligent life? Most likely. However, even if there isn't (or we just never see it), that doesn't make religion more reasonable. Religion has been wrong on so many things, that even if they got 1 right (which I don't think they did), it doesn't suddenly make them correct.

Religion is not the issue. Religion is just one outcome or belief. For example i believe " there is something out there" but I am not religious in any way.

I would hazard a guess that there is intelligent life out there somewhere that is far more advanced than us. As far as bending/making new laws, who knows? Would it be magic, though? As in, by thy will, it be done? I can't imagine so. It would be able to be logically explained once you understood it (and if you had the capacity to understand it).

But if "they" can bend natural laws or make their own laws then we can't understand. If its a hot summer day in Sydney and I decide to water the garden then the result is a contradictions to millions and millions of years of instinct to the little lizards and insects in the garden. Maybe after I water the garden I make a rockery and so a new structure appears in their environment.

I disagree here. The bottom line is that no one really knows what is out there.

But surely it is logical that there will be a zillion suitable planets. It is also logical to assume (if we leave a god out of the equation) that life will find some way to start and then there will be evolution. Thus it is logical to work on the basis that there will be othe life forms in the universe that are so way advanced compared to us it would be us compared to a monkey or perhaps even the ant.

Of course the logic would fall down if life can't start up on its own. Then of course we are back at the scenario we are the only ones and that becomes bible country.

But either way we finsih with "something out there"

For me it is quite simple and clear. Logically there must be "something out there".

 

[Kryst51]

I disagree here. The bottom line is that no one really knows what is out there. Some people are ok with that, excited about learning more about the universe, etc. Other people are not ok with that, and thus choose to believe a story that explains everything that we have no way of knowing.

I resent this (kind of) I am always amazed about what we are learning about the universe and our earth. I have friends (who are Christians) who work for NASA or their contractors because they love space, and the knowledge to be gained by exploration. So just because you think our beliefs are wacked out, don't assume that we don't value knowledge and learning because that is just not true.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Religion is not the issue. Religion is just one outcome or belief. For example i believe " there is something out there" but I am not religious in any way.

Yeah, but this line: "With that scenario I think the logical outcome would be head to the church and grab a bible"

While I realize that you're joking (and I even chuckled), that is the mindset of many people. Since there is currently no explanation for some things, then religion must automatically be correct. I'm quick to point out a false conclusion to this.

For me it is quite simple and clear. Logically there must be "something out there".

Well, I agree, something is out there. But the terminology you're using is confusing because people often conflate it with religion or an all-powerful god.

Your "there must be something out there" is the same as my "We don't know".

So just because you think our beliefs are wacked out, don't assume that we don't value knowledge and learning because that is just not true.

You (and your friends) may value knowledge and learning, but it is not the same as scientific knowlege and learning. Scientific learning starts with a hypothesis "I think this is correct". Then they go off and try to test against that hypothesis. They learn if their hypothesis is correct.

Someone who is a true believer (or whacked out, as you point out ), starts with the statement (note: not a hypothesis) of "The bible/my religion/my religious figurehead holds the answers, lets see how I can find ways to further reinforce what it/it/s/he says". Contradictory learning/knowledge is either thrown out, minimized, or disregarded.

For example, people could teach a religious person how things that are claimed to have happened in the bible could not possibly happen. But the true believer will refuse to accept that answer. Therefore, did they really learn anything? If you only look for answers that reinforce what your view is, do you really ever learn anything?

 

[Kryst51]

You (and your friends) may value knowledge and learning, but it is not the same as scientific knowlege and learning. Scientific learning starts with a hypothesis "I think this is correct". Then they go off and try to test against that hypothesis. They learn if their hypothesis is correct.

Someone who is a true believer (or whacked out, as you point out ), starts with the statement (note: not a hypothesis) of "The bible/my religion/my religious figurehead holds the answers, lets see how I can find ways to further reinforce what it/it/s/he says". Contradictory learning/knowledge is either thrown out, minimized, or disregarded.

For example, people could teach a religious person how things that are claimed to have happened in the bible could not possibly happen. But the true believer will refuse to accept that answer. Therefore, did they really learn anything? If you only look for answers that reinforce what your view is, do you really ever learn anything?

You know, I can't really respond to that, I myself am no scientist, but my thirst for learning is there, and reading what's going on like the article/blog that Minkey posted. All I can say is that my friends that I speak of have gotten degrees from reputable universities that claim they know what they are doing and how to do it according to what everyone else says is the right way. They have also gotten jobs based on the same, if they were truly as ignorant as you seem to be saying ("Therefore did they really learn anything?") You can say all you want that what we do is to look for answers that reinforce what we believe, but you do the same. You can claim to be unbiased in your view toward research, the world, or the universe, but I think everyone has a bias, therefore from your perspective things seem to disprove God, and from mine the same research and findings prove to me the opposite. As far as "learning anything" goes, that's pretty arrogant of you to say that because we don't come to the same conclusion we never really learn anything, I know just as well as you do that the world is round, and that the universe is expanding and that there are planets out there that are/were capable of holding life, I was intrigued when Pluto was demoted. What about all the people who believe in Darwinian evolution even though Darwin himself admitted his evidence was super shaky/non-existant in the end. There are a lot of people out there believing it even though current findings (non-Christian scientists will admit this too) that disprove it. But I recognize that that (your view of how Christians behave and think that is) is your opinion. In the end, as you pointed out earlier in the thread, it's the same conversation that has been had before..... Round and round we go.... (Tevin Campbell song comes to mind ) Anyways, I could go on and on (Some probably think that I already have too much), but if you apologize for calling me ignorant then we can call it pax.... (I know you didn't actually use that term)

 

[Adam Caramon]

They have also gotten jobs based on the same, if they were truly as ignorant as you seem to be saying ("Therefore did they really learn anything?") You can say all you want that what we do is to look for answers that reinforce what we believe, but you do the same.

The difference, to me, is that I go in with an open mind. I don't really know much about quantum physics, molecular pathology, or genetics. However, when I read about them, I learn new things, and then I hyopthesis further, read more, learn more things.

What I know about these topics changes as I learn more; gain more knowlege. I don't have to try to fit what I am learning to a pre-determined end point. True believers will be limited in their learning because what they learn must conform to what they've been told (religiously). Otherwise, they wouldn't be a true believer.

You can claim to be unbiased in your view toward research, the world, or the universe, but I think everyone has a bias, therefore from your perspective things seem to disprove God, and from mine the same research and findings prove to me the opposite.

I would never claim to be unbiased, as you said, everyone is. But a bias is different than religion. I may have a bias towards a certain product, but if research proves that that product is inferior, I would abandon my bias. Since religion can never be disproven, a true believer will not do the same. Thus their learning/knowledge is constrained.

As far as "learning anything" goes, that's pretty arrogant of you to say that because we don't come to the same conclusion we never really learn anything, I know just as well as you do that the world is round, and that the universe is expanding and that there are planets out there that are/were capable of holding life, I was intrigued when Pluto was demoted.

Actually, the learning anything question was to ask you how you determine what learning is. To me, having a set-in-stone end point seriously limits learning. That's my opinion, it may be arrogant, but that's it.

As far as the world being round, why do you think so? Because science has determined so? If science says one thing, and religion another, a true believer will always choose to accept what their religion says.

Anyways, I could go on and on (Some probably think that I already have too much), but if you apologize for calling me ignorant then we can call it pax.... (I know you didn't actually use that term)

Yeah, I didn't use that term, I would be very careful not to. I can't offer an apology on this one because it seems that you're taking offense to my opinon, and since my opinion hasn't changed, it would be a hollow apology. And I'm not in the habit of making those.

I can, however, say that any opinions I have expressed here have been in a knowingly impossible attempt to get "the other side" to see/understand my side. Any negative feelings derived from reading such opinions are a by-product of the message, not the intent.

 

[Kryst51]

Yeah, I didn't use that term, I would be very careful not to. I can't offer an apology on this one because it seems that you're taking offense to my opinon, and since my opinion hasn't changed, it would be a hollow apology. And I'm not in the habit of making those.

I can, however, say that any opinions I have expressed here have been in a knowingly impossible attempt to get "the other side" to see/understand my side. Any negative feelings derived from reading such opinions are a by-product of the message, not the intent.

I am not really offended, I was joking with my request for an apology. I am not going to take the time to respond to all of your points (though I certainly have opinions on them) because a) I know we will not reach an agreement and b) I just don't have the time or energy right now. It would be so much easier to sit across from you in a coffee shop and have this same conversation, tones of voice would be more apparent for one thing. I think it would be a much different thing. The conversations I have had with you have been anything but offensive. Suffice it to say, I understand your viewpoint and why you think the way you do about religion and religious people, and that's OK.....

and to get back on topic and original thread intent, I really did enjoy reading the link, and would seriously think it cool if life were ever found on other planets, it certainly seems plausible. As far as how my opinion (not all Christians) goes, I only know what the Bible says, and it says nothing one way or the other about it, of course if there was proven to be life on other planets I would believe it, how could I not? Some great Christian writers have entertained thoughts of there being other worlds. (One of which I am going to see the movie of tonight, YAY!, (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, CoN, by CS Lewis.) It's facinating to think about, and I would be interested to hear more about what they discover or don't discover, though I probably won't remember to Google it....

 

[jamesmor]

I've read this whole thread, and would like to ask a few questions.

First: Can anyone point out to me an example of science disproving the bible?

I won't take "There's no way in hell person x could have lived that long." as an answer, unless you have proof that they infact, did not live as long as the bible states.

Second: How is science any different when done by someone religious vs someone not?

Both form hypothesis, both run tests to determine if said hypothesis is correct. Both are vulnerable to skewing said tests to make their hypothesis the correct answer.

In all honesty, science is just as deluded as religion when it comes to known/unknown.

Think about it, until very recently, science said "You need these things for life" right up until they found something that didn't fit their mold of what was needed for life.

Third: Where did I miss the quantum physics discussion in the bible? Or molecular pathology?

Those would have been killer to read!

 

[Steve R.]

XKCD Cartoon

See Attached cartoon. Need to hover with the mouse pointer on the XKCD website to see the "secret" text!

 

[Kryst51]

XKCD Cartoon

See Attached cartoon. Need to hover with the mouse pointer on the XKCD website to see the "secret" text!

Awww, thwarted by sonic wall......

 

[Mike375]

The difference, to me, is that I go in with an open mind. I don't really know much about quantum physics, molecular pathology, or genetics. However, when I read about them, I learn new things, and then I hyopthesis further, read more, learn more things.

Adam,

A mistake you are making is assuming religion or even a general belief in some higher power (that one is my belief) is the starting point. That is just not the case for everyone. However, I would agree with that it is the case for many people.

As a side note Werner von Braun became a born again Christian. It is quite common for highly educated people to take on board some form of religion when they have have had great achievements. It also common for people who are highly educated who have attempted to climb the mountain but failed.

In virtually every case these people "arrived" at a religious or spiritual situation based on their experiences.

The director of Emergeny Medicine in one of Sydney's major hospitals became religious to the point that he runs Bible classes from his home. I did his all his insurance for life, disability and trauma cover several years ago and I asked him what brought him to that point in religion and his answer was "when you do this job you can only arrive at one conclusion"

 

[Adam Caramon]

Adam,

A mistake you are making is assuming religion or even a general belief in some higher power (that one is my belief) is the starting point. That is just not the case for everyone.

Its not the starting point, its the end point. If you have a general belief in some higher power, but your beliefs are not codified, then you're probably still open to factual evidence.

Some people believe that if they are good to others, others will be good to them. Its sort of a positive life outlook, but there's nothing really set in stone.

Religions that spell out that x happened by y, and then z happened by y, when x, y, and z all defy logic, stifle learning.

My point was that if, in your mind, the end point is set in stone, you will not accept evidence that does not agree with your end point.

Example: I'm non religious. But if some larger than life guy floated down from the clouds, cured the sick, rose the dead, and declared he was the Christian God, I would believe him. It would be illogical to do other wise.

For my counterpart (the true believer), there is no such evidence that would ever shake them. They have closed their minds to the possibility of anything other than what they have been indoctrinated with.

It is quite common for highly educated people to take on board some form of religion when they have have had great achievements. It also common for people who are highly educated who have attempted to climb the mountain but failed.

The terminology you use is very ambiguous. When you say it is "common for highly educated people to take on board some form of religion" do you mean common as in a high % of people? Common as in it isn't unheard of?

Most of the studies and polls that I have seen show a relationship between higher levels of education and lower levels of religion.

There was a study here in America where they compared the levels of religion to education. The bible belt, which is very religious as its name indicates, had the lowest levels of education as compared to other states.

If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd love to read it.

 

[Mike375]

Adam,

Religious/spiritual is common as in lots of people with high education but in combination with very high achievers. However, in my experience high education people who have what they consider a lower income will in general be atheists and usually to the political left.

I have had an interest for a long time in the different types of people who fall into each category and as you would imagine when you discuss insurance along with death and/or disability it is good ground for the discussion to arise

The "group" where religion seems to be most common are those who are self employed and have tried to move mountains, they have actively gone out to try and sell their business services etc. In Australia religion/spiritual is common with the private practice medical specialist and atheism would be very rare. On the other hand with the staff specialist (hospital employee) atheism is very common.

Earlier this year the Australian Atheist Foundation had their big seminar and Dawkins was the lead speaker. The other speakers read like a roll call for Australia's left wing academics.

I get the feeling that atheism is also a default position. By that I mean the person who is an atheist has as their starting point (with all subject matter, not just religion) that proof is needed before acting on something.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Adam,

Religious/spiritual is common as in lots of people with high education but in combination with very high achievers.

Once again, I'd disagree, and the research I see points to the opposite. Here are few links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://aysps.gsu.edu/econ/files/ECON_SustersicRebecca_Evolution_summer07.pdf

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/american-beliefs-evolution-vs-bibles-explanation-human-origins.aspx


I found these with 5 minutes of research. If you could supply some sources that indicate otherwise, I would be genuinely interested in reading them. Otherwise, I have to assume you're just using anecdotal evidence to come to your conclusions.

However, in my experience high education people who have what they consider a lower income will in general be atheists and usually to the political left.

This sounds like your subjective interpretation of why the studies/research reinforce my point.

I get the feeling that atheism is also a default position. By that I mean the person who is an atheist has as their starting point (with all subject matter, not just religion) that proof is needed before acting on something.

I would agree with you. And furthermore, I think that's a good thing. Why take an important action when you're not sure what will happen?

 

[Mike375]

I would agree with you. And furthermore, I think that's a good thing. Why take an important action when you're not sure what will happen?

Because that is how great things and/or very big money is made.

As a side note I stipulated high education and/or spiritual came when the person had climbed or attempted to climb the big mountain. Lots of rocket scientists were in NASA when project Apollo was happening but like all things only a few get to the very top and in that case it was Werner von Braun. I also said hospital employeed medical specialists were atheists but the big income private practice blokes tended as group to religion/spiritual. The latter group are like Wener Von Braun, that is, only a very small percentage of the group. I would be prepared to bet that the vast majority of rocket scientists with project Apollo would have been atheists.

As a total group, I agree 100% with you that people with high education tend to atheism and if not atheism some will be deists.

 

[Mike375]

Otherwise, I have to assume you're just using anecdotal evidence to come to your conclusions.

Firstly I don't base what I say on what someone has told me.

Secondly, my conclusions are not based on a small sampling. In addition I am more than capable of picking where "results" would be pushed one way or the other because of other circumstances.

Thus I don't think what I am saying is based on anecdotal evidence.

As a by the way, many years ago ( I think it was in Finland) a group of men age 65 who had never smoked and never had a heart attack were compared to another group of men who were also 65 and had never had a heart attack BUT who had been smokers all their life.

5 years later the group who had never smoked had the most number of men who had a heart attack after age 65. So on the surface it looks like smoking prevents heart attacks in men aged 65. Of course the reason for the result was any smoker who was predisposed to a heart attack would have had one before age 65 and so would not have been in the group that were smokers.

I only mention that study to illustrate I am well aware of how results can give the wrong picture.