What do you believe without evidence? If anything.

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

I always find it interesting to consider what scale of intelligence a civilisation can get to. An alien race could easily be so intelligent that their children's doodles are the equivalent of our most advanced physics and get condescendingly put on the space-fridge. Aliens might be no more likely to come say hello to the humans than you are to pull off of a motorway and try to start a conversation with a termite mound.

To bring it a bit closer, imagine trying to explain bbcode to a human being from ten thousand years ago. You'd have to teach them the following things: Mathematics -> Electricity -> Computers -> The Internet -> Discussion Forums -> bbcode. It's such a fundamental elevation of grasp of reality and explanation of new and ambiguous concepts that it would basically be futile, and this is a member of your own species who is not significantly less evolved than you and separated by a mere sliver of time.

I've actually been thinking about this recently, and don't actually think I subscribe to this.

Yes, alien life may be so much more intelligent than us that it would be like comparing us to insects. However, I'd like to think we have evolved now with enough intelligence that an advanced society would at least be able to communicate with us on a dumbed-down level. We can't communicate with fish, but we can with animals further up the chain like primates by studying them and developing communication methods we know they can grasp.

Surely a hyper-intelligent species could "talk" to us after assessing our language and comprehension levels? Whether they'd want to is a different story. Let's not forget anyone getting TV/radio signals from earth, say, 70 light years away, is currently watching WWII unfold. :pac:

HIB

Interesting thread.

Today, I will swallow some capsules containing some white powder. A man in a white coat has told me that they will help my cough. If I asked him for evidence, I'm sure he would tell me all about a host of microscopically small creatures that are living in my lungs, and how this powder kills them. Short of heading off to college to study biology/medicine and see these creatures for myself, I have no real way of knowing if any of this is true. From my standpoint, I have as much evidence for the tablets effectiveness, as I have for ingesting rabbit droppings while standing on my head. Society has just conditioned me to believe that the tablets work, and the rabbit droppings don't.

PS: I hope I will have 'real' evidence in a few days, in that I will no longer be coughing like a horse

doctoremma

HIB wrote: »

PS: I hope I will have 'real' evidence in a few days, in that I will no longer be coughing like a horse

Probably not. It could easily be coincidence. Many medical complaints are self-limiting.

jank

pauldla wrote: »

Why? 200 billion stars and evidence for life around one star = probability that there is life around others.

Why do you think this has anything to do with the likelihood for the existence of god?

Highlighted word will answer that.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

emmm...no. There are theories as regards the Universe origins which have a basis/origin in real world physics. There are no theories as regards a "higher power" that have a basis/origin in smaller scale supernatural phenomena. When you can come back with a supernatural phenomena, you'll have an argument.

Is that a clever way of saying you and nobody else knows?

pauldla

jank wrote: »

Highlighted word will answer that.

200 billion stars in Milky Way = God?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Is that a clever way of saying you and nobody else knows?

Jank - a discussion is where one person says something and another person responds in kind, generally either intelligently or humorously. I've no idea what you think you're doing, but it's certainly not a discussion; what you're writing is not intelligent; and it's desperately unhumorous. You've been warned twice in the last day or so about worthless posts, so this is your final warning.

If you don't want to discuss something, then there are plenty of forums out there where you can engage in pointless windbuggery. Otherwise, well, say something worth reading or you will be cluesticked.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Is that a clever way of saying you and nobody else knows?

No, it's pointing out the difference between a system based on reality, and a system based on nothing - not so much as a phantasm. I've pointed out that fact in the last number of posts on this thread and you've avoided addressing it.

kylith

jank wrote: »

Highlighted word will answer that.

As everyone is blue in the face saying; the fact that there are 200billion stars or so, and that it is a documented fact that life has evolved on a planet orbiting one of them, means that it is probable that life has also evolved elsewhere in the universe.

The fact that there has never been any reputably documented evidence of even one supernatural entity, despite the fact that at least one of them is supposed to be keeping a very close eye on this planet, means that it is improbable that any supernatural entities exist.

We say probable and improbable because we cannot know for sure. Show us irrefutable evidence for one of them and we'll agree that it's probable that supernatural entities exist.

jank

pauldla wrote: »

200 billion stars in Milky Way = God?

No, didnt say that but it doesnt disprove it either. I quoted Carl Sagan a few posts back, read it again.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

No, didnt say that but it doesnt disprove it either. I quoted Carl Sagan a few posts back, read it again.

The quote where Carl Sagan uses a different definition of the word "atheist" than the one we use on this forum? The definition you are well aware of?

Here have a couple of these. I'm sure they'll make lovely eyes for him. Eerie coincidence with the time of year and all that btw.

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

The quote where Carl Sagan uses a different definition of the word "atheist" than the one we use on this forum? The definition you are well aware of?

Here have a couple of these. I'm sure they'll make lovely eyes for him. Eerie coincidence with the time of year and all that btw.

I wasnt aware that Carl Sagan used the word atheist to mean something else. Its no wonder then people are always arguing about this as we cant even settle what the word atheist actually turly means.

Buttons? I'm lost...

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

I wasnt aware that Carl Sagan used the word atheist to mean something else. Its no wonder then people are always arguing about this as we cant even settle what the word atheist actually turly means.

Buttons? I'm lost...

People that describe themselves as atheist on this forum tend to use the definition that it is "a lack of belief in god(s)". It makes no claim to knowledge. The quote you posted was one where Carl mistakenly uses the word to mean someone who knows god(s) don't exist, technically a "gnostic atheist". Taking Mr. Sagan's definition and putting it on the users of this forum who describe themselves as atheist but don't agree with his definition and then arguing with that definition is textbook strawman. Hence the buttons for his eyes.

pauldla

jank wrote: »

No, didnt say that but it doesnt disprove it either. I quoted Carl Sagan a few posts back, read it again.

Well what are you saying? I think that, given the size of the milky way galaxy, I believe that there could be life elsewhere. The numbers sure seem to point to it.

I read the Sagan quote, and now await further instruction.

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Well what are you saying? I think that, given the size of the milky way galaxy, I believe that there could be life elsewhere. The numbers sure seem to point to it.

I read the Sagan quote, and now await further instruction.

Unless its all an illusion and only there for our benefit.. or to drive us mad like Vincent van Gogh from looking at it

All Sagan said was not to be arrogant and in fairness there are not many arrogant atheists on this forum (except the ones that think they are superior).

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

Unless its all an illusion and only there for our benefit.. or to drive us mad like Vincent van Gogh from looking at it

All Sagan said was not to be arrogant and in fairness there are not many arrogant atheists on this forum (except the ones that think they are superior).

Sorry nagirrac, I don't see the relationship between this comment and the thread so far. Can you elaborate please?

And is your second point not saying that the only arrogant atheists are the ones who are arrogant...?

smokingman

I really hate the word "believe"; I really do.
To me, it's a shorthand for "I'm not going to bother figuring this out, I'll just base a decision on my ignorance".

Statistics is a big part of my job. It's something I'm good at as opposed to landing in a job that needed it and can honestly say that I love numbers.

When I make a decision, I'll roll the dice and not feel regret for doing so.
I'll load the dice toward the decision I make but ultimately, this life will never go to a plan and anyone who thinks they, or their magic, have any sense of complete control is deluding themselves. This is not something to be depressed about. This is something to be enjoyed.

Someone has already said that you can only "believe" other people.
I disagree. You can lay your trust in even a stranger and watch the actions to determine your next move. I have possibly a blind trust in my wife because everything she has done for me has proven that she feels nothing but what I feel for her. My reference point is what I feel there.
There is no "belief" in that.