What do you believe without evidence? If anything.

Turtwig · 30-10-2012 11:25am

al28283 wrote: »

How can there be more than Inifinite???

Infinity in cosmological terms is not the same as infinity in mathematical terms and even then infinity in mathematical terms isn't what you'd intuitively consider it to be anyway. I'm not even going to attempt to explain it any further than that.

Zombrex · 30-10-2012 11:38am

Doctor DooM wrote: »

He's making the standard mistake of the "if an infinite number of universes exist, then everything imaginable must exist". So if there's an infinite number of universes there's always more where only humans exist.

If I understand correctly (and I genuinely stand to be corrected) even if this were established as true, infinity is merely the opposite of finite, as in there'd be an unending stream of realities, but not necessarily in any of them would ever exist a certain set of circumstances. Another problem is even if there were an infinite number of dimensions, there's only so many different configurations of atoms that could be formed in it (Much like if you randomly shuffled a deck of cards there would only be a certain number of ways the deck could be stacked, even if shuffled infinitely- 52 x 51 x 50...)

So yeah anyway infinite apparently doesn't mean what most people think, when it comes to universes and realities and stuff.

It is entirely possible that in an infinite number of universe there would be an infinite number of universes where only humans exist, since this is possible outcome.

The point that al28283 seems to be missing is that in an infinite number of universe there would also be an infinite number of universes where Earth is not the only planet with life on it.

The problem is thinking of infinity as, well, finite. Two mutually exclusive scenarios can exist together if infinity is true (infinite number of universes with no life together with infinite number of universes with life everywhere)

General Relativity · 30-10-2012 11:40am

Jernal wrote: »

Infinity in cosmological terms is not the same as infinity in mathematical terms and even then infinity in mathematical terms isn't what you'd intuitively consider it to be anyway. I'm not even going to attempt to explain it any further than that.

There are different types of infinity, some are bigger then others.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... Is an Infinite set

Add all the intergers;

1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, 4, -4, 5, -5... Is also an infinite set but has twice as many numbers.

al28283 · 30-10-2012 11:40am

Zombrex wrote: »

The point that al28283 seems to be missing is that in an infinite number of universe there would also be an infinite number of universes where Earth is not the only planet with life on it.

I didnt say anything about universes where Earth is not the only planet with life.

Sycopat · 30-10-2012 12:24pm

al28283 wrote: »

But if there are an infinite number of universes there must be an infinite amount of universes where humans are the only lifeform

I consider it a very good thing we definitely don't live in one of those.

jank · 30-10-2012 2:31pm

Zombrex wrote: »

There is far more reason to believe aliens probably exist than there is to believe God probably exists. We can prove neither (even if you met aliens it wouldn't prove they exists), but that doesn't mean both are of equivalent. One is a reasonable belief based on both the existence of life on Earth and the size of the universe. The other is stupidity based on ego-centralism and faulty logic.

Well reason and the 'reasonable' you state is subjective.

The universe is rather large so what are the odds that there is life out there other than ourselves?

The universe is so complex and vast how could be just be without a maker behind it?

Both require a leap of faith, yet atheists have no problem in making this leap when it comes to UFO's yet are adamant that a belief in god is stupid.

jank · 30-10-2012 2:35pm

pauldla wrote: »

This does not prove that there is life out there, though: it just means that the belief that there is life out there is justified, based on statistical likelihood. Or am I wrong...?

I agree but on the same token one should be at least open to a God who created the universe if they are open to those thoughts.

In other words EVERYONE should at least be agnostic if they are going to entertain thoughts of extraterritorial life.

If you are an atheist than one should have the same logic and mindset to say that because there is no proof, therefore one lacks the belief in extraterritorial life, yet not many do that.

In other words people are not rational or consistent with their logic.

jank · 30-10-2012 2:37pm

Nodin wrote: »

No, people refuse to allow crap to go unquestioned. Its healthy.

We have an example of a planet with life on it - our own. We have no/zero examples of any form of supernatural phenomena/life whatsoever. Not a one.

The fact the we exist doesn't mean that there are aliens out there, nor does it mean that god exists.

jank · 30-10-2012 2:42pm

Penn wrote: »

I think most people here are agnostics.

I'm agnostic because I don't know if a god or gods exist.
I'm atheist because I don't believe any god or gods exist.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I also believe in life on other planets. Like someone else said, billions of stars with even more billions of planets and moons... I think it'd be ridiculous to assume we are on the only planet in the Universe which supports some form of life, even if it's just some sort of plant life.

You don't believe in God I presume because there is no proof or evidence, yet you believe in life on other planets but there is no proof or evidence of that either. In short you are taking a leap of faith in this matter.

I presume many are familiar with Fermi's paradox?

The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.[1] The basic points of the argument are:

The sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;

Some of these stars likely have Earth-like planets[2] which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;

Presumably some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, as Earth seems likely to do;

At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in just a few tens of millions of years.

According to this line of thinking, the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence elsewhere have been spotted, either in our galaxy or the more than 80 billion other galaxies of the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?".

Taken from wiki.

MagicMarker · 30-10-2012 2:44pm

Jank, why do you assume we're all talking about intelligent life and UFOs?

Penn · 30-10-2012 2:58pm

jank wrote: »

You don't believe in God I presume because there is no proof or evidence, yet you believe in life on other planets but there is no proof or evidence of that either. In short you are taking a leap of faith in this matter.

And you're taking a jump to conclusions.

Logically, it makes sense that there would be some form of life on other planets given the size of the universe and how it was all created ultimately from the same point. It is completely within the realms of possibility. There is no proof or evidence, but it's definitely possible given what we currently know about the universe.

Logically, God does not make sense because it is supernatural, therefore outside of the realms of what we consider to be the natural world. There is no proof or evidence, but it defies what we consider to be natural laws, which means it is far less likely. Possible, but unlikely given what we do currently know about the universe.

Is believing in life on other planets a leap of faith? Maybe, but not in the same context as believing in God being a leap of faith.

TheChizler · 30-10-2012 3:05pm

jank wrote: »

I agree but on the same token one should be at least open to a God who created the universe if they are open to those thoughts.

In other words EVERYONE should at least be agnostic if they are going to entertain thoughts of extraterritorial life.

If you are an atheist than one should have the same logic and mindset to say that because there is no proof, therefore one lacks the belief in extraterritorial life, yet not many do that.

In other words people are not rational or consistent with their logic.

There's no inconsistency as agnosticism and atheism operate on two entirely different planes, one is about knowledge and the other is about belief, two very different things.

On the aliens front the only thing claimed to be known is that life can originate. It can definitely happen once, so there's no reason why it can't happen again, you know that it can happen (it did once) and believe that it can either happen again or not. The mechanism exists. On the God front no such mechanism has been shown to exist, therefore the above is inverted, you don't know that it can happen, but again you can believe either way.

The extent and reasonableness of those beliefs then depends on probability based on what we have observed.

Zillah · 30-10-2012 3:15pm

kylith wrote: »

What do I believe without evidence? I believe that my dogs love me.

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day. Is a dog's exuberant joy at your arrival any less clear an indication of affection than a lover saying "I love you"? Every brain is an island which receives messages through the senses, I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

dlofnep · 30-10-2012 3:26pm

robindch wrote: »

Frank Drake is the guy you're looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Well aware of the Drake Equation

kylith · 30-10-2012 3:30pm

Zillah wrote: »

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day. Is a dog's exuberant joy at your arrival any less clear an indication of affection than a lover saying "I love you"? Every brain is an island which receives messages through the senses, I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

You can't know know, though, can you, without being able to actually communicate with them. They could just be very skilled manipulators.

Zillah · 30-10-2012 3:41pm

kylith wrote: »

You can't know know, though, can you, without being able to actually communicate with them. They could just be very skilled manipulators.

You're getting into epistemological nihilism here. How can we know anything? Based on my interactions with my dog - how he consistently responds to my behaviour, and how those responses change depending on my behaviour - I consider it a form of communication. Why do we need words to "actually communicate"? Regardless, you have no way of knowing that a person who says nice things to you isn't also just a skilled manipulator.

There is a point where scepticism rams its face into solipsism - just before that point is where I conclude that my parents and my dog likely have genuine affection for me.

That or we all live in The Matrix, and like, who knows what's real maaaan...

robindch · 30-10-2012 3:42pm

Zillah wrote: »

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day.

Without wishing to become too pedantic, it's fairer to say that dogs reliably demonstrate behavior which humans interpret as "love". It's an open question in cognitive psychology whether the dogs are simply responding involuntarily as they've been natured/nurtured to, or whether they're voluntarily demonstrating something at, or close to, what humans interpret as friendship or love. In general, researchers in animal behavior are loath -- frequently to the point of considerable anger -- to ascribe any human qualities to animals.

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

Honest Signalling Theory looks at both:

http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap/honest_intro_02.html

Doctor DooM · 30-10-2012 3:50pm

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing to become too pedantic, it's fairer to say that dogs reliably demonstrate behavior which humans interpret as "love". It's an open question in cognitive psychology whether the dogs are simply responding involuntarily as they've been natured/nurtured to, or whether they're voluntarily demonstrating something at, or close to, what humans interpret as friendship or love. In general, researchers in animal behavior are loath -- frequently to the point of considerable anger -- to ascribe any human qualities to animals.Honest Signalling Theory looks at both:

As much as anthropomorphism is frowned upon by researchers, for the subject we are talking about here I don't think there's any word better than love in the English language for my dog's consistent behaviour in my presence.

Is love in humans not involuntary anyway? You can't chose who you love and don't. Well I can't, anyway, it'd make things much easier if I could.

Zillah · 30-10-2012 3:58pm

robindch wrote: »

In general, researchers in animal behavior are loath -- frequently to the point of considerable anger -- to ascribe any human qualities to animals.

I agree with the notion in principle, but how far do we take it? If I see an animal screeching and writhing as someone stabs it with a knife am I guilty of ascribing human qualities to an animal if I claim it is experiencing "pain"? Why do we get a monopoly on affection?

30-10-2012 4:14pm

Zillah wrote: »

I agree with the notion in principle, but how far do we take it? If I see an animal screeching and writhing as someone stabs it with a knife am I guilty of ascribing human qualities to an animal if I claim it is experiencing "pain"? Why do we get a monopoly on affection?

I take the fact that a dog can mourn the death of a companion or an owner as evidence of a dog's ability to feel and demonstrate affection. Several years ago one of our two dogs died; the one that died was the mother of the other, and both had lived together constantly for 11 years. After the death, the remaining dog visually and vocally mourned his loss for a solid two months: he cried every day and night, became lethargic, refused to leave his kennel, refused food, when he did eat he would often vomit afterwards, and he shunned company. If a dog can feel such sadness then a belief in a dog's ability to feel love and affection, both for its owner and companions, is a justified belief, as far as I'm concerned. Without the ability to feel affection it would not make sense to possess the ability to feel great sadness for a loss; the latter presupposes the former.

Nodin · 30-10-2012 4:17pm

jank wrote: »

The fact the we exist doesn't mean that there are aliens out there, nor does it mean that god exists.

The existence of life had no implications as regards the existence of god or otherwise. The fact is that there is no examples of supernatural phenomena whatsoever - not a one. Therefore you're extrapolating from absolutely nothing - a complete blank.

Chuck Stone · 30-10-2012 4:59pm

Being a Dyslexian* I sometimes lie in bed at night wondering if dog loves me.

*May not be from the planet Dyslex.

joseph brand · 30-10-2012 5:36pm

jank wrote: »

I agree but on the same token one should be at least open to a God who created the universe if they are open to those thoughts.

In other words EVERYONE should at least be agnostic if they are going to entertain thoughts of extraterritorial life.

If you are an atheist than one should have the same logic and mindset to say that because there is no proof, therefore one lacks the belief in extraterritorial life, yet not many do that.

In other words people are not rational or consistent with their logic.

I think you're getting mixed up. There's a big difference between, having an open mind that somehow crazy as it seems a god who looked like a man with a beard created the whole universe and decided to just put sentient life on Earth, and following organised religion. Blind faith indeed. Organised religion which comes with a plethora of dogmatism, prejudice, hatred, ignorance, selfishness and delusion.

By all means, have your little beliefs in a father-figure in the sky, who watches over you, to see if you're 'naughty or nice'. Just keep them out of schools and politics. Fair is fair.

@OP; I believe those old wives tales are a load of crap. Umbrella opened in the house, black cat under ladder, broken mirror, etc. They seems harmless enough, but I know a person who is serious about them, and it's not funny.

nagirrac · 30-10-2012 5:38pm

Nodin wrote: »

The existence of life had no implications as regards the existence of god or otherwise. The fact is that there is no examples of supernatural phenomena whatsoever - not a one. Therefore you're extrapolating from absolutely nothing - a complete blank.

Don't forget that everything we have ever observed as a species and had no explanation for at the time was "supernatural" until we came up with a theory to explain it. Our understanding of the reality we observe is still very incomplete (are there parallel universes, 8 dimensions, is the universe holographic, etc) and it is likely there will be a major breakthrough in our understanding of reality long before we discover any evidence of life elsewhere in the universe or evidence of the existance / non-existance of God. My assumption is based on the progress we have made on understanding reality and the lack of progress in the other two areas.

Penn · 30-10-2012 5:42pm

joseph brand wrote: »

@OP; I believe those old wives tales are a load of crap. Umbrella opened in the house, black cat under ladder, broken mirror, etc. They seems harmless enough, but I know a person who is serious about them, and it's not funny.

They annoy me. They're so engrained in people that going against any of them causes weird looks. I moved out of home on a Saturday and was told it was bad luck and how you're not supposed to move on a Saturday. Just pure nonsense where someone once moved house on a Saturday, something bad happened to them and someone else said "Well, I guess we're not supposed to move house on Saturdays... It's bad luck!"

Besides which, if you can't move on a Saturday, and Sunday is a day of rest (because most people I know who believe that sort of stuff are religious), then I'd have to take a day off work to do it, and that's just stupid.

nagirrac · 30-10-2012 5:50pm

Zillah wrote: »

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day. Is a dog's exuberant joy at your arrival any less clear an indication of affection than a lover saying "I love you"? Every brain is an island which receives messages through the senses, I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

"Cats look down on you, dogs look up to you, but pigs look you in the eye as equals" Winston Churchill

"No man should be allowed to be President who does not understand pigs or has not been around a manure pile" Harrry Truman

We have a lot to learn from animals, they are just as fascinating as ourselves.

Turtwig · 30-10-2012 6:00pm

nagirrac wrote: »

"Cats look down on you, dogs look up to you, but pigs look you in the eye as equals" Winston Churchill

"No man should be allowed to be President who does not understand pigs or has not been around a manure pile" Harrry Truman

We have a lot to learn from animals, they are just as fascinating as ourselves.

Totally off topic but look up octopuses they're awesome and so under appreciated by the general public. Seriously, if it wasn't for their lifestyle requirements we'd definitely be keeping them as pets.

kylith · 30-10-2012 6:07pm

Zillah wrote: »

I agree with the notion in principle, but how far do we take it? If I see an animal screeching and writhing as someone stabs it with a knife am I guilty of ascribing human qualities to an animal if I claim it is experiencing "pain"? Why do we get a monopoly on affection?

I'm not questioning a dog's ability to feel affection, I'm just saying that I can't know that they have affection for me rather than are conditioned to behave in a certain way, or that they actually don't like me at all but have worked out that since I feed them they'd better act like they do.

I fully believe that they feel affection toward me, and I know for a fact that one of them likes me better than my OH.

Doctor DooM · 30-10-2012 6:09pm

Jernal wrote: »

Totally off topic but look up octopuses they're awesome and so under appreciated by the general public. Seriously, if it wasn't for their lifestyle requirements we'd definitely be keeping them as pets.

They're amazing creatures. Apparently, some of the most intelligent on the planet.

I saw the lad in the Bray aquarium tear into a puzzle once, was intriguing.

Nodin · 30-10-2012 6:14pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't forget that everything we have ever observed as a species and had no explanation for at the time was "supernatural" until we came up with a theory to explain it. Our understanding of the reality we observe is still very incomplete (are there parallel universes, 8 dimensions, is the universe holographic, etc) and it is likely there will be a major breakthrough in our understanding of reality long before we discover any evidence of life elsewhere in the universe or evidence of the existance / non-existance of God. My assumption is based on the progress we have made on understanding reality and the lack of progress in the other two areas.

Its unlikely in the extreme we will ever discover intelligent life, and only slightly less unlikely we'd discover evidence of life at all, given the distances involved. Thats the harsh reality of it.

Nodin · 30-10-2012 6:15pm

Jernal wrote: »

Totally off topic but look up octopuses they're awesome and so under appreciated by the general public. Seriously, if it wasn't for their lifestyle requirements we'd definitely be keeping them as pets.

...all well and good till they start tentacling the wimmin folk. I mean I'm liberal, but there has to be some lines that aren't crossed....

nagirrac · 30-10-2012 6:16pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

They're amazing creatures. Apparently, some of the most intelligent on the planet.

Paul being the supreme example. The fact that he was English and picked Germany to beat England put him in an footballing intelligence category above all of the English media and most English fans

Turtwig · 30-10-2012 6:17pm

Nodin wrote: »

Its unlikely in the extreme we will ever discover intelligent life, and only slightly less unlikely we'd discover evidence of life at all, given the distances involved. Thats the harsh reality of it.

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll find intelligent life (more likely that intelligent life will find us!). But I think we'll find life in the solar system. I'd actually be willing to make a substantial bet on that. Enceladus ftw!:)

Obliq · 30-10-2012 6:19pm

Nodin wrote: »

...all well and good till they start tentacling the wimmin folk. I mean I'm liberal, but there has to be some lines that aren't crossed....

Mmmmm, all those suckers.......:p

Nodin · 30-10-2012 6:22pm

Obliq wrote: »

Mmmmm, all those suckers.......:p

Japan is the place for you.

Obliq · 30-10-2012 6:25pm

Nodin wrote: »

Japan is the place for you.

I may eat the food that gets placed on me. I haven't enough manners for Japan.

Nodin · 30-10-2012 6:25pm

Jernal wrote: »

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll find intelligent life (more likely that intelligent life will find us!). But I think we'll find life in the solar system. I'd actually be willing to make a substantial bet on that. Enceladus ftw!:)

I had the notion that it was Europa that was favoured, but that notion may well be Arthur C Clarkes fault...

Bannasidhe · 30-10-2012 6:29pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Being a Dyslexian* I sometimes lie in bed at night wondering if dog loves me.

*May not be from the planet Dyslex.

I lie in bed at night fighting the dogs for space.

Zombrex · 30-10-2012 6:35pm

al28283 wrote: »

I didnt say anything about universes where Earth is not the only planet with life.

You responded to a post that didn't mention infinity at all. You appeared to be making the assertion that if the universe (or multiverse) is infinite it must be full of and infinite number of universes where Earth is the only planet with life.

The problem with that is that you cannot fill up infinity. You can't say that the multiverse is full of an infinite number of universes where Earth is the only planet with life and thus no other universes can exist. All possible other universes can and will exist, including ones where Earth is not the only planet with life. There is no cap on infinity.

Ronagig · 30-10-2012 6:42pm

ok I'm just going to agree with the post that said their washing machine was a portal to a sock eating dimension (I think?) although I did have a dream where the socks were in fact escaping to the homeworld. Where in secret they were planning a rescue operation to get their matching other - How else will they have sock babies?????

Kidchameleon · 30-10-2012 6:45pm

Jernal wrote: »

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll find intelligent life (more likely that intelligent life will find us!). But I think we'll find life in the solar system. I'd actually be willing to make a substantial bet on that. Enceladus ftw!:)

We may well find fossilized life under the regolith of Mars when we get people to the planet. Even if it was just ancient bacteria. Mars had perfect conditions for that for millions of years. Ill also throw a tenner on Titan.

Zombrex · 30-10-2012 6:46pm

jank wrote: »

The universe is rather large so what are the odds that there is life out there other than ourselves?

If I had to guess I would say 1, given the size of the universe and the quantity of material we know comes together to create life.

jank wrote: »

The universe is so complex and vast how could be just be without a maker behind it?

I'm always amazed theists actually take such an argument seriously given the blindingly obvious issue with that.

I don't know what the odds are the universe could just be are. I do know though that those odds are greater than the odds that God could just be, give that what ever way you look at it God is defined as greater that the universe.

What ever the odds are that the universe just exists it must be more unlikely that God just exists. In fact since God is defined as the greatest thing ever then it is more unlikely God exists than anything else.

God is, by definition, the least likely thing imaginable to just exist.

So how is the argument that the universe is too something (complex, organised, ordered, perfect) to just exist an argument for God?

jank wrote: »

Both require a leap of faith, yet atheists have no problem in making this leap when it comes to UFO's yet are adamant that a belief in god is stupid.

Belief in God is stupid. The arguments for belief in God are stupid. You just gave an argument and it was easy to point out why it is stupid.

krudler · 30-10-2012 6:57pm

jank wrote: »

Well reason and the 'reasonable' you state is subjective.

The universe is rather large so what are the odds that there is life out there other than ourselves?

The universe is so complex and vast how could be just be without a maker behind it?

Both require a leap of faith, yet atheists have no problem in making this leap when it comes to UFO's yet are adamant that a belief in god is stupid.

And who made the maker? if something could come into being from nothing you've just proved your own argument there. a maker can come from nothing but a universe can't? an what about UFO's, hey if there's other life on planets then we put UFO's of our own into space all the time, they just can't travel the universe yet.

Zillah · 30-10-2012 7:01pm

Jernal wrote: »

(more likely that intelligent life will find us!)

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.

ShooterSF · 30-10-2012 7:14pm

I believe that humanity has seen it's worst days and will move in a straight line towards improvements both ethically and intelligently. I believe we (though I'll be long reduced to a mention on someone's family tree) will colonise other planets. There's little evidence for that and while we are better off than we were 1000 years ago history has shown we're capable, for periods of time at least, of slipping backwards but I just don't see it happening again.

krudler · 30-10-2012 7:15pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I believe that humanity has seen it's worst days and will move in a straight line towards improvements both ethically and intelligently. I believe we (though I'll be long reduced to a mention on someone's family tree) will colonise other planets. There's little evidence for that and while we are better off than we were 1000 years ago history has shown we're capable, for periods of time at least, of slipping backwards but I just don't see it happening again.

I think the human race is getting dumber by the minute, have you turned on a tv lately?

Zillah · 30-10-2012 7:26pm

krudler wrote: »

I think the human race is getting dumber by the minute, have you turned on a tv lately?

Have you read a history book lately?

Jersey Shore seems less awful when one contemplates state sanctioned witch burnings and regular human sacrifice.

ShooterSF · 30-10-2012 7:29pm

krudler wrote: »

I think the human race is getting dumber by the minute, have you turned on a tv lately?

Not in the traditional sense no. I don't have any tv channels as such! Though I get your point. But I don't think it's any worse than it ever was. TV is full of crap and just because reality tv is more profitable than pointless game shows (even if I prefer the later) doesn't mean people are more stupid. Actually I think the almost free access to a wealth of information on the internet when we're not watching porn will allow us to get smarter and I believe most people enjoy learning when it's not forced on them.

krudler · 30-10-2012 7:35pm

Zillah wrote: »

Have you read a history book lately?

Jersey Shore seems less awful when one contemplates state sanctioned witch burnings and regular human sacrifice.

but that stuff still happens, honour killing, albinos being mutilated for "magic powers" in Africa, state sanctioned lashes, beheadings for infidels, or for women who look at men funny in the Middle East etc etc. Not on the same scale as say the dark ages but its still rampant. Ignorance and utter stupidity is still around on a large scale.

Zillah · 30-10-2012 7:40pm

krudler wrote: »

but that stuff still happens, honour killing, albinos being mutilated for "magic powers" in Africa, state sanctioned lashes, beheadings for infidels, or for women who look at men funny in the Middle East etc etc. Not on the same scale as say the dark ages but its still rampant. Ignorance and utter stupidity is still around on a large scale.

Ok. But it is much better than it used to be and is not getting worse.

What do you believe without evidence? If anything.

Comments