Sciforums religion survey 2014

[Seattle]

I guess we should believe in dragons and Cyclops as well since we can find them mentioned in ancient literature?

We can figure out how the pyramids were built and you have no problem with that but because USA Today mentions mica having to come from 3,000 miles away you read ancient aliens into that?

Isn't it much more likely that it just came from 3,000 miles away (much less increible that invoking aliens) or that there was actually a source of mica much closer?

 

[davewhite04]

I think it is exceptionally short sighted and to be frank, you'd have to be pretty self absorbed, to believe that we must be the only intelligent life in the universe. How much do you rate or value the human race or life on earth to think that intelligent life cannot really exist elsewhere and that we are somehow it?

I do not argue the fact that there's other intelligent life in the universe, read my posts, I am convinced the universe is bustling with life, and intelligent life that far surpasses our own intellect.

And how do you value or rate intelligence in that sense?

I rate self awareness or high intelligence extremely highly, but not as highly as life on earth itself. Without nature what point would intelligence have? What enjoyment would there be?

If one were to look at "man", we aren't so intelligent ourselves. We consider ourselves intelligent, but we are also selfish, violent, hateful, self absorbed, we wage wars and kill in large numbers for the most ridiculous and most pathetic reasons imaginable, we breed excessively and dangerously to the point where it is becoming unsustainable. We have driven and killed animals to extinction, we pollute and destroy as well as create and think that makes us superior. I could go on and on. Not to say we haven't done great things as well for our species, advances in science, medicine, etc has helped us live longer and healthier - but that does have its draw backs as well.

But a lot of our actions certainly do not speak of intelligence.

Man is perverted, violent, deceitful etc. at this point of our evolution.

If there is a higher deity "guiding us", then it has some seriously fucked up priorities, if you'll pardon the French.

Guide is probably the wrong word, inspire is better. I said "Cris" not "us".

 

[davewhite04]

I was unsure of what you meant by the last half of that sentence "what chance is there for a proven planet like ours?".

They haven't created it in a lab yet so "what chance is there for a proven planet like ours"? What does that mean?

Since we know that life exists on our planet but can't create it in a lab it can't be on other planets? Where is the logic in that?

Us not being able to create it in a lab yet doesn't have anything to do with how it's created and on what planets it could arise on. The universe is full of planets.

How was life created exactly(in your opinion)?

 

[Bells]

I do not argue the fact that there's other intelligent life in the universe, read my posts, I am convinced the universe is bustling with life, and intelligent life that far surpasses our own intellect.

I see.

I rate self awareness or high intelligence extremely highly, but not as highly as life on earth itself. Without nature what point would intelligence have? What enjoyment would there be?

I think you are confusing awareness with intelligence.

Man is perverted, violent, deceitful etc. at this point of our evolution.

We would never have evolved to the point that we are at now if we were not violent, etc.

Guide is probably the wrong word, inspire is better. I said "Cris" not "us".

Still pretty fucked up.. Then again, if anyone wants to read a horror story, just read the first testament or early religious texts, drawings, carvings, etc from all religions to see the horrors humans perpetrated against others or were inspired to by their deity's or did so to please their deity's. We create God(s) to suit ourselves and to give us an excuse or a reason.

 

[davewhite04]

I guess we should believe in dragons and Cyclops as well since we can find them mentioned in ancient literature?

We can figure out how the pyramids were built and you have no problem with that but because USA Today mentions mica having to come from 3,000 miles away you read ancient aliens into that?

Isn't it much more likely that it just came from 3,000 miles away (much less increible that invoking aliens) or that there was actually a source of mica much closer?

There was simply no source of the material closer, simple as that. We are pretty darn good at archeology.

If you can provide me proof, from any source that proves the material was much closer, be my guest.

 

[davewhite04]

We would never have evolved to the point that we are at now if we were not violent, etc.

Exactly.

 

[Seattle]

There was simply no source of the material closer, simple as that. We are pretty darn good at archeology.

If you can provide me proof, from any source that proves the material was much closer, be my guest.

Can you provide me proof that it was the results of aliens?

 

[GeoffP]

More alienses.

Argument: circled.

My work here is done.

 

[Cris]

I was just referring to the fact that no matter what science has tried in the lab to create life, even unfair tests, they cannot create life, the simplest form, not even a hypothetical nanobe.

You are making the same mistake again - it is not valid to imply what the future holds from current results. History is full of claims of "it can't be done" only to see them occur. It's just a logical fallacy.

I am not qualified to state whether science will be able to initiate independent life in a laboratory or not, and judging from your posting history you are not qualified in the sciences either. The real reason you must assert that science must fail is that if they succeeded then it would destroy part or most of your religious fantasies you have adopted.

 

[Cris]

Seriously Cris, what are the chances? I respect science a great deal, logic too, but only someone with incredible faith in science would seriously entertain the idea that intelligent life can exist elsewhere in the universe, the possibility seems hopeful at best.

Faith is not the issue. Intelligent life exists here and that establishes a precedent. With simple math and given the countless trillions of stars and a similar number of planets the calculation of probability that conditions like earth are common is very high - that alone significantly raises the probability that life exists elsewhere. We have no reason to assume that earth is anything special or that life on earth is anything special or unusual.

I think again that you are arguing against life like ours elsewhere because it would upset your religious fantasy doctrine, rather than an argument from evidence or logic.

 

[Cris]

Because I know what it is like when God ceases to exist in your life. Believe me, God is most certainly guiding you.

Thank you. And I welcome God's assistance in helping me motivate more people to adopt an atheistic perspective.

I will admit to massive feelings of relief and freedom once I had fully expunged my early years of Christian indoctrination. You appear to be seriously trapped for the moment and don't know it yet - I wish you luck in a possible eventual escape.

 

[davewhite04]

Can you provide me proof that it was the results of aliens?

Of course not, this conversation wouldn't exist if I could.

 

[Cris]

Open your mind Cris, not everything has to disregarded because of lack of personal experience.

Your conclusion from those claimed quotes of evidence do not constitute evidence of aliens or other intelligences. All you have are potential mysterious that we haven't explained.

Again it is a logical fallacy, and the predominately apparent method to your religious thinking, to infer a fantasy solution to something that is unknown. This is how most religions began - when something could not be explained then something supernatural was invented to provide a highly desirable answer.

You do not have any evidence for your claims only imaginative fantasy propositions in the absence of actual evidence. This is the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance.

 

[spidergoat]

I was just referring to the fact that no matter what science has tried in the lab to create life, even unfair tests, they cannot create life, the simplest form, not even a hypothetical nanobe.

That may change soon:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

 

[davewhite04]

You are making the same mistake again - it is not valid to imply what the future holds from current results. History is full of claims of "it can't be done" only to see them occur. It's just a logical fallacy.

I am not qualified to state whether science will be able to initiate independent life in a laboratory or not, and judging from your posting history you are not qualified in the sciences either. The real reason you must assert that science must fail is that if they succeeded then it would destroy part or most of your religious fantasies you have adopted.

I am not a qualified scientist, I am however a student of life. At this point in time my beliefs are incompatible with any religion I know of, so maybe you should call it "delusion" and not religious belief. When it boils down to brass tacks regarding this subject, then all beliefs are delusional as lack of evidence is not evidence also.

 

[Cris]

I am not a qualified scientist, I am however a student of life. At this point in time my beliefs are incompatible with any religion I know of, so maybe you should call it "delusion" and not religious belief. When it boils down to brass tacks regarding this subject, then all beliefs are delusional as lack of evidence is not evidence also.

When evidence is absent the correct conclusion is to state - "we do not know", and not create alternative propositions and assert them as truth. It is still healthy to explore imagine alternatives, just remember that they are just propositions to be explored.

 

[davewhite04]

Faith is not the issue. Intelligent life exists here and that establishes a precedent. With simple math and given the countless trillions of stars and a similar number of planets the calculation of probability that conditions like earth are common is very high - that alone significantly raises the probability that life exists elsewhere. We have no reason to assume that earth is anything special or that life on earth is anything special or unusual.

I think again that you are arguing against life like ours elsewhere because it would upset your religious fantasy doctrine, rather than an argument from evidence or logic.

It's exciting to think of the possibilities, but probabilities and calculations are not evidence Cris.

 

[Cris]

I rate self awareness or high intelligence extremely highly, but not as highly as life on earth itself. Without nature what point would intelligence have? What enjoyment would there be?

There is a perspective here that I do not quite understand. Given that earth is just one planet among countless trillions, why should it be considered special just because we are on it? Isn't that simple arrogance?

"Without nature what point would intelligence have? " I don't understand what that means. Intelligence simply evolved, it has no point other than it has strong survival traits, hence its current existence.

"What enjoyment would there be?" Life does not imply any particular benefits to individuals. Life can be cruel, harsh, fun, short, long, unpleasant, happy, and everything in-between. Life has no objective or purpose - it simply is, for good or bad.

 

[davewhite04]

Thank you. And I welcome God's assistance in helping me motivate more people to adopt an atheistic perspective.

I will admit to massive feelings of relief and freedom once I had fully expunged my early years of Christian indoctrination. You appear to be seriously trapped for the moment and don't know it yet - I wish you luck in a possible eventual escape.

You might think your posts inspire people to become atheistic, but in reality they are very informative and logical which inspires people to search for their own answers. You will get like minded people who cling on to every word you say, but I think that is the minority Cris.

 

[Cris]

It's exciting to think of the possibilities, but probabilities and calculations are not evidence Cris.

Yes excitement is perhaps the spice of life. But your post referred to unlikeliness - a statement of probability - I answered in kind.

But as with earlier arguments about inductive logic - probabilities do constitute meaningful evidence. We expect the sun to rise tomorrow - that is a statement of probability, but there is no proof that it will since perhaps the earth might explode overnight without warning. But all the past occurrences create a strong inductive and probabilistic argument that the sun will most likely rise tomorrow.

Almost all of science is based on inductive probabilities and technically there is no such thing as a scientific proof. In science the highest state is that of a scientific theory where an element of doubt is always retained. Science does not assert any certainties. Compare that to religions where they start with assertions of certainty.