What do you believe without evidence? If anything.

Bannasidhe

Zillah wrote: »

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

Well, in terms of what I can and cannot do as a female of the species this is the best time period to live so far.

Now there were other cultures in the past that accorded women pretty good rights - but we have antibiotics now so no contest imo.

I am trying to believe that things will get even 'better' but...there is always a but.

I have pondered the concept of reincarnation quite a lot and have yet to decide if I believe it or if I want to believe it - it just seems such a waste to me of all the information our brains accumulate over our lifetime and carefully squirrels away for that to be deleted upon our deaths. Information that from the perspective of survival of the species we really don't need.

I find the notion that all of that 'stuff' is part of a journey - like an information treasure hunt leading us...somewhere.... - quite attractive but as said I am not sure if I believe it or if I want to believe it as it means life has a purpose beyond just existing.


I hate waste...

PopePalpatine

After seeing the latest crap from some guy called "Maolseachlann" in today's Irish Times, I wonder if there's a link between being a firm believer that the Irish language is above all others and being a firm believer in the Catholic Church.

bnt

I've had this discussion before, and concluded that you have to believe things without evidence when it comes to people. If you don't, you'll either annoy everyone around you with your constant questions, or fail to trust them at all. :cool:

Bannasidhe

bnt wrote: »

I've had this discussion before, and concluded that you have to believe things without evidence when it comes to people. If you don't, you'll either annoy everyone around you with your constant questions, or fail to trust them at all. :cool:

It's like he (she?) found my letters and read each one out loud. :mad:

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

Thats a very interesting point. Many people including many atheists believe that there is live out there in the universe yet there is no proof as such that there is.
However when it comes to 'god' then they don't believe as there is no proof....

Could never get my head around that one. Even Dawkins falls into that trap. How can one believe in something with no proof then be so strong in their belief that there is no god for lack of proof.

Anyway, I also believe that there is life out there somewhere but also believe there is a maker behind the universe. I also believe that us humans have a mighty opinion of ourselves that has no basis in fact on this earth.

Hang on. I thought you were an atheist! Am I wrong or are you both an atheist and someone who doesn't believe Alien life is out there? Just trying to figure out which area you have a problem with.

Turtwig

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hang on. I thought you were an atheist! Am I wrong or are you both an atheist and someone who doesn't believe Alien life is out there? Just trying to figure out which area you have a problem with.

Contrarian.;)

recedite

kylith wrote: »

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.

But if you die, the dog will get hungry and eat you after a day or two, whereas the OH would hopefully provide a decent funeral.

ShooterSF

Jernal wrote: »

Contrarian.;)

Almost Hitchens like

jank

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.

Apart from the existance of the universe which cannot be explained at all. If a universe can be created that may nudge in at least the possibilty that there is a higher power in whatever shape or form.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

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.
.

Did i ever say that 'god' has to take the form of a man with a white beard? No, i didn't and I dont believe in such a god. I think you are confusing a religous god with what I would refer to pantheism.

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hang on. I thought you were an atheist! Am I wrong or are you both an atheist and someone who doesn't believe Alien life is out there? Just trying to figure out which area you have a problem with.

Agnostic desit?

jank

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

Ah yea, but its just a guess, do you have evidenace or proof?

Zombrex wrote: »

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

Because no one have a fcuking clue to the origin of the Universe therefore people will speculate to its origins.... If you have cracked that one I am all ears.

Zombrex wrote: »

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.

I suppose it depends what you define as 'god' as there seems to be a various definitions on that. The truth is nobody knows for sure that there is or not. To say that there might be a higher power or force somewhere out there to me is not stupid. If someone can prove to me that there isn't a god then fine as I cant prove to you there is one.

Maybe Carl Sagan said it best.

An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed

recedite

^^ Not one of Sagan's greatest quotes

pauldla

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.

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?

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

Agnostic desit?

Interesting. Although I'm not sure what the question mark is for and I'm assuming you meant deist and just typo'd.

Funnily enough that could have been your actual post on this thread given that non-interventionist gods would by their definition have no evidence! Unless you change the meaning of the word. Now at least I can see your argument from a better angle as it's now possible for you to see aliens as a possibility but take issue with someone who shares that belief while dismissing gods.

But I guess if I was to accept any idea of a supernatural creation of our universe a god that no longer has any interest or isn't capable of or chooses not to interfere is the most probable but I only really disregard it because it's impossible to test (even more than theistic claims) and rather irrelevant to how we live considering it changes nothing ethically from an atheistic viewpoint.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Apart from the existance of the universe which cannot be explained at all. If a universe can be created that may nudge in at least the possibilty that there is a higher power in whatever shape or form.

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.

joseph brand

I believe my life is NOT the Truman Show. There have been times when a queue instantly appeared from nowhere, same with traffic.
It's not impossible that all my friends are actors. Even you guys on here could be earning a salary posting here. You'd all know what I look like from TV.

But I choose to not believe I'm a TV star, out of humility. Plus I don't wanna be crazy.

joseph brand

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 find the image in this link, which is relevant, fascinating.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2107061/Earth-calling-Tiny-yellow-dot-shows-distance-radio-broadcasts-aliens-travelled.html

Bannasidhe

joseph brand wrote: »

I believe my life is NOT the Truman Show. There have been times when a queue instantly appeared from nowhere, same with traffic.
It's not impossible that all my friends are actors. Even you guys on here could be earning a salary posting here. You'd all know what I look like from TV.

But I choose to not believe I'm a TV star, out of humility. Plus I don't wanna be crazy.

May I just say those are lovely trousers you are wearing today Joseph.

Zillah

recedite wrote: »

But if you die, the dog will get hungry and eat you after a day or two, whereas the OH would hopefully provide a decent funeral.

No he wouldn't! A cat would probably start eating you at the drop of a hat, but a dog is likely to stand guard over your corpse long after you are dead. Even in death they still serve (paging Galvasean for a reference no one else will get).

Of course, evolutionarily it makes sense, as the dead guy's tribe are likely to come looking for his body and then the dog will be adopted by someone else...but its still adorable.

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.