Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The term "believe in the possibility" sets my alarm bells off and no mistake. I would prefer "accept that the weight of probability is in favour of Life somewhere else in the universe."
And is commonly the case, it wouldn't matter but we have to be so careful of sloppy wording that gives Theism the chance to semantcially wrongfoot us.
A fine example was when I was corrected that invalid evidence is still 'evidence'. So now I have to qualify it as 'sound evidence'.
I concur with this. It's another one of the "best default position" arguments IMO. In this case I am speaking of uniqueness; unless there is some evidence to suggest this is the only corner of the cosmos where intelligent life evolved then I don't hink it is logical to believe it. So you don't have to explicitly believe in aliens; if you don't believe we are unique then at some level you implicitly believe in the possibillity.
yup, I agree. layout out the observations. ALL of them. sort, prioritize, put a % probability on it. "the best default position" is our theory. It means we can have more than one too. Many peeps don't get it.
for example: the top 3 rows of the periodic table are made in many stars. Those elements are around in abundance. The default position is to "believe" they have come together to make life somewhere else. Even a simple understanding of chemistry and physics leaves it as the least best answer. It just silly to say "nothing alive" anywhere else.
The term "believe in the possibility" sets my alarm bells off and no mistake. I would prefer "accept that the weight of probability is in favour of Life somewhere else in the universe."
And is commonly the case, it wouldn't matter but we have to be so careful of sloppy wording that gives Theism the chance to semantcially wrongfoot us.
A fine example was when I was corrected that invalid evidence is still 'evidence'. So now I have to qualify it as 'sound evidence'.
I thought about wording differently but the thread being about not believing in aliens led me to calling it implicit belief; kind of "not not believing". Which reminds me of a story - an English teacher telling his class that when you combine two negatives they cancel each other out and become a positive but two positives don't create a negative. As he turned away to walk back to his desk he heard a voice from the back of the room say "Yeah, right..."
I thought about wording differently but the thread being about not believing in aliens led me to calling it implicit belief; kind of "not not believing". Which reminds me of a story - an English teacher telling his class that when you combine two negatives they cancel each other out and become a positive but two positives don't create a negative. As he turned away to walk back to his desk he heard a voice from the back of the room say "Yeah, right..."
I see nothing wrong with even the most die-hard-atheist being open "to the possibilities" or panspermia without acknowledging a higher power.
If the water-bear experiment is true, it fundamentally proves some sort of panspermia is possible.
I see nothing wrong with even the most die-hard-atheist being open "to the possibilities" or panspermia without acknowledging a higher power.
If the water-bear experiment is true, it fundamentally proves some sort of panspermia is possible.
All sorts of things are possible, including the arrival of life on the planet rather than some biochemical 'evolution'. Even a god or alien scientists putting it there. We cannot believe any one of them, though it is pretty clear that the scientific preference is for abiogenesis. The protoplasmic globule -idea was common in the last century as a simple tracing back of the family tree to the simplest thing you could think of.
There was no evidence of it then, but there is now. Back to the single cell in the pre cambrian rocks. I would expect some more indirect evidence for biochemicals to life to turn up, but we must be open to the discovery of a pre -cambrian Alien laboratory. Or even a 10,000 year old shipbuilding complex complete with bitumen vats, Bessemer converters, freeze drying plants and flushing toilets.
I am not beyond belief, though my wife says at times I seem to be...
That isn't just a joke. I do believe some things that I base my actions/decisions on. Those beliefs are evidence-based, open for discussion and malleable. I don't believe that we can't believe anything. I believe I need more coffee; evidence precedes...
I am not beyond belief, though my wife says at times I seem to be...
That isn't just a joke. I do believe some things that I base my actions/decisions on. Those beliefs are evidence-based, open for discussion and malleable. I don't believe that we can't believe anything. I believe I need more coffee; evidence precedes...
You are here by now deemed "A Non-Fundamentalist". May the Force be with you.
It depends on the definition we use. But overall the main problem with "beliefs" is people thinking what they know is all anybody needs to know and/or people forcing a "belief" on others. My hope someday is that "religion" has the same influence of a local youth soccer club.
If you have ever been a parent, you understand it isn't zero but you don't judge people as "lesser" because their son/daughter wears a blue shirt while yours wares a green one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which reminds me of a story - an English teacher telling his class that when you combine two negatives they cancel each other out and become a positive but two positives don't create a negative. As he turned away to walk back to his desk he heard a voice from the back of the room say "Yeah, right..."
"Absolutely untrue...not.."
