Do atheists still believe in ghosts and aliens? (Christians, evolution, believers)
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.
as I pointed out, as the measuring devices and understanding improve the chances of seeing an alien and ghost on our planet decreases. period.
that is completely different than assuming that there is life elsewhere in the galaxy. Talking about what we see here and what is out there are two different topics when logically talking about possibilities. Some people need one non belief to support all non beliefs instead of using more data instead of opinions to make a better "claim".
Just use the definition of atheists and know yourself and all is good. I don't believe in aliens here on earth but I have no reason to say there are none any ware. It's just like the all or nothing talk I had with nozzle, if you have an agenda, you try and force others people's hands when observations say different.
I don't understand how people can believe in aliens living among us and not an Omni dude. Both stances imply lack of understanding. Oh right, they say omni dude doesn't need natural laws. Well thats Thats wrong ... It would.
Speaking for myself I think it is entirely possible for life to exist on other planets. Unfortunately the chances of us ever making contact with other sentient lifeforms is next to zero.
Unfortunately, people who think we can contact aliens don't have any comprehension of the vastness of space. Take for example, our nearest galaxy Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away. That means it takes 2.5 million years just for the light from Andromeda to reach us. Since we can't travel anywhere near the speed of light, the time it would take for aliens to cross that distance is simply too ridiculous to comtemplate. Pair that with the fact that the universe is not only expanding, but the expansion is accelerating, makes the journey even more unlikely (impossible really).
We have been scanning the skies for radio signals for decades and come up with nothing. As far as we know, so far we are unique in the universe.
Actually, I already debunked this argument as being humanocentric. After all, look at your one sentence which says, "Since we can't travel anywhere near the speed of light, the time it would take for aliens to cross that distance is simply too ridiculous to contemplate."
Since when is the human race considered the universal measuring stick in terms of how far any other intelligent species can advance?
Alien #1: "It's finished! All the tests are complete! Now we can use artificial wormholes to travel the universe in but seconds. I'm going to install it on one of our starships."
Alien #2: "Wait, I have to check something before you do. Hmm, well, I'm afraid that humanity is still using chemical rockets that take months just to get a small probe to their outer planets. According to the rules, it means we can't use anything but chemical rockets ourselves."
Alien #1: "Dammit! Why won't those stupid human neanderthals hurry the hell up? I'm already 2,527 human years old. I was over the hill when I turned 2,300! I don't have all eon to make this work!"
Yeah, the vastness of space is the most common argument, but that assumes an alien race, which might be tens of millions of years older than humanity, is still playing with giant fireworks for its propulsion and still listening to radios for its communication. I don't think we have to go all the way to the Andromeda Galaxy to find intelligent life - but using such huge distances only artificially bolsters the case. It is much more likely that someone intelligent exists within a 1000 light years of earth, and that makes the trip do-able with advanced tech or with an exceptionally long-lived race.
However, most people in the scientific community now believe that an alien race wouldn't send themselves because, yes, the trip might be a long one. So they most likely send a cyborg-type organisn that was created and bred specifically for space travel. An organism such as that could make journeys that are very long indeed.
Actually, I already debunked this argument as being humanocentric. After all, look at your one sentence which says, "Since we can't travel anywhere near the speed of light, the time it would take for aliens to cross that distance is simply too ridiculous to contemplate."
Since when is the human race considered the universal measuring stick in terms of how far any other intelligent species can advance?
Alien #1: "It's finished! All the tests are complete! Now we can use artificial wormholes to travel the universe in but seconds. I'm going to install it on one of our starships."
Alien #2: "Wait, I have to check something before you do. Hmm, well, I'm afraid that humanity is still using chemical rockets that take months just to get a small probe to their outer planets. According to the rules, it means we can't use anything but chemical rockets ourselves."
Alien #1: "Dammit! Why won't those stupid human neanderthals hurry the hell up? I'm already 2,527 human years old. I was over the hill when I turned 2,300! I don't have all eon to make this work!"
Yeah, the vastness of space is the most common argument, but that assumes an alien race, which might be tens of millions of years older than humanity, is still playing with giant fireworks for its propulsion and still listening to radios for its communication. I don't think we have to go all the way to the Andromeda Galaxy to find intelligent life - but using such huge distances only artificially bolsters the case. It is much more likely that someone intelligent exists within a 1000 light years of earth, and that makes the trip do-able with advanced tech or with an exceptionally long-lived race.
However, most people in the scientific community now believe that an alien race wouldn't send themselves because, yes, the trip might be a long one. So they most likely send a cyborg-type organisn that was created and bred specifically for space travel. An organism such as that could make journeys that are very long indeed.
It's not about humans being the universal measuring stick, it's about physics being the universal measuring stick.
The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe Shirina. It is simply impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light.
OP I dont believe in an afterlife, so I dont believe in ghosts. As for aliens the univerese is too hugh of a place, so its very likely there is other intelligent life out there. Whether or not they've come here or we will ever meet them I dont think so, Ive never seen proof of it. As for god I dont believe we where engineered again never seen proof of it.
What evidence? Seriously? At least with aliens it is possible. Nothing supernatural about life on other planets. Ghosts and gods, not likely.
Atheist = without god. It doesn't mean anything else.
Let us suppose we found a life form that was effectively an energy lifeform. I dunno, it manages to project a hologram around a floating creature. Assuming there are enough things we don't know about science to make this a reality...
What is the difference between this and what we'd call something supernatural? Would we not call this a ghost, when other explanations would do? Said creature could be well within the laws of physics. We simply have gaps in out knowledge.
In general, as there are Christians that believe in the Big Bang and evolution, there are likely atheists that accept supernatural concepts.
Let us suppose we found a life form that was effectively an energy lifeform. I dunno, it manages to project a hologram around a floating creature. Assuming there are enough things we don't know about science to make this a reality...
What is the difference between this and what we'd call something supernatural?
The obvious difference is that this creature would be conforming to natural laws, albeit ones which we have yet to discover. If such an entity was revealed to us, unless it confessed to being responsible for all of our supposed ghost sightings, it would not be validating claims of there being ghosts. It would be something entirely different.
A ghost would still be something which transcends natural law.
I don't believe in ghosts either. I believe in spirits (as in the Shinto type, that the physical world is made up of a number of unseen energies and lifeforms). In this world, "spirits" might comprise bacteria and other things operating unseen, but also the flow of energy from various sources (solar energy for instance).
I assume by natural law we mean something that is born, ages, and dies correct? Although given simple parts (essentially it would be some kind of floating nucleus, making body healing very simple), it may have a lifespan different from ours, giving it essentially no difference to our minds, except that yea, it isn't technically a ghost. It would be an energy lifeform, which people would immediately call "ghost" regardless of whether it was accurate.
It's not about humans being the universal measuring stick, it's about physics being the universal measuring stick.
The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe Shirina. It is simply impossible for matter to travel at the speed of light.
I don't believe in ghosts either. I believe in spirits (as in the Shinto type, that the physical world is made up of a number of unseen energies and lifeforms). In this world, "spirits" might comprise bacteria and other things operating unseen, but also the flow of energy from various sources (solar energy for instance).
I assume by natural law we mean something that is born, ages, and dies correct? Although given simple parts (essentially it would be some kind of floating nucleus, making body healing very simple), it may have a lifespan different from ours, giving it essentially no difference to our minds, except that yea, it isn't technically a ghost. It would be an energy lifeform, which people would immediately call "ghost" regardless of whether it was accurate.
Well, you are stating that you subscribe to a set of beliefs which are outside known natural law. Where there is actually no difference between ghosts and your "spirits" lies in the fact both are being postulated in the absence of any evidence for them. It is something unknown but you subscribe to it regardless.
Natural law describes the requirements, impacts and limitations of the known forces in the universe.
I think a lot of people, both theist and atheist, simply choose to believe in that which gives them the most emotional comfort and warm fuzzies. Thus an atheist may not put any trust in the biblical story of sin and redemption, but instead believe in aliens who will some day reveal themselves, impart their ancient wisdom and superior technologies to us miserably backward humans and solve all of humanity's problems at once. Personally I do not "believe" in either. I think there is a possibility that some planets on the other side of the universe are inhabited by living beings. But I would not put my trust in these beings to either make contact with us or help us in any way. Humanity should grow up and learn to solve its own problems.
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.
