Post Any Evidence For God Here

[chang50]

He is suggesting a difference between something like, alien greys from Roswell versus the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.

They both might be fictional, but even if one is a known mockery of the other. The silly one does not discredit the other even if that was the intended purpose.

I understand that but I honestly can't see why one is markedly sillier than any other,and that really is not meant to be insulting.Because theists believe wholeheartedly in their god(s) they seem to assume when atheists draw analogies to the FSM or Russell's teapot they are mocking their beliefs,rather than giving an honest opinion.

[2dimes]

Do you believe in aliens?

[Gillipig]

Do you believe in aliens?

Aliens are theoretically very likely, god isn't. (maybe not the green movie screen version of aliens but aliens as in any extra terrestrial life certainly is very probable)

[comic boy]

J9B, let's run with your analogy:


Is there a difference between saying, (1) "there are aliens of a particular kind out there. They have X characteristics, and do Y sorts of things," and (2) "there are aliens out there, but I'm not really sure what they are like"?

(I can think we can agree that there is a difference).


Most religions (theistic) seem to go with the (1) approach. Pantheists or "there's some higher power thingabob out there" go with the (2) approach.

Now, do atheists reject both (1) and (2)?

And, if probability is deemed good enough for determining truth, then is (1) more probable to be true, or is (2) more probable?*

*

• It seems that most atheists are definitely atheist regarding claims similar to (1) and (2), but some atheists (perhaps, "agnostic atheists") reject (1) but not quite (2).

Even Dawkins fits into bracket 2 to a degree , he argues that it would be unwise to utterly dismiss the possibility of some form of 'alien' intervention.

[chang50]

Do you believe in aliens?

If you mean is it possible they exist? Yes given the size of the universe how could I rule it out?That also makes it highly unlikely they have stumbled upon our insignificant little rock.Which is perhaps just as well for us because we have ample evidnce from Earth history of what happens when a much more technologically advanced tribe meets a less advanced one.But this is nothing more than interesting speculation.I am curious to know why there are so many more alleged sightings/encounters/abductions by aliens in recent times?Since the introduction of science fiction writing popularised by the cinema and tv in fact.I wonder..

[ooge]

Anyone find it a bit odd that, considering ol' phatsco is religious, or at least a religious apologist, yet is sportin' a Penn Jillete avy? Just me?

sshhh, don't tell him.

well it could be Bill Maher,He likes Jilletes libertarian Ideology.

[waauw]

Do you believe in aliens?

If you mean is it possible they exist? Yes given the size of the universe how could I rule it out?That also makes it highly unlikely they have stumbled upon our insignificant little rock.Which is perhaps just as well for us because we have ample evidnce from Earth history of what happens when a much more technologically advanced tribe meets a less advanced one.But this is nothing more than interesting speculation.I am curious to know why there are so many more alleged sightings/encounters/abductions by aliens in recent times?Since the introduction of science fiction writing popularised by the cinema and tv in fact.I wonder..

My guess is more follow-up by governments, more media, larger population, more educated people who write it down, more camera's, ...

[2dimes]

Do you believe in aliens?

If you mean is it possible they exist? Yes given the size of the universe how could I rule it out?That also makes it highly unlikely they have stumbled upon our insignificant little rock.Which is perhaps just as well for us because we have ample evidnce from Earth history of what happens when a much more technologically advanced tribe meets a less advanced one.But this is nothing more than interesting speculation.

Agreed. I think "purple polka-dotted slime aliens that speak swedish and eat truffles." are far less likely. I think greys are somewhat more likely. Possibly an intentional lie for the purpose of deception.

I am curious to know why there are so many more alleged sightings/encounters/abductions by aliens in recent times?Since the introduction of science fiction writing popularised by the cinema and tv in fact.I wonder..

I believe it's possible those using them for deception are creating more percieved awareness of them. I don't know what means they are using to do this.

[Dukasaur]

This thread was a lot better last month.

Alright f*ck heads. Obviously your girlfriends. smell chum in the water. They are all coming out of the wood work like a bunch of sharks defending a loved one. I done use spell check first of all. Crispy you are a prick for trying to act all " I'm all above this guys intelligence". Andy seems to jump into other peoples shit. Go eat a banana or take the one outta your ASS. And where the f*ck did comic boy come from. Go stick your head in a superman comic.

Sharks come out of the wood work to defend their loved ones?
What the f*ck sort of shark is that?

A wood shark, Jonesy.




--Andy

Gradually getting boring again.

[2dimes]

Could you give me a recap? I hate playing in this one. I just can't help it on occasion. Look at my ramblings sticking up for Mr. 9blue here. ugh.

[AndyDufresne]

Quick, Jonesy, we need to come up with some material to save this topic, Re: Dukasaur's post. Lets use your act.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Are pirates evidence for God?

Also I love this:

Crispy you are a prick for trying to act all " I'm all above this guys intelligence"

Someone is feeling threatened it seems

Especially as all I've ever done is present arguments - the worst I've called anyone religious is brainwashed or misled and the ease of brainwashing has been scientifically proven to have no correlation with intelligence.

[john9blue]

J9B, let's run with your analogy:


Is there a difference between saying, (1) "there are aliens of a particular kind out there. They have X characteristics, and do Y sorts of things," and (2) "there are aliens out there, but I'm not really sure what they are like"?

(I can think we can agree that there is a difference).


Most religions (theistic) seem to go with the (1) approach. Pantheists or "there's some higher power thingabob out there" go with the (2) approach.

Now, do atheists reject both (1) and (2)?

And, if probability is deemed good enough for determining truth, then is (1) more probable to be true, or is (2) more probable?*

*

• It seems that most atheists are definitely atheist regarding claims similar to (1) and (2), but some atheists (perhaps, "agnostic atheists") reject (1) but not quite (2).

Guys, guys, I got this (I've learned the misdirection tactics john likes by now).

FSM isn't used to discredit the general idea of "a god". FSM is used (in this scenario) to discredit the idea of the vengeful yet somehow omnibenevolent, showing very little foresight yet somehow omniscient, and blaming everyone else for his f*ck-ups yet somehow omnipotent abrahamic god of the bible. (which is probably why comic brought up the FSM when responding to viceroy, who believes in such a specific god).

That specific god is about as unlikely as the FSM, so the analogy works.

Discussing the probability of "a god" is a different game, and begins with the question. "Define your god". Cuase otherwise the question is meaningless (the word "god" means too many different things to too many different people).

So, you wanna show how the full-o-inconsitencies abrahamic god is so much more likely than zeus, thor and the FSM?

you guys both hit on the same point, which is that the existence of something becomes less probably as you assign traits to it without any evidence, and you can use that as an argument against religious gods (christian, hindu, whatever) if you can refute the evidence that they have.

but the FSM itself is worthless as an analogy because it has really improbable traits which don't have any reason for being the way they are (it was designed that way). meanwhile there are plenty of people out there who will give you reasons for why the abrahamic god does what he does. by using the FSM as an argument against god (and yes, people use it as an argument against all gods, like it or not), you're ignoring everything everyone else has to say about god and tearing apart your own stupid straw-man version of god.

you want to talk about misdirection tactics? anyone who uses FSM in an argument is twice as guilty as i've ever been.

[john9blue]

You really need some fresh air pal, each successive post is making less sense than its predecessor,the point is we just don't have sufficient evidence or knowledge about 'aliens' or alleged 'gods' to believe that any of them exist.We can speculate till the cows come home,which is harmless enough (until people start to actually believe shit.)

so you think it's highly unlikely that aliens exist? if so then i don't really know what to tell you lol. maybe start with drake's equation?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10... and i don't even get to circlejerk with other people like atheists do, i just get the occasional person like 2dimes who grudgingly acknowledges a point i make... because you don't want an asshole like me getting too cocky...

[2dimes]

Sorry no, I wanted to help you out. I just don't know if I did or made things worse. I was up most of the night.

[john9blue]

Sorry no, I wanted to help you out. I just don't know if I did or made things worse. I was up most of the night.

no, i think you explained it nicely

[chang50]

You really need some fresh air pal, each successive post is making less sense than its predecessor,the point is we just don't have sufficient evidence or knowledge about 'aliens' or alleged 'gods' to believe that any of them exist.We can speculate till the cows come home,which is harmless enough (until people start to actually believe shit.)

so you think it's highly unlikely that aliens exist? if so then i don't really know what to tell you lol. maybe start with drake's equation?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10... and i don't even get to circlejerk with other people like atheists do, i just get the occasional person like 2dimes who grudgingly acknowledges a point i make... because you don't want an asshole like me getting too cocky...

I was aware of Drake's equation long before you were born John,and I regard it as intelligent speculation,my point is we shouldn't lose sight of the fact it is speculative.It may even be too conservative,how would we ever know?That's my whole point when partially evolved mammalian species on tiny little rocks in the vast universe imagine they know the right questions to ask never mind the right answers to the big unknowns,I wonder at our arrogance.When we know so very little all speculations seem more or less ridiculous to me.

[Haggis_McMutton]

you guys both hit on the same point, which is that the existence of something becomes less probably as you assign traits to it without any evidence, and you can use that as an argument against religious gods (christian, hindu, whatever) if you can refute the evidence that they have.

but the FSM itself is worthless as an analogy because it has really improbable traits which don't have any reason for being the way they are (it was designed that way). meanwhile there are plenty of people out there who will give you reasons for why the abrahamic god does what he does. by using the FSM as an argument against god (and yes, people use it as an argument against all gods, like it or not), you're ignoring everything everyone else has to say about god and tearing apart your own stupid straw-man version of god.

The fact that people misuse the FSM doesn't invalidate the correct use of the FSM.
The fact that you consider the FSM's ridiculous attributes somehow less ridiculous than the abrahamic god's ridiculous attributes only speaks to the familiarity we have with the story of the abrahamic god.
On the face of it, there is nothing more ridiculous about the FSM than about the abrahamic god. And if you think there is, then please show me how virgin birth, magicking up food etc etc is somehow more probable than the characteristics of the FSM.

The FSM works exactly as intended. It highlights the patent absurdity of the gods most people believe in.

Gonna post this again:


I'd really like to hear why you think that story is more likely than the FSM.

[Haggis_McMutton]

You really need some fresh air pal, each successive post is making less sense than its predecessor,the point is we just don't have sufficient evidence or knowledge about 'aliens' or alleged 'gods' to believe that any of them exist.We can speculate till the cows come home,which is harmless enough (until people start to actually believe shit.)

so you think it's highly unlikely that aliens exist? if so then i don't really know what to tell you lol. maybe start with drake's equation?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10... and i don't even get to circlejerk with other people like atheists do, i just get the occasional person like 2dimes who grudgingly acknowledges a point i make... because you don't want an asshole like me getting too cocky...

I was aware of Drake's equation long before you were born John,and I regard it as intelligent speculation,my point is we shouldn't lose sight of the fact it is speculative.It may even be too conservative,how would we ever know?That's my whole point when partially evolved mammalian species on tiny little rocks in the vast universe imagine they know the right questions to ask never mind the right answers to the big unknowns,I wonder at our arrogance.When we know so very little all speculations seem more or less ridiculous to me.

The drake equation might be one of the most ridiculous "calculations" I've ever seen.
It's basically a multiplication of 5 numbers that we have absolutely no basis for. (because we have only 1 data point from which to infer them).

In other words, there is at least one crucial term missing from the equation.


Edit:
Also, was gonna let this slide, but changed my mind.

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10...

I'd like you to go through your reasoning for why me, bbs, crispy etc are 10 times more dim than, y'know viceroy who thinks biblical prophecies are 100% true and that modern evolutionary theory is some huge conspiracy that tens of thousands of people subscribe to just to make kids not believe in god anymore. Or maybe 10 times more dim than warmonger who thinks companies are putting cameras in his cans of soup so they can watch him in his undies for some unspecified nefarious purposes. 10 times more dim than jay maybe, who not only believes in bible prophecies, but also has a go at interpreting them for himself?

You have an irrational dislike for atheists, even though our positions are virtually identical. We both assign the same place for god both in society and in our personal lives (unless you happen to pray a lot). However, in your dislike of atheists you seem to prefer to align yourself with those who not only place a high importance on god in their personal life, but would also like to forcefully introduce god in government, schools and whatever else.

It really is bizarre. Did an atheist kill your dog as a child?

[chang50]

You really need some fresh air pal, each successive post is making less sense than its predecessor,the point is we just don't have sufficient evidence or knowledge about 'aliens' or alleged 'gods' to believe that any of them exist.We can speculate till the cows come home,which is harmless enough (until people start to actually believe shit.)

so you think it's highly unlikely that aliens exist? if so then i don't really know what to tell you lol. maybe start with drake's equation?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10... and i don't even get to circlejerk with other people like atheists do, i just get the occasional person like 2dimes who grudgingly acknowledges a point i make... because you don't want an asshole like me getting too cocky...

I was aware of Drake's equation long before you were born John,and I regard it as intelligent speculation,my point is we shouldn't lose sight of the fact it is speculative.It may even be too conservative,how would we ever know?That's my whole point when partially evolved mammalian species on tiny little rocks in the vast universe imagine they know the right questions to ask never mind the right answers to the big unknowns,I wonder at our arrogance.When we know so very little all speculations seem more or less ridiculous to me.

The drake equation might be one of the most ridiculous "calculations" I've ever seen.
It's basically a multiplication of 5 numbers that we have absolutely no basis for. (because we have only 1 data point from which to infer them).

In other words, there is at least one crucial term missing from the equation.

Put like that perhaps I was too kind in my assessment of Drake's equation..

[waauw]

You really need some fresh air pal, each successive post is making less sense than its predecessor,the point is we just don't have sufficient evidence or knowledge about 'aliens' or alleged 'gods' to believe that any of them exist.We can speculate till the cows come home,which is harmless enough (until people start to actually believe shit.)

so you think it's highly unlikely that aliens exist? if so then i don't really know what to tell you lol. maybe start with drake's equation?

and if you're wondering why i'm angry all the time, then think about how angry you get whenever someone is so dense that you can't get through to them, and multiply that by like 10... and i don't even get to circlejerk with other people like atheists do, i just get the occasional person like 2dimes who grudgingly acknowledges a point i make... because you don't want an asshole like me getting too cocky...

I was aware of Drake's equation long before you were born John,and I regard it as intelligent speculation,my point is we shouldn't lose sight of the fact it is speculative.It may even be too conservative,how would we ever know?That's my whole point when partially evolved mammalian species on tiny little rocks in the vast universe imagine they know the right questions to ask never mind the right answers to the big unknowns,I wonder at our arrogance.When we know so very little all speculations seem more or less ridiculous to me.

There is actually tons of evidence supporting the theory that alien life exists. Now I'm not gonna start posting 'm all, as you can just google and find tons of 'm.

The fact that there is already such strong evidence of life on earth having it's origines in outer space, should already be a strong indication.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wait, what's wrong with Drake's equation? Sure, we don't know some--if any--of the parameters for his variables, but.. so what? I mean, at least he's got something to work with. What's wrong with that?

[Gillipig]

First off, "The Drake Equation" doesn't pretend to be an accurate calculation of the number of extra terrestial civilisations out there. If anyone tries to use it that way then it's a missuse. It's simply an equation that if filled out with correct data, vaguely, with focus on the word vaguely, estimates the number of alien civilisations in our galaxy with similar or exceding technology as us. (note that our galaxy is only one of many billions of galaxies in the Universe)
If used in that sense there's nothing wrong with it, if anything we're the ptoblem because we don't have the data required to complete the equation.
This is roughly how it works:
"N" is the total amount of advanced alien civilisations in our galaxy, that's our "x" in this equation. It's what we're trying to put a number on. To get that number, Drake suggested the following aspects were of the biggest importance (these things are multiplied with each other to determine what "N" is):

R* = the average number of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

Taken from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[BigBallinStalin]

Right, I understand that, but I don't understand the "Drake's bullshit" variable at the end--or rather, I don't understand the implied criticism about the equation being bullshit...

[crispybits]

But it's all well and good to say the equation is sound but the data is missing, but that doesn't make the equation useful in any way unless we can find some way of getting the data.

X = Dh * Cd * Fl * Fc

Where X is the chance of me sleeping with a Hollywood celebrity, Dh is the number of days I will spend in Hollywood during my lifetime, Cd is the number of celebrities I will meet on average per each one of those days, Fl is the chance one of those celebrities will lust after me and Fc is the probability that a sexual encounter will be convenient at that time for the both of us.

That's a perfectly valid equation too, but apart from Fl being so close to zero as makes no difference we have no values to put into it, so it means precisely nothing outside of an exercise in how to build probabalistic equations. Just like the Drake equation.

And tellingly, there is no equation possible for the chances of there being a God (in the sense most people think of it), because we can consider no factors for anything that exists external to the observable universe. The equation simply looks like X = Fg (where Fg is the probability that God exists), which is obviously meaningless.