Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, I think you need to tell this to every damn atheist I have had the displeasure of debating this issue with over the past 20 years, because this is exactly how their reasoning works.

Utter bullshit. The scientists in the study you presented used no such reasoning. You lazily attempted to conflate these things, because you thought doong so had emotional impact. Or maybe it was just done out of sheer ignorance.

Proving or disproving God is impossible, and it is complete folly. You are asked to prove your assertion of the existence of God merely because you assert it with 100% confidence.

The consensus among scientists is that there is probably life elsewhere, given the circumstances and theoretical evidence.

Note the difference.

 

[Clement]

Well, I think you need to tell this to every damn atheist I have had the displeasure of debating this issue with over the past 20 years, because this is exactly how their reasoning works.

Utter bullshit. The scientists in the study you presented used no such reasoning. You lazily attempted to conflate these things, because you thought doong so had emotional impact. Or maybe it was just done out of sheer ignorance.

Proving or disproving God is impossible, and it is complete folly. You are asked to prove your assertion of the existence of God merely because you assert it with 100% confidence.

The consensus among scientists is that there is probably life elsewhere, given the circumstances and theoretical evidence.

Note the difference.

I didn't say a word about what the scientists in the article said, I was talking about what assholes like you say, so was the OP. "Consensus among scientists" is not proof.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Bible isn't proof that God exists.

Humans are proof that life can exist on planets, and with the number of planets out there, the chances that there is life on at least one of them is actually quite high.

Study claims there is a 'substantial probability' there is not intelligent life elsewhere | Daily Mail Online

Not only did you source the Daily Mail, but you have a study from humans, almost certainly humans who have never left this planet, and definitely humans who haven't left the pull of our own planet.

Also, it appears to be a statistical based view, rather than anything else. Still, it makes no difference, we don't know what's out there. We can make shit up, but we still don't have the fainted idea.

There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere; what difference does it make that it's an article from the Daily Mail written by humans? Why don't you tell me what's wrong with it? Because you can't, because you, being human, don't know, either.

The point is, using the atheist line of reasoning, there is no proof, therefore there is no life elsewhere.

The points being that:

A) The Daily Mail is full of crap
B) The people writing it are not experts in extraterrestrial planets and whether there's life on them or not. They're humans and they don't know any more than anyone else on this planet about whether there's life on those planets or not.

I'm not an atheist. Are you?

So why would we be going for the atheist "line of reasoning" as you put it?

The only logic here is that we don't know about most planets in the universe. Hell we hardly know most of them in our own galaxy, hell, there might even be a planet we can't see in our own solar system.

So how would we know whether there is life out there or not?

By picking and choosing "logic" that suits our argument?

Dude, first off, I am not impressed by arguments on message boards stating that this paper or that entity are "full of crap", because from my experience 98% of the people on message boards are full of crap themselves. And that pretty much says it all.

I am not going for the atheist argument, I am agreeing with the OP's sentiments.

That's nice. I'm not impressed with the Daily Mail. But hey.

So if you're not going with the atheist argument, why did you bring it up?

My point was that humans can't know whether there's life on other planets. Presenting a study from humans there there probably isn't life on other planets is pointless. They can't know, they're merely guessing.

That's the only logic you need.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

The Bible isn't proof that God exists.

Humans are proof that life can exist on planets, and with the number of planets out there, the chances that there is life on at least one of them is actually quite high.

Study claims there is a 'substantial probability' there is not intelligent life elsewhere | Daily Mail Online

Not only did you source the Daily Mail, but you have a study from humans, almost certainly humans who have never left this planet, and definitely humans who haven't left the pull of our own planet.

Also, it appears to be a statistical based view, rather than anything else. Still, it makes no difference, we don't know what's out there. We can make shit up, but we still don't have the fainted idea.

Creation scientists theorize there are no aliens out there because God didn't make any. This is true. No observable evidence even though many probes have been sent.

Current probes (click on link within for past probes)
List of active Solar System probes - Wikipedia

We also have SETI who's been trying to make contact for years. They've been downgraded to the point of having to get private donations (Yuri Milner's breakthrough initiatives). There is Fermi's paradox. Finally, the fine-tuning facts make the strongest argument, so much so that atheist scientists are seriously proposing multiverses. Aliens and multiverses would fall under faith-based science or religion in my book.

1) Probes. Well, we've only managed to get one towards the edge of the solar system and it wasn't designed to search for alien life.

2) SETI. So, they have been searching for life and found nothing. Does this mean there isn't life?

3) Fermi's Paradox was simply made by someone who doesn't know what's out there. It also makes far too many assumptions.

But hey, let's look at life in space.

NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite

"
NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite"

Now, this is evidence, not proof. It might not be a fossil. But certainly there's a chance that life is flying around our sun that isn't in Earth's orbit.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
if there were a contiguous atmosphere throughout the universe it would only be a matter of time before space travel would bring distinct life forms together no different than Columbus meeting the native Americans. as without it space travel may never become a reality.

 

[Montrovant]

.
if there were a contiguous atmosphere throughout the universe it would only be a matter of time before space travel would bring distinct life forms together no different than Columbus meeting the native Americans. as without it space travel may never become a reality.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

 

[denmark]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.
...
If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

Apparently, science is not your strength.
First of all, scientists are usually agnostic. They do not know something until they have some evidence, and then a theory may develop and be tested with additional empirical research.

Statistics is used a great deal to evaluate probabilities in determining whether a data pattern has significance for a conclusion or theory.
Statistically, it seems likely that there are other planets that have conditions that would support life as we know it today.

Although there may be a high probability that aliens exist, they are very likely to be too far away to communicate with us.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

Do you have a link that supports your assertion that “so many...” atheists scientist declare there are millions of alien civilizations? Or is it something you just feel....kinda like god, huh?

 

[james bond]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

The Bible isn't proof that God exists.

Humans are proof that life can exist on planets, and with the number of planets out there, the chances that there is life on at least one of them is actually quite high.

Study claims there is a 'substantial probability' there is not intelligent life elsewhere | Daily Mail Online

Not only did you source the Daily Mail, but you have a study from humans, almost certainly humans who have never left this planet, and definitely humans who haven't left the pull of our own planet.

Also, it appears to be a statistical based view, rather than anything else. Still, it makes no difference, we don't know what's out there. We can make shit up, but we still don't have the fainted idea.

Creation scientists theorize there are no aliens out there because God didn't make any. This is true. No observable evidence even though many probes have been sent.

Current probes (click on link within for past probes)
List of active Solar System probes - Wikipedia

We also have SETI who's been trying to make contact for years. They've been downgraded to the point of having to get private donations (Yuri Milner's breakthrough initiatives). There is Fermi's paradox. Finally, the fine-tuning facts make the strongest argument, so much so that atheist scientists are seriously proposing multiverses. Aliens and multiverses would fall under faith-based science or religion in my book.

1) Probes. Well, we've only managed to get one towards the edge of the solar system and it wasn't designed to search for alien life.

2) SETI. So, they have been searching for life and found nothing. Does this mean there isn't life?

3) Fermi's Paradox was simply made by someone who doesn't know what's out there. It also makes far too many assumptions.

But hey, let's look at life in space.

NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite

"
NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite"

Now, this is evidence, not proof. It might not be a fossil. But certainly there's a chance that life is flying around our sun that isn't in Earth's orbit.

Many secular scientists "believe" in panspermia. This is where creation scientists think it's a religion for their counterparts, i.e. faith based hypothesis (unless it's panspermia from earth to space). It is thought that these findings just look biological sort of like seeing faces on the surface of planets. If you want to claim it is alien life, then many other scientists would have to find microfossils on other meteorites and confirm. There's no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, so one crackpot hypothesis is it occurred because of panspermia.

As I already pointed out, your other stuff isn't backed up by observational science. So you have nothing. The evidence is against life and that life is rare outside of earth. The Anthropic Principle.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Bible isn't proof that God exists.

Humans are proof that life can exist on planets, and with the number of planets out there, the chances that there is life on at least one of them is actually quite high.

Study claims there is a 'substantial probability' there is not intelligent life elsewhere | Daily Mail Online

Not only did you source the Daily Mail, but you have a study from humans, almost certainly humans who have never left this planet, and definitely humans who haven't left the pull of our own planet.

Also, it appears to be a statistical based view, rather than anything else. Still, it makes no difference, we don't know what's out there. We can make shit up, but we still don't have the fainted idea.

Creation scientists theorize there are no aliens out there because God didn't make any. This is true. No observable evidence even though many probes have been sent.

Current probes (click on link within for past probes)
List of active Solar System probes - Wikipedia

We also have SETI who's been trying to make contact for years. They've been downgraded to the point of having to get private donations (Yuri Milner's breakthrough initiatives). There is Fermi's paradox. Finally, the fine-tuning facts make the strongest argument, so much so that atheist scientists are seriously proposing multiverses. Aliens and multiverses would fall under faith-based science or religion in my book.

1) Probes. Well, we've only managed to get one towards the edge of the solar system and it wasn't designed to search for alien life.

2) SETI. So, they have been searching for life and found nothing. Does this mean there isn't life?

3) Fermi's Paradox was simply made by someone who doesn't know what's out there. It also makes far too many assumptions.

But hey, let's look at life in space.

NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite

"
NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite"

Now, this is evidence, not proof. It might not be a fossil. But certainly there's a chance that life is flying around our sun that isn't in Earth's orbit.

Many secular scientists "believe" in panspermia. This is where creation scientists think it's a religion for their counterparts, i.e. faith based hypothesis (unless it's panspermia from earth to space). It is thought that these findings just look biological sort of like seeing faces on the surface of planets. If you want to claim it is alien life, then many other scientists would have to find microfossils on other meteorites and confirm. There's no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, so one crackpot hypothesis is it occurred because of panspermia.

As I already pointed out, your other stuff isn't backed up by observational science. So you have nothing. The evidence is against life and that life is rare outside of earth. The Anthropic Principle.

No, I have nothing.

This is exactly my point. I have nothing, you have nothing, no one has anything.

All we have is people making stuff up.

So, I'll stick with the "I don't know", while other people make papers saying things they can't possibly know.

 

[james bond]

Furthermore, absence of evidence (particularly in this case, in which an exhaustive examination of the evidence has not even been attempted) is not evidence of absence.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. That describes you to a T ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Study claims there is a 'substantial probability' there is not intelligent life elsewhere | Daily Mail Online

Not only did you source the Daily Mail, but you have a study from humans, almost certainly humans who have never left this planet, and definitely humans who haven't left the pull of our own planet.

Also, it appears to be a statistical based view, rather than anything else. Still, it makes no difference, we don't know what's out there. We can make shit up, but we still don't have the fainted idea.

Creation scientists theorize there are no aliens out there because God didn't make any. This is true. No observable evidence even though many probes have been sent.

Current probes (click on link within for past probes)
List of active Solar System probes - Wikipedia

We also have SETI who's been trying to make contact for years. They've been downgraded to the point of having to get private donations (Yuri Milner's breakthrough initiatives). There is Fermi's paradox. Finally, the fine-tuning facts make the strongest argument, so much so that atheist scientists are seriously proposing multiverses. Aliens and multiverses would fall under faith-based science or religion in my book.

1) Probes. Well, we've only managed to get one towards the edge of the solar system and it wasn't designed to search for alien life.

2) SETI. So, they have been searching for life and found nothing. Does this mean there isn't life?

3) Fermi's Paradox was simply made by someone who doesn't know what's out there. It also makes far too many assumptions.

But hey, let's look at life in space.

NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite

"
NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite"

Now, this is evidence, not proof. It might not be a fossil. But certainly there's a chance that life is flying around our sun that isn't in Earth's orbit.

Many secular scientists "believe" in panspermia. This is where creation scientists think it's a religion for their counterparts, i.e. faith based hypothesis (unless it's panspermia from earth to space). It is thought that these findings just look biological sort of like seeing faces on the surface of planets. If you want to claim it is alien life, then many other scientists would have to find microfossils on other meteorites and confirm. There's no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, so one crackpot hypothesis is it occurred because of panspermia.

As I already pointed out, your other stuff isn't backed up by observational science. So you have nothing. The evidence is against life and that life is rare outside of earth. The Anthropic Principle.

No, I have nothing.

This is exactly my point. I have nothing, you have nothing, no one has anything.

All we have is people making stuff up.

So, I'll stick with the "I don't know", while other people make papers saying things they can't possibly know.

So, why did you post all that crapola? OTOH, we have no life on other planets and the fine-tuning facts.

Here's one -- plate tectonics.
Why Plate Tectonics Remain Key To The Evolution Of Extraterrestrial Technology

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not only did you source the Daily Mail, but you have a study from humans, almost certainly humans who have never left this planet, and definitely humans who haven't left the pull of our own planet.

Also, it appears to be a statistical based view, rather than anything else. Still, it makes no difference, we don't know what's out there. We can make shit up, but we still don't have the fainted idea.

Creation scientists theorize there are no aliens out there because God didn't make any. This is true. No observable evidence even though many probes have been sent.

Current probes (click on link within for past probes)
List of active Solar System probes - Wikipedia

We also have SETI who's been trying to make contact for years. They've been downgraded to the point of having to get private donations (Yuri Milner's breakthrough initiatives). There is Fermi's paradox. Finally, the fine-tuning facts make the strongest argument, so much so that atheist scientists are seriously proposing multiverses. Aliens and multiverses would fall under faith-based science or religion in my book.

1) Probes. Well, we've only managed to get one towards the edge of the solar system and it wasn't designed to search for alien life.

2) SETI. So, they have been searching for life and found nothing. Does this mean there isn't life?

3) Fermi's Paradox was simply made by someone who doesn't know what's out there. It also makes far too many assumptions.

But hey, let's look at life in space.

NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite

"
NASA scientist: Evidence of alien life on meteorite"

Now, this is evidence, not proof. It might not be a fossil. But certainly there's a chance that life is flying around our sun that isn't in Earth's orbit.

Many secular scientists "believe" in panspermia. This is where creation scientists think it's a religion for their counterparts, i.e. faith based hypothesis (unless it's panspermia from earth to space). It is thought that these findings just look biological sort of like seeing faces on the surface of planets. If you want to claim it is alien life, then many other scientists would have to find microfossils on other meteorites and confirm. There's no explanation for the Cambrian explosion, so one crackpot hypothesis is it occurred because of panspermia.

As I already pointed out, your other stuff isn't backed up by observational science. So you have nothing. The evidence is against life and that life is rare outside of earth. The Anthropic Principle.

No, I have nothing.

This is exactly my point. I have nothing, you have nothing, no one has anything.

All we have is people making stuff up.

So, I'll stick with the "I don't know", while other people make papers saying things they can't possibly know.

So, why did you post all that crapola? OTOH, we have no life on other planets and the fine-tuning facts.

Here's one -- plate tectonics.
Why Plate Tectonics Remain Key To The Evolution Of Extraterrestrial Technology

Do I really need to explain this? I thought it was quite simple.

Some study that Clement posted says there is a substantial probability that there is not intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.

I pointed out that the study was written by humans. Humans who haven't managed to get a foot on Mars, let alone planets outside our solar system. The furthest we've ever sent something is to the edge of our solar system.

That leaves us with 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of the universe to discover.

Simply said, we don't know what's there. We have no fucking clue.

And yet we have people saying there's a high chance there's nothing there because... because... they get paid to produce something and they have nothing so...... they make stuff up.

 

[Taz]

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
if there were a contiguous atmosphere throughout the universe it would only be a matter of time before space travel would bring distinct life forms together no different than Columbus meeting the native Americans. as without it space travel may never become a reality.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere ...

you do realize we would be able to colonize all the planets in our solar system with open air spaceports to progress further into space with open air spaceports beyond land masses between solar systems.


I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds ...

speed is only an issue if you haven't the capability of intervening ports of entry allowed by a contiguous atmosphere to progressively expand the civilized boundary ever further into the unknown.

"It is probably fair to say that most sailing ships in the 19th and early 20th centuries averaged between 5 – 8 knots on average depending on the size of the ship, the route and the weather."

1 knot = 1.15 mps

lets be real, if you were contained inside the great ship bringing your own atmosphere how many would have made the journey traveling at an average speed of 8 mph. but at that speed in an open atmosphere did not present the least impediment.

the non contiguous atmospher without a doubt is the singlemost obstacle to traveling from our native planet. - a flaw geneses does not address.

 

[hunarcy]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

IF that is true, why are they lying to me on the History Channel??????

 

[james bond]

Since we're in religion, it's interesting the non-believers still cling to their historical science of evolution and in this case, evolutionary thinking of aliens, panspermia, exogenesis and the like. It goes to show that it's a religion. Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

They have, one was elected POTUS last November. They're orange, fat, and either slice or hook golf balls and the truth.

 

[james bond]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

It's part of their theory of evolution. One single-cell can produce an intelligent civilization after billions of years. They're wrong about the billions of years, too.

 

[Montrovant]

.
if there were a contiguous atmosphere throughout the universe it would only be a matter of time before space travel would bring distinct life forms together no different than Columbus meeting the native Americans. as without it space travel may never become a reality.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere ...

you do realize we would be able to colonize all the planets in our solar system with open air spaceports to progress further into space with open air spaceports beyond land masses between solar systems.


I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds ...

speed is only an issue if you haven't the capability of intervening ports of entry allowed by a contiguous atmosphere to progressively expand the civilized boundary ever further into the unknown.

"It is probably fair to say that most sailing ships in the 19th and early 20th centuries averaged between 5 – 8 knots on average depending on the size of the ship, the route and the weather."

1 knot = 1.15 mps

lets be real, if you were contained inside the great ship bringing your own atmosphere how many would have made the journey traveling at an average speed of 8 mph. but at that speed in an open atmosphere did not present the least impediment.

the non contiguous atmospher without a doubt is the singlemost obstacle to traveling from our native planet. - a flaw geneses does not address.

I understand the comparison to sea travel, but it doesn't really work. Space is incredibly vast. For example, the Milky Way is estimated to be about 100,000 light years across. The Voyager probe would take 1,700,000,000 years to travel that distance at the speed it is going. That's almost 2 billion years just to go from one side of the galaxy to the other. The Cosmic Distance Scale

Further, unless we come across planets with life, and life that is compatible with humanity, all food would have to be brought with whoever did the traveling. You talk about colonizing, but what would that entail? Terraforming? Domed, self-enclosed settlements? Bringing along enough soil for growth within any settlement? When sailing across unknown waters, people could at least hope that they'd eventually reach land with drinkable water, edible plants and animals. Any attempt at interstellar exploration could not expect that.

What I was really talking about with atmosphere slowing things down, though, was friction. Traveling through air causes friction, which will limit the speeds one can go at. It takes more force to move something through the friction of air, and it leads to heat on the vehicle. Once something gets into space, that is not an issue; there is almost no friction in space. Trying to travel through space if it contained an atmosphere like Earth would require untenable amounts of fuel.