I don't think people visit these forums just for the search of extraterrestrial intelligence. People who are interested in astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology,... visit the forums as well.

Sure, but aren't most people that post here also lending some of their computation power to the SETI project?

Incorrect. By stating that something doesn't exist simply means you haven't found a means to believe it does. Fortunately, your second statement is not how science works. We don't use "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", rather, we use observation based on the physical world.

I never suggested that science works on what is considered to be a logical fallacy. I suggested thats what an awful lot of Atheists do when they try to back up their claim that God doesn't exist. Honestly, science holds no opinion over the existence of God. There is simply no data available that would indicate either Theists or Atheists are right. Science does not make statements over things it has no data on.

The difference that you are not seeing is between approaching the question from a philosophical viewpoint and an empirical viewpoint. By being completely agnostic about Unicorns and iron skillets, saying they could exist somewhere, you are merely avoiding the question and answering it only with philosophy.

By refusing to infer a conclusion of any kind only shows an unwillingness and a fear to be wrong. Sure, it is possible that we could find Unicorns on another planet, and if/when we do, we then have reason to change the conclusion.

I'm refusing to reach a conclusion? I'm pretty sure I stated that you would be entirely correct to say that there are no iron skillets floating in Earths orbit if after observing our orbit you couldn't find one. I'm pretty sure I just reached a conclusion there. But you are right, I'm unwilling to take such limited observations and create broad generalizing statements based on that. That would simply be wrong and unreasonable. How could I make conclusions that apply to other planets orbits in other solar systems if we haven't been able to observe those orbits in detail?

I'm not answering with philosophy, I'm answering with a 'I don't know'. I don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer in the light of having so little information on another planets orbit. Though it should spur your curiosity and try to make you find a way to study other planets orbits in more detail.

Agreed. But can we know truth? Must we be afraid to conclude and be incorrect? Our constant need to search, gather data, compile it, and categorize it means that every observation brings us one step closer to the truth, but it will always be an approximation. Thus is the nature of our existence and our reality.

Deductive logic does not have this problem and does not result in approximations. Hence, our endeavors should be to deduce, rather than to infer.
And sure, we shouldn't be afraid to be wrong. Far from it, we should strive to prove ourselves wrong (falsification is one of the most important principles in science). But that doesn't mean that we should simply infer great generalizations and accept them as accurate. That is the other problem of relying to much on inferential logic, if you only get approximations and use those approximations to infer even more approximations, you start building approximation upon approximation until at some point all the 'almost accurate' data results in something entirely wrong.

I fully agree with your example here, except for the conclusion. Rather than "turned into factually wrong nonsense", it was the best conclusion based upon the available data, and it turned out to be incorrect. The "nonsense" commentary is purely an opinionated and judgmental view once hindsight becomes 20/20.

Well it was a little premature to state that all swans are white when you only have data on swans in Europe. You would have been completely right, even after the discovery of black swans in Australia if you had stated that all swans in Europe are white and left it at that.

You fell into your own trap of using inferential logic to draw conclusion about me and my opinions.

When did I ever say that we shouldn't look for any of the above? Where did I say that one couldn't search for God? Where did I say that one couldn't search for Unicorns on another planet? Where did I saw that people couldn't search other planets for orbiting skillets? And where did I say that we shouldn't look for ETI?

If someone wants to spend their lives searching for more data about any of the above, I have no problems with it. People have a right to pursue their own searches with whatever means they have. I draw the line when religious dogma interferes with science's attempt to discover the Universe unfettered and unimpeded.

You have incorrectly inferred from a small discussion here on a message board my entire philosophical approach. You think that by stating a lack of believe of the existence of something, that we mustn't waste our time on it. Quite the contrary, even when we think we know something, we should always double-check our work. It's no surprise that most major discoveries are completely by accident, and so it will continue to be that way while we search for the truth.

Heh, I took you stating that its logical to state that something does not exist based on the lack of observations of it as something not really worth the time pursuing (which it usually means when other people say it). Well then, a perfect practical example of the dangers of inferential logic and the approximations it produces. You are right, I did fell into the inferential trap :)

The problem with that is that the core of any religion, the existence of God, has not been ...

Not quite true. Buddhism and Taoism have no "God".

True, but they too have aspects that can't be proven or disproven. In Buddhism this is for example the whole reincarnation aspect as well as reaching the final state which Buddhist try to achieve. And in Taoism, it is literally stated that it can't be proven (The tau (reason) which can be tau-ed (reasoned) is not the Eternal Tau (Reason). The name which can be named is not the Eternal Name-taken from a translation of the Tao Te Ching).

I don't think people visit these forums just for the search of extraterrestrial intelligence. People who are interested in astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology,... visit the forums as well.

Sure, but aren't most people that post here also lending some of their computation power to the SETI project?

Of course! And most of them not only to the Seti project.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Of course! And most of them not only to the Seti project.

Well my point was that so far there is about just as much evidence to support the idea of intelligent alien life as there is for God (that is to say, there is no evidence). It would thus be reasonable to say that you do not believe in intelligent alien life, and from there it follows that intelligent alien life does not exist. I then wondered why one would be part of a project that actively searches for alien life, as most people say that if they think something does not exist, they do not begin to actively look for a contradiction.

But as that person pointed out, he is not like other people and he does look for things that can overturn his convictions (I assume he is he and not she, please correct me if I'm wrong, also why no screen name?).

Of course! And most of them not only to the Seti project.

Well my point was that so far there is about just as much evidence to support the idea of intelligent alien life as there is for God (that is to say, there is no evidence). It would thus be reasonable to say that you do not believe in intelligent alien life, and from there it follows that intelligent alien life does not exist. I then wondered why one would be part of a project that actively searches for alien life, as most people say that if they think something does not exist, they do not begin to actively look for a contradiction.

...

Actually there is enough evidence to suggest there is a chance. because its already happened once. When something happens once it is no longer feasible to say its impossible.

There in no evidence for god. In fact all the so called "evidence" is contradictory and delusional enough to make the whole idea of a god ludicrous. So Atheists have a more solid footing to claim there is no god than religious folk do to say there is a god. I also suspect that in the face of evidence that Atheists would change their minds, but as I've seen here in this forum, evidence means little to some religious people.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Of course! And most of them not only to the Seti project.

Well my point was that so far there is about just as much evidence to support the idea of intelligent alien life as there is for God (that is to say, there is no evidence). It would thus be reasonable to say that you do not believe in intelligent alien life, and from there it follows that intelligent alien life does not exist. I then wondered why one would be part of a project that actively searches for alien life, as most people say that if they think something does not exist, they do not begin to actively look for a contradiction.

But as that person pointed out, he is not like other people and he does look for things that can overturn his convictions (I assume he is he and not she, please correct me if I'm wrong, also why no screen name?).

We like to express ourselves in different ways around here. It's just a passion for some people:) Getting other point of views on subjects is one thing.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Incorrect. By stating that something doesn't exist simply means you haven't found a means to believe it does. Fortunately, your second statement is not how science works. We don't use "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", rather, we use observation based on the physical world.

I never suggested that science works on what is considered to be a logical fallacy. I suggested thats what an awful lot of Atheists do when they try to back up their claim that God doesn't exist.

A claim doesn't need to be proven in the negative. If an Atheist cites a lack of evidence, that should be sufficient enough until new data is available.

Honestly, science holds no opinion over the existence of God. There is simply no data available that would indicate either Theists or Atheists are right. Science does not make statements over things it has no data on.

Agreed.

The difference that you are not seeing is between approaching the question from a philosophical viewpoint and an empirical viewpoint. By being completely agnostic about Unicorns and iron skillets, saying they could exist somewhere, you are merely avoiding the question and answering it only with philosophy.

By refusing to infer a conclusion of any kind only shows an unwillingness and a fear to be wrong. Sure, it is possible that we could find Unicorns on another planet, and if/when we do, we then have reason to change the conclusion.

I'm refusing to reach a conclusion? I'm pretty sure I stated that you would be entirely correct to say that there are no iron skillets floating in Earths orbit if after observing our orbit you couldn't find one. I'm pretty sure I just reached a conclusion there. But you are right, I'm unwilling to take such limited observations and create broad generalizing statements based on that. That would simply be wrong and unreasonable. How could I make conclusions that apply to other planets orbits in other solar systems if we haven't been able to observe those orbits in detail?

I'm not answering with philosophy, I'm answering with a 'I don't know'. I don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer in the light of having so little information on another planets orbit. Though it should spur your curiosity and try to make you find a way to study other planets orbits in more detail.

"I don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer to the empirical question "Is there a God?". But it isn't answering the epistemological question in the same. "Do you believe there's a God?" Answering "I don't know" is also acceptable, as I previously stated, but by stating doubt, you are already one step closer to Atheism. And as a history of religions teacher once told me, you can really only remain on the fence for so long. Eventually, if you answer "I don't know" long enough, it may as well be "no".

Agreed. But can we know truth? Must we be afraid to conclude and be incorrect? Our constant need to search, gather data, compile it, and categorize it means that every observation brings us one step closer to the truth, but it will always be an approximation. Thus is the nature of our existence and our reality.

Deductive logic does not have this problem and does not result in approximations. Hence, our endeavors should be to deduce, rather than to infer.
And sure, we shouldn't be afraid to be wrong. Far from it, we should strive to prove ourselves wrong (falsification is one of the most important principles in science). But that doesn't mean that we should simply infer great generalizations and accept them as accurate. That is the other problem of relying to much on inferential logic, if you only get approximations and use those approximations to infer even more approximations, you start building approximation upon approximation until at some point all the 'almost accurate' data results in something entirely wrong.

The problem with relying on any form of logic is that they are limited to our ability to perceive reality. Deductive logic still relies on assumptions of what we believe we "know" made at the time of observation and builds upon those assumptions until they are proven wrong, which still results in only an approximation of reality. It is really no superior to inferential logic as you suggest, and one can just as easily deduce that due to lack of supporting evidence, God doesn't exist. It is up to the individual to decide how generalized and accurate that conclusion is. If we accept that not all conclusions are concrete, then we can move away from the idea that inferential logic, or indeed any logic, is infallible and complete. We can then move forward with building our framework of reality by accepting that at any given moment, our previously held assumptions or inferences were incorrect.

I fully agree with your example here, except for the conclusion. Rather than "turned into factually wrong nonsense", it was the best conclusion based upon the available data, and it turned out to be incorrect. The "nonsense" commentary is purely an opinionated and judgmental view once hindsight becomes 20/20.

Well it was a little premature to state that all swans are white when you only have data on swans in Europe. You would have been completely right, even after the discovery of black swans in Australia if you had stated that all swans in Europe are white and left it at that.

If you carry that logic through to its conclusion, and given your previous examples of "it could exist somewhere else", any statement could be labeled "premature". Or, we can just accept it for what it was, as I said, a conclusion made based upon the available data. Most people accept the natural caveat that at any given moment, new data will invalidate the previously held conclusion.

Heh, I took you stating that its logical to state that something does not exist based on the lack of observations of it as something not really worth the time pursuing (which it usually means when other people say it). Well then, a perfect practical example of the dangers of inferential logic and the approximations it produces. You are right, I did fell into the inferential trap :)

...and I gave you new data which (hopefully) has altered your conclusion about me. ;-) But aren't you also making sweeping generalizations when you say "which it usually means when other people say it"?

There [is] no evidence for god. In fact all the so called "evidence" is contradictory and delusional enough to make the whole idea of a god ludicrous. So Atheists have a more solid footing to claim there is no god than religious folk do to say there is a god. I also suspect that in the face of evidence that Atheists would change their minds, but as I've seen here in this forum, evidence means little to some religious people.

Agreed.

Actually there is enough evidence to suggest there is a chance. because its already happened once. When something happens once it is no longer feasible to say its impossible.

Point taken.

There in no evidence for god. In fact all the so called "evidence" is contradictory and delusional enough to make the whole idea of a god ludicrous. So Atheists have a more solid footing to claim there is no god than religious folk do to say there is a god. I also suspect that in the face of evidence that Atheists would change their minds, but as I've seen here in this forum, evidence means little to some religious people.

While indeed, there is no evidence for God, there is also no evidence against it. In the end, both Atheism and Theism have absolute nothing that backs up their idea of either an universe with or without a God. The whole thing comes down to personal choice. What do you see when you have a choice where both positions have nothing in the form of tangible evidence? Some folks will say they see no reason to believe in God, others will say they see no reason not to believe in God.

And I'm afraid I'm going to have disagree with your assertion that Atheists are more likely to be open minded about being proven wrong. I've talked to enough of them to know that a significant portion are as close minded and dogmatic as their religious counterparts, mindlessly quoting Dawkins, Hitchens and those tired anti-theists arguments over and over again. For those people Atheism has simply become part of their identity, and admitting that they were wrong about it would come down to admitting that part of how they see themselves was wrong. Very few people are capable of such feats of introspection and dropping their parts of their identity on the fly just like that.

Why do you think that we have such a hard time convincing parts of humanity that they actually evolved, rather than being put here a few thousand years ago by God? Because people who are religious are somehow incapable of reason and logic? Of course not. Its just cognitive dissonance and all humans get that.

While indeed, there is no evidence for God, there is also no evidence against it. In the end, both Atheism and Theism have absolute nothing that backs up their idea of either an universe with or without a God.

While there may be no direct evidence that there is no God, all the previous claims about God's existence have slowly been proven incorrect through many findings in science. Traditionally, proof falls upon the claimer to prove something exists. A claim that something doesn't exist because the other party hasn't provided any convincing evidence is a perfectly acceptable position.

While indeed, there is no evidence for God, there is also no evidence against it. In the end, both Atheism and Theism have absolute nothing that backs up their idea of either an universe with or without a God. The whole thing comes down to personal choice. What do you see when you have a choice where both positions have nothing in the form of tangible evidence? Some folks will say they see no reason to believe in God, others will say they see no reason not to believe in God.

You can believe whatever you want for all I care. Just keep it out of science class and don't use public money to indoctrinate people with it. Don't knock on my door trying to sell me Jesus. Don't start wars because of it and don't torture, murder and abuse people because of it. Don't oppress women because of it and don't treat me as a second class citizen because I don't hold your silly views. Otherwise I'm totally cool with it.

And I'm afraid I'm going to have disagree with your assertion that Atheists are more likely to be open minded about being proven wrong. I've talked to enough of them to know that a significant portion are as close minded and dogmatic as their religious counterparts, mindlessly quoting Dawkins, Hitchens and those tired anti-theists arguments over and over again. For those people Atheism has simply become part of their identity, and admitting that they were wrong about it would come down to admitting that part of how they see themselves was wrong. Very few people are capable of such feats of introspection and dropping their parts of their identity on the fly just like that.

Most Atheists end up as Atheists because of introspection. Remember, in most of the world belief in god is the default because of the culture. If people come to atheism its because they had to drop a part of their identity and face reality.

Why do you think that we have such a hard time convincing parts of humanity that they actually evolved, rather than being put here a few thousand years ago by God? Because people who are religious are somehow incapable of reason and logic? Of course not. Its just cognitive dissonance and all humans get that.

It could be dogmatism. I don't disagree with you, but a lot of it could just be because you are trying to force people to believe something stupid and going on and on about it. That tends to get up people's noses.

Atheism isn't a belief. I don't 'believe' there is no god. I find the idea that there is a god stupid and embarrassing. Again, I don't 'believe' there is no god. I simply can't bring myself to believe there is one. Its such a daft and unnecessary idea.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Most Atheists end up as Atheists because of introspection. Remember, in most of the world belief in god is the default because of the culture. If people come to atheism its because they had to drop a part of their identity and face reality.

Well said.

I'm quite happy to be a self confessed Agnostic.

It's OK to be "Atheist light". :-P

While there may be no direct evidence that there is no God, all the previous claims about God's existence have slowly been proven incorrect through many findings in science. Traditionally, proof falls upon the claimer to prove something exists. A claim that something doesn't exist because the other party hasn't provided any convincing evidence is a perfectly acceptable position.

Of course its an acceptable position. It however, has no more truth behind it than the other guys position.

Also, the only thing that has been proven incorrect when it comes to God are some of the stories specific religions have build around him. Sure, Genesis is not actual history, but does that really disprove the existence of God? No, those stories are irrelevant.

Most Atheists end up as Atheists because of introspection. Remember, in most of the world belief in god is the default because of the culture. If people come to atheism its because they had to drop a part of their identity and face reality.

In a number of cases yes, but by now there are plenty of people who are born atheist (especially in Europe). Also, there are plenty of Atheists who have turned it into an active part of their identity, and as a result react just as hostile to people disagreeing with their position as religious extremists.
So to say that Atheists are somehow 'better' then other people is just not the case. You got nice people who are atheist and you got incredible d-bags who are atheist, just like you got nice religious people and insufferable d-bag religious people.

Atheism isn't a belief. I don't 'believe' there is no god. I find the idea that there is a god stupid and embarrassing. Again, I don't 'believe' there is no god. I simply can't bring myself to believe there is one. Its such a daft and unnecessary idea.

That depends, like I said, there are two kinds of atheists. The people who don't believe in God and the people who believe that there is no God. Indeed, the first one is not a belief but the second one really is. That is not to say that belief is unreasonable, but since there is simply no evidence to prove or disprove this position it is a belief.

While there may be no direct evidence that there is no God, all the previous claims about God's existence have slowly been proven incorrect through many findings in science. Traditionally, proof falls upon the claimer to prove something exists. A claim that something doesn't exist because the other party hasn't provided any convincing evidence is a perfectly acceptable position.

Of course its an acceptable position. It however, has no more truth behind it than the other guys position.

Also, the only thing that has been proven incorrect when it comes to God are some of the stories specific religions have build around him. Sure, Genesis is not actual history, but does that really disprove the existence of God? No, those stories are irrelevant.

If the stories are incorrect, then it follows that likely the primary figure of those stories is just as incorrect. If you want truth, head down to your local theology classroom. If you want facts, you turn to evidence based reasoning. Until there's evidence and reason to believe, a position in the contrary is a perfectly rational one.

Atheism isn't a belief. I don't 'believe' there is no god. I find the idea that there is a god stupid and embarrassing. Again, I don't 'believe' there is no god. I simply can't bring myself to believe there is one. Its such a daft and unnecessary idea.

That depends, like I said, there are two kinds of atheists. The people who don't believe in God and the people who believe that there is no God. Indeed, the first one is not a belief but the second one really is. That is not to say that belief is unreasonable, but since there is simply no evidence to prove or disprove this position it is a belief.

Atheists simply see no reason to believe, so they do not believe in a god. You can't have a "belief" in nothing.

If the stories are incorrect, then it follows that likely the primary figure of those stories is just as incorrect. If you want truth, head down to your local theology classroom. If you want facts, you turn to evidence based reasoning. Until there's evidence and reason to believe, a position in the contrary is a perfectly rational one.

Not necessarily. The stories could have also been exaggerated or modified, making parts of it fiction and other parts based on history. Or when a story deals with certain concepts through fiction, it makes the actors fictional, but the concept could be entirely real. God is not so much an actor as it is a concept.

And again, I never said that not believing is not rational.

Atheists simply see no reason to believe, so they do not believe in a god. You can't have a "belief" in nothing.

Again, you have two kinds of Atheists. The ones you describe here, the agnostic Atheist, who sees no reason to believe in God, but who leaves the possibility open that somewhere there might be one (essentially he allows for the possibility of being wrong). And you have the Atheist who says there is no God, anywhere, no possibility for it either, and because of that doesn't believe in one. The second one does believe in something, namely the idea that there is no God and that there can't be one either. That is a belief given the fact that its not conclusively proven.