Extraterrestrial life

[OldJoe]

I believe there's life out there.

In what form i don't know, if it's plants, animals or bacteria. But i find it very illogical to see our planet as the only "living".

[assassin_696]

well, the likelyhood of the universe actually being flat is so minute that i question every scientist who claims to have shown that to any degree of certainty: a single atom being placed differently would result in a non-flat universe. a single atom would ensure either a big rip, or big crunch. being able to count the atoms and the placement of all the atoms in the universe to within a "2% margin of error" is rediculous. yes, it might be so close we're arrive at an inflexion point of the graph that is almost flat for some billion years, but the likelyhood of a truely flat universe are merely a statistic. It makes no sense mathematically. It's like saying you can predict when flipping a coin and it will land on its side to within a 2% margin of error, i assume the probability is even lower. Further. you cannot confirm a flat universe, based on the heisenber uncertainty principle, because any tiny shift and the benefit of an infinite future of time, will result in a non-flat universe.

 

Now you just seem to be arguing against the data. You don't need a perfectly flat alignment of all the atoms in the universe for a flat universe, it just refers to the what geometric laws the universe obeys on a large scale. A torus shape could still constitute a flat universe. What's this condition that you keep referring to that if you don't have absolute perfect flatness everything will suddenly curl up into a sphere? I don't see why you're dragging Heisenberg into this either.

 

It doesn't matter what makes sense to you, the evidence is showing that the universe is flat. To argue against this based on vague analogy seems to make even less sense.

 

with dark energy and dark matter not being identified, and merely being theories (why do spiral galaxies not fall appart?) WIMPS and MACHOS, and so on.

 

The observations of dark energy and dark matter are indirect. Thus, the margin of error (in identifiying that which is unidentifiable) arguably lies towards the side of "there may be more of it than we know, we can only observe this much of it" Observing a "flat universe" therefore identifies the likelyhood of a sperical universe.

 

You don't think they didn't think to take this into account? The measurements of the flatness of the universe necessarily takes these factors into account because of their effects on the shape of space. Whatever they are, dark energy and dark matter are clearly having an effect on the large scale structure and so if measurements of the large scale structure show flatness then they must have had an effect and been taken into account.

 

Matter or energy beyond light speed cannot be measured below light speed. That is a fundemental concept in the theory of relativity. Thus, this eventual mass and energy would also bring the universe out of a flat model, into a rounded model.

 

Well the existence of tachyons has never been proven or disproven so to postulate their existence to make the universe rounded seems a little silly, there's also a lot of theoretical arguments against their existence but whatever. Studies have looked for the evidence of tachyons, so I don't know what fundamental concept of relativity you're referring to since a passing faster than light particle would be observable.

 

The observed universe is aproximately equal to the critical density, the unobserved universe taken into account leads to a logical belief in a round universe. it would be suicide for a scientist to claim they had no clue, after billions of funding have been spent, and unscientific, as the unobserved hasn't been observed yet. the fundemental physical model neccessitates the existence of the higgs particle, and all antiparticles that haven't been found yet. unless that model is completely incorrect, there is much matter and anti-matter still to be found. This all leads to a round universe.

 

Why the hell are you dragging the Higgs field into this now? We haven't detected individual Higgs particles but if they exist and have mass then they will have been 'counted' by the experiments that look at the shape of the universe. Again, they didn't determine whether or not the universe is flat by looking at every single particle.

[Skeptical]

What are these "chances" that I keep reading about? >.> I had no idea that this was all random <.<

 

So what are you saying; that it isn't random? That it's somehow predestined?

lol religion

 

This isn't a 'diss-religion' topic. People have the right to believe in whatever the hell they want without being mocked.

 

Sorry, but I don't agree: people have the right to believe in whatever the hell they want without being persecuted.

 

It is my inalienable duty as a militant atheist to mock, insult and decry religions to the affront of all individuals who are willfully blinded by their ignorance, with the exception of children and the mentally ill or truly broken-spirited.

 

Would I ever cause physical harm to or transgress on the rights of an individual, or discriminate against one of The Ignorant? Absolutely not.

 

On topic, I have to say that it's funny that I stumbled across this, since I'm currently working on modifying Drake's Equation to apply it to rather more practical endeavors, with could help to determine it's actual scope of effective utility.

[Alg]

It is my inalienable duty as a militant atheist to mock, insult and decry religions to the affront of all individuals who are willfully blinded by their ignorance, with the exception of children and the mentally ill or truly broken-spirited.

So in short it's your duty to embody everything that people hate about atheists?

[Skeptical]

It is my inalienable duty as a militant atheist to mock, insult and decry religions to the affront of all individuals who are willfully blinded by their ignorance, with the exception of children and the mentally ill or truly broken-spirited.

So in short it's your duty to embody everything that people hate about atheists?

 

Yes, if it happens to be that people have a problem with an intense hatred of ignorance.

[Distracted]

I don't get it... So you think it's somehow your duty to mock people that are religious? Except for children, handicapped and broken spirited? You're an [wagon].

[Alg]

Yes, if it happens to be that people have a problem with an intense hatred of ignorance.

No, it's the preaching and the arrogance. You're no different than theist preachers. You feel that the only life worth living is the one in line with your beliefs and that anyone who doesn't feel the same is beneath you.

[Skeptical]

Yes, if it happens to be that people have a problem with an intense hatred of ignorance.

No, it's the preaching and the arrogance. You're no different than theist preachers. You feel that the only life worth living is the one in line with your beliefs and that anyone who doesn't feel the same is beneath you.

 

No, it's not the fact that their life of beliefs are less "valuable" however you care to quantify that statement, it's that their actions have a negative effect on us as a whole.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

 

Why should the quality of life for everyone be assigned less value than the ignorant ramblings of a few, indoctrinated, deluded individuals?

 

I don't preach. I present whatever evidence I have for the opinion that is best supported by scientific and moral fact. I also don't spend any of my time stealing money from the elderly, molesting children or blathering on about moral degradation while I blatantly lie to support the Regime that beats us all down, all because I believe I have a moral duty that outweighs the rights of any individual.

 

I can't begin to explain to you the abuse, both physical and mental that has been laid upon me as a result of my beliefs. I've never sworn at a theist, I've never laid a hand upon them. But will I stand silently by while they lie to me, attack my beliefs, and teach children that the big man is the sky is the reason they need to eat their vegetables?

[Skeptical]

I don't get it... So you think it's somehow your duty to mock people that are religious? Except for children, handicapped and broken spirited? You're an [wagon].

 

Duty is a relative term: being a nihilist, I don't find any innate purpose in life, but instead use the word to describe a value that I've assigned to myself.

 

I will not stand by while people are indoctrinated, lives made miserable and politicorp agendas furthered simply because I should. I don't stand against it because I seek iconoclasm (although I welcome the label) I don't fight it wherever I can because I believe that I'm superior; I do it because it's the right thing to do.

[Alg]

No, it's not the fact that their life of beliefs are less "valuable" however you care to quantify that statement, it's that their actions have a negative effect on us as a whole.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

And this is the value that you've placed on it: inherently harmful to society.

 

Why should the quality of life for everyone be assigned less value than the ignorant ramblings of a few, indoctrinated, deluded individuals?

Tell me then how things will change if you were in power. Would it be your truth that we'd be indoctrinated with?

 

I don't preach. I present whatever evidence I have for the opinion that is best supported by scientific and moral fact. I also don't spend any of my time stealing money from the elderly, molesting children or blathering on about moral degradation while I blatantly lie to support the Regime that beats us all down, all because I believe I have a moral duty that outweighs the rights of any individual.

Individuals that claim to have a 'moral duty' to spread a message, any message, are the ones that preach. That includes you. And believing that your duty outweighs the rights of any individual shows how little you think of the individual in question.

The most dangerous thought you can have is not that you're right and they're wrong, it's that you are inherently superior because of it.

 

I can't begin to explain to you the abuse, both physical and mental that has been laid upon me as a result of my beliefs. I've never sworn at a theist, I've never laid a hand upon them. But will I stand silently by while they lie to me, attack my beliefs, and teach children that the big man is the sky is the reason they need to eat their vegetables?

As you claim, you'll mock them for it... That is attacking their beliefs. So, what's the difference? Yours is 'true'? The difference here is that you're doing the same as they have done except on the internet where they can't see it.

 

I can say I've derailed threads before, but never like this. New personal best.

[Skeptical]

No, it's not the fact that their life of beliefs are less "valuable" however you care to quantify that statement, it's that their actions have a negative effect on us as a whole.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

And this is the value that you've placed on it: inherently harmful to society.

Yes, I have a strong belief that religion often is. It's not evil; it's just an often harmful delusion.

 

Why should the quality of life for everyone be assigned less value than the ignorant ramblings of a few, indoctrinated, deluded individuals?

Tell me then how things will change if you were in power. Would it be your truth that we'd be indoctrinated with?

No. Children would not be indoctrinated with anything. They would be provided with basic tools to evaluate the world around them in a logical manner, and then abandoned to their own decision.

 

I don't preach. I present whatever evidence I have for the opinion that is best supported by scientific and moral fact. I also don't spend any of my time stealing money from the elderly, molesting children or blathering on about moral degradation while I blatantly lie to support the Regime that beats us all down, all because I believe I have a moral duty that outweighs the rights of any individual.

Individuals that claim to have a 'moral duty' to spread a message, any message, are the ones that preach. That includes you. And believing that your duty outweighs the rights of any individual shows how little you think of the individual in question.

The most dangerous thought you can have is not that you're right and they're wrong, it's that you are inherently superior because of it.

I have already stated multiple times that I would never transgress on the rights of anyone, regardless of religion or beliefs. I have also stated that I don't consider anyone superior or inferior according to beliefs. And please, don't respond with the standard sarcastic quote from Animal Farm.

 

I can't begin to explain to you the abuse, both physical and mental that has been laid upon me as a result of my beliefs. I've never sworn at a theist, I've never laid a hand upon them. But will I stand silently by while they lie to me, attack my beliefs, and teach children that the big man is the sky is the reason they need to eat their vegetables?

As you claim, you'll mock them for it... That is attacking their beliefs. So, what's the difference? Yours is 'true'? The difference here is that you're doing the same as they have done except on the internet where they can't see it.

Have I sworn at you? Have I debased you, assaulted you, denied your equality or humanity, said your beliefs made you less of an individual? No. I've just said that religion is a delusion that the masses adhere to because of a sense of fear, ignorance and hatred of others that has been carefully pruned and tended to by our culture and twisted sense of morality.

[Alg]

No. Children would not be indoctrinated with anything. They would be provided with basic tools to evaluate the world around them in a logical manner, and then abandoned to their own decision.

Ideally. It never really works that way in practice. What you call indoctrination I call learning. Abandoning people to make their own decisions would not work, because as you acknowledge (At least I think you would) people would rather cling to an easier ideology where they won't have to. That's why people organize in groups, to avoid having to be alone in decision making.

 

I have already stated multiple times that I would never transgress on the rights of anyone, regardless of religion or beliefs. I have also stated that I don't consider anyone superior or inferior according to beliefs. And please, don't respond with the standard sarcastic quote from Animal Farm.

"all because I believe I have a moral duty that outweighs the rights of any individual."

Can't say I've ever read Animal Farm though. Been planning to for months now but never had the time. No idea if I'm quoting it or not anywhere... I could be quoting Plato for all I know.

 

Have I sworn at you? Have I debased you, assaulted you, denied your equality or humanity, said your beliefs made you less of an individual? No. I've just said that religion is a delusion that the masses adhere to because of a sense of fear, ignorance and hatred of others that has been carefully pruned and tended to by our culture and twisted sense of morality.

This is unrelated to what I was actually saying though. So you have never done that to me. I admit that. And you may very well be the better man because of it. But I'm no theist either. And in saying that their beliefs are a "delusion of the masses adhere to because of a sense of fear, ignorance and hatred of others that has been carefully pruned and tended to by our culture and twisted sense of morality" you are saying that their beliefs are inferior. Quite vividly I might add. Why, the word "delusion" alone connotes inferiority.

[Skeptical]

No. Children would not be indoctrinated with anything. They would be provided with basic tools to evaluate the world around them in a logical manner, and then abandoned to their own decision.

Ideally. It never really works that way in practice. What you call indoctrination I call learning. Abandoning people to make their own decisions would not work, because as you acknowledge (At least I think you would) people would rather cling to an easier ideology where they won't have to. That's why people organize in groups, to avoid having to be alone in decision making.

They would still have the choice, instead of being dragged into churches as defenseless children, told they must absolve themselves of uncommitted sins, spend their lives in fear of an imaginary figure or they will go to hell, and avoid free though at any costs, lest their leaders find it subversive.

 

I have already stated multiple times that I would never transgress on the rights of anyone, regardless of religion or beliefs. I have also stated that I don't consider anyone superior or inferior according to beliefs. And please, don't respond with the standard sarcastic quote from Animal Farm.

"all because I believe I have a moral duty that outweighs the rights of any individual."

Can't say I've ever read Animal Farm though. Been planning to for months now but never had the time. No idea if I'm quoting it or not anywhere... I could be quoting Plato for all I know.

My "duty" encompasses the protection of all individual's rights, regardless of my own opinion or beliefs. Sorry, but usually this is the opening that is used to prove a sarcastic comment concerning relative equality.

 

Have I sworn at you? Have I debased you, assaulted you, denied your equality or humanity, said your beliefs made you less of an individual? No. I've just said that religion is a delusion that the masses adhere to because of a sense of fear, ignorance and hatred of others that has been carefully pruned and tended to by our culture and twisted sense of morality.

This is unrelated to what I was actually saying though. So you have never done that to me. I admit that. And you may very well be the better man because of it. But I'm no theist either. And in saying that their beliefs are a "delusion of the masses adhere to because of a sense of fear, ignorance and hatred of others that has been carefully pruned and tended to by our culture and twisted sense of morality" you are saying that their beliefs are inferior. Quite vividly I might add. Why, the word "delusion" alone connotes inferiority.

 

I hold, and am certain that I will forever continue to hold, that a belief in a supernatural power based solely on the strength of your faith is inferior to a mindset that is tempered by scientific rigor and thorough consideration, which encompasses compassion and our moral beliefs.

 

However, I would never say that a theist is less of a person, or that they aren't an equal of me, beliefs or otherwise.

[mcneilp]

So, do you guys believe in aliens or not?

[Skeptical]

So do you guys believe in aliens or not?

 

Ah, sorry to drift so far off topic.

 

I believe that Drake's equation is both brilliant and untestable, although it seems likely that evolution will not restrict itself to our sole dimension of thought: if we assume only water and carbon based life forms can exist, the odds are considerably lower. Perhaps future research into the actual dimensions of the universe will help us understand the probability.

 

If the universe is truly infinite (possible, but my head starts to spin when I consider the implications) then there are certainly a truly infinite number of life forms. If not, which I personally find more like (but perhaps even more confusing) then I stand towards the side of thinking other life is quite nearly guaranteed, although unlikely to be discovered or otherwise interacted with by us.

[Alg]

I don't know enough to give a mathematical answer, but it does seem like the universe is more than big enough for it to be a guarantee whether it's infinite or not. Whether or not we find it depends on how far it reaches or how close it is.

 

Sometimes the off topic digressions are the best, though... :lol: Though I do apologize for any offensive remarks.

[Skeptical]

I don't know enough to give a mathematical answer, but it does seem like the universe is more than big enough for it to be a guarantee whether it's infinite or not. Whether or not we find it depends on how far it reaches or how close it is.

 

Sometimes the off topic digressions are the best, though... :lol: Though I do apologize for any offensive remarks.

 

I second that.

 

I think that we both stayed well within the limits of a semi-polite debate, which TIF is usually OK with.

[Giordano]

I can't see a reason why the universe is finite. Nor can I see a reason for the Big Bang. A collision of mutliple universes/dimensions, fine, but just out of the blue? Naw.

 

I know this is going to be drowned with scientific theories, facts, and studies, but I'm not gonna read them just to let you know. :mellow:

[das]

 

I believe

[Rainy_Day]

I fail to believe that with all the many universes out there, we are the best life has to offer. I'm sure there are many, many different civilisations in other universes. Though what I doubt is that they would visit us casually, and never make any real contact. :mellow:

[Distracted]

 

I believe

 

That image won't load for me lol.

[Adam007]

There is undoubtedly life out there, at least microorganisms. But I'm assuming we're talking about intelligent life. In my opinion, there is a reason we haven't been contacted.

 

1. When you think about most intelligent life, it is not a question of where, but when. Most life that evolves to have technology like our own (long distance communication, advanced weaponry). Societies that have the need for weaponry, that have the need to assert themselves amongst others within their own society, are ultimately doomed to a short existence. Humanity has not been around long. Humanity with the ability to communicate over planetary distances has been around for only a quarter millennium. The thing is, as long as we have the type of weapons we do, we won't be around for long. Most other societies that have that technology also will end up destroying themselves quickly in the grand scheme of things. Our current existence will leave no impact on the history of the universe.

 

2. That leaves us with intelligent life that does not destroy itself. Here we have two categories. One is life like dolphins and chimpanzees. They have been shown to have intelligent life, they just perceive things differently than we do as we measure their intelligence relative to our own. On other planets there are surely intelligent creatures like these who just perceive their world with likely different senses than we do. We are a water based planet, and the possibilities of different constructions of life are out of our minds capacities to imagine.

 

3. This leaves us with one last type of society. Intelligent life capable of communicating with other planets that has not managed to destroy themselves. For whatever reason, they managed to evolve to become complete altruists, never with an urge to compete with other life forms for resources. Is this possible? Who knows. But if such a society exists, they are much more enlightened than we are. They know we exist and may have visited, but they have no reason to contact us. And being culturally enlightened, they would not want to contaminate our collective consciousness with their own existence as it would cause some chaos in our world. They may be aware of us, but we're not aware of them.