What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Why would Americans be more likely to see aliens?

Now, that's the correct question.[/b]

You're quite shameless. I point out that Americans are by no means the only people to "see aliens", mentioning Zimbabwe as a case in point, and you turn it around by isolating my question as if it somehow proves your point. Tut, tut.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Drake Equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

The number of known communicating civilisations in our own galaxy, i.e. one (the human race) is about a million times higher than our current estimates. Which makes it extremely unlikely another one exists in our own galaxy. Given that, the huge interstellar distances (I do not beli ...[text shortened]... re isn't enough time for us to encounter an alien race (who will have the same problem as us).

Did you read this bit?

"The remarkable thing about the Drake equation is that by plugging in apparently fairly plausible values for each of the parameters above, the resultant expectant value of N is generally often >> 1. This has provided considerable motivation for the SETI movement. However, this conflicts with the currently observed value of N = 1 — one observed civilization in the entire universe. Other assumptions give values of N that are

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And I have demonstrated why the analogy doesn't work a few pages back.

As to what you say I claimed, I simply never claimed it. Since, as you say, it's in print in front of everybody it should be clear what I did and did not claim.

You're full of s**t, you claimed that it was arrogant and ignorant for someone to say that we've never met God unless and until every single claim was "debunked". Then you claimed I was misconstruing your claim LH: "you assert that I claimed that people who do not believe in those who claim to see God are ignorant and arrogant. I claimed no such thing." You continue to be an unrepetent liar.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes, and originally I was talking about people who've directly encountered alien beings. But I have to do with the evidence available to me. You can discount both the figures by a reasonable constant factor if you want.

EDIT: Your edit doesn't change what I've written above.

Pathetic!! There's no logical reason to "discount both figures by a reasonable constant factor". You have to present some number of people who claimed to see God, not have some vaguely worded "mystical experience" since it is your claim that many more people have claimed to see God than claimed to see aliens. I bet the exact opposite is true at least in western countries. To me, both groups are equally nuts and the analogy holds.

Originally posted by stocken
Well, by now. And good luck with that contempt of yours.

This is all well and good, all this ad hominum bs but to get back to
the actual thread, whether I as an agnostic or atheist, not sure
which I am from day to day, believe or not is not going to make
the differance of a lighted match in a snowstorm about what a
proported god would or would not be like and so its just like voodoo
or hoodoo, belief is a strong force in itself, it lends itself to be sucked
in to someone ELSES political forays and gives a community
continuity whether atheists like it or not. Its the belief that is tapped
by would-be power mongers like Paul, like David Coresh, like
Jim Jones, like Pat Robertson, like Mohammed, like Ba haula (I know
I misspelled it), like L. Ron Hubbard who created Scientology on
a brag at a party. The upper ranks of almost all religions have
agendas they would never speak of in public, and it sure as hell
has nothing to do with true spirituality.
What if through scientific research we discovered the way to true
spirituality required we leave the planet and set up shop on one
of the moons of Pluto and meditated on the star Sirius? Just a
thought experiment here, folks, but what if it was proven scientifically
all the present religions on earth were as full of itshay as the
proverbial thanksgiving turkey? I doubt very much if the
upper ranks of all those religions would buy into it and go the
way the scientists proved is the true way to enlightenment, not that
I am holding my breath for such a development but we are starting
to see with telescopes of various kinds all the way back to the
beginning of our universe and maybe before that and may be coming
to the conclusion our visible universe is only one of millions or more,
thus making yet another jolt to the anthrocentric idea of the earth
as the center of it all. Then it was our solar system, then it was realized
there were probably many solar systems, but by god, the milky
way is the center of it all.
Then we find clusters of galaxies, then clusters of clusters,
now beginning to work out what the visible universe was a its birth,
now maybe thinking even our UNIVERSE is not the center of it all.
With every such shift in our perspective, the idea of a god that
looks over us with parental pride will have to fade and something
more real replace it. Think about it. We would have to by definition
only get the partial attention of this proported god which would by
definition have to be dealing with the rest of the universe or
universes SIMULTANEOUSLY, so suppose for the sake of arguement
there are a trillion universes, our whole universe would therefore
only get one trillionth of this gods attention.
Then suppose in OUR universe, there are a trillion civilizations,
we would by definition only get one trillionth of THAT trillionth
of this gods attention focussed on OUR universe.
Try thinking that one through, all you super religious ones out there,
try to think through the implications of that dilution.
But of course you would answer god is greater than all that and even
if we only got a trillionth of a trillionth of its attention, its still greater
than all the works of mankind. Right?
But think about the rediculousness of a god HAVING to personally
intervene in a trillion universes just to keep things running.
Pretty pathetic resulting universe set, then don't you think?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're full of s**t, you claimed that it was arrogant and ignorant for someone to say that we've never met God unless and until every single claim was "debunked". Then you claimed I was misconstruing your claim LH: "you assert that I claimed that people who do not believe in those who claim to see God are ignorant and arrogant. I claimed no such thing." You continue to be an unrepetent liar.

Look up the "Excluded Middle" fallacy. Your assertion is not an accurate representation of my claim.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Look up the "Excluded Middle" fallacy. Your assertion is not an accurate representation of my claim.

Stop acting like the snotnose you are; you're busted.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You're quite shameless. I point out that Americans are by no means the only people to "see aliens", mentioning Zimbabwe as a case in point, and you turn it around by isolating my question as if it somehow proves your point. Tut, tut.

I gave you the link to the UFO sightings maps and histograms. It's clear that Americans account for more UFO sightings than the rest of the world put together. I never claimed that Americans are the "only" people to "see aliens" (Note: all the statistics I've given are about UFO sightings - not alien sightings) - so, if you thought you were refuting something I wrote, it was a strawman.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Stop acting like the snotnose you are; you're busted.

Stop being lazy - look it up.

I said it would be ignorant and arrogant to claim that we've never met God. I never said it would be ignorant and arrogant not to believe [in] those who claim to have met God. My claim allows for a (vaguely)* agnostic position - your restatement of my claim does not.

Clear now?

EDIT: * "vaguely" because the agnostic position says that we do not know whether God exists and we cannot know whether God exists.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Did you read this bit?

"The remarkable thing about the Drake equation is that by plugging in apparently fairly plausible values for each of the parameters above, the resultant expectant value of N is generally often >> 1. This has provided considerable motivation for the SETI movement. However, this conflicts with the currently observed value of N = ...[text shortened]... one observed civilization in the entire universe. Other assumptions give values of N that are

Yes. And you might want to read the paragraph following:

This conflict is often called the Fermi paradox, after Enrico Fermi who first publicised the subject, and suggests that our understanding of what is a "conservative" value for some of the parameters may be overly optimistic or that some other factor is involved to suppress the development of intelligent space-faring life.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Pathetic!! There's no logical reason to "discount both figures by a reasonable constant factor".

Have you ever done a day's work of numerical analysis and estimation? Ever done one of those problems that go like "Estimate the number of pigeons in New York city"?

Just because one can't find the exact statistics one requires does not mean one cannot use reasonable assumptions to estimate it from the figures one can find.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Stop being lazy - look it up.

I said it would be ignorant and arrogant to claim that we've never met God. I never said it would be ignorant and arrogant not to believe [in] those who claim to have met God. My claim allows for a (vaguely)* agnostic position - your restatement of my claim does not.

Clear now?

EDIT: * "vaguely" because the agnos ...[text shortened]... ion says that we do not know whether God exists and we cannot know whether God exists.

Look this up.

LH: As an aside, you're posting a strawman again when you assert that I claimed that people who do not believe in those who claim to see God are ignorant and arrogant. I claimed no such thing. I said it would be ignorant and arrogant to dismiss it a priori.

AND

LH: LH: It is incorrect to authoritatively state that we have never met a God - plenty of people have claimed to do so throughout history. Unless every single claim has been comprehensively debunked, such a statement is, at best, ignorance and, at worst, arrogance.


Do you know what a priori means??? Putting your two statements together your brand new claim that you were allowing for an "agnostic" position is ridiculous. "Every single claim has to be comprehensively debunked" or disbelief is ignorant and/or arrogant. I luvvvvvvvvvvvv the hand stands you do when you're caught in something like this; keep squirming.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Have you ever done a day's work of numerical analysis and estimation? Ever done one of those problems that go like "Estimate the number of pigeons in New York city"?

Just because one can't find the exact statistics one requires does not mean one cannot use reasonable assumptions to estimate it from the figures one can find.

Quoting partially again. Same old BS. Read the whole post; you tried to make assumptions that were totally without any reasonable basis and you know it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Look this up.

LH: As an aside, you're posting a strawman again when you assert that I claimed that people who do not believe in those who claim to see God are ignorant and arrogant. I claimed no such thing. I said it would be ignorant and arrogant to dismiss it a priori.

AND

LH: LH: It is incorrect to authoritatively ...[text shortened]... vvvvvvvv the hand stands you do when you're caught in something like this; keep squirming.

Do you know what an Excluded Middle is?

"The logical fallacy of false dilemma, which is also known as fallacy of the excluded middle, false dichotomy, either/or dilemma or bifurcation, involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered."

Just because you don't understand basic logic, it is not the case that I'm doing "hand stands". Do your homework.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you know what an Excluded Middle is?

"The logical fallacy of false dilemma, which is also known as fallacy of the excluded middle, false dichotomy, either/or dilemma or bifurcation, involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have no ...[text shortened]... understand basic logic, it is not the case that I'm doing "hand stands". Do your homework.

LMFAO!!!!!!! Your own post left no room for any middle. Just because someone read you a book on logical fallacies doesn't mean that you're not irrational and deceitful.

Your statement was every single claim of someone seeing God had to be comprehensively debunked or those who didn't believe any of the claims were "ignorant or arrogant". Since it is factually impossible to comprehensively debunk every single claim of anything, the logical implication of your statement is everybody who doesn't believe any of those claims is "ignorant or arrogant". There is no middle group, so pretending you have some knowledge by misapplying a concept won't help.