Why don't people believe in extraterrestrial life?

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
and trying to turn an absence of evidence into evidence.

Well gee, The Shrike seems to be doin' just that. Why aren't you pounding him, eh?

Originally posted by expat2368
People who do not believe in extra-terrestrial life... those would be the knuckle dragging flat earthers who cannot see past the end of their nose.

I can go with their contention that Earth has never been visited. (Although I do not believe it for a second) but to say that there is no other intelligent life in a universe that is so big and has so many galaxies that it is totally beyond our capability to comprehend the numbers is just so beyond stupid that there are no adjectives in the English language to describe it.

Do you want to know a knuckle-dragging mentality? It's name-calling others who fail to share your beliefs, then backing your beliefs up with no evidence, and instead citing the "space is huge" argument.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Do you want to know a knuckle-dragging mentality? It's name-calling others who fail to share your beliefs, then backing your beliefs up with no evidence, and instead citing the "space is huge" argument.

Are you saying the opposite argument - that there is no ET life - is not a faith-based argument?

(And I would definitely not agree with your statement that an argument based on probabilities is necessarily vacuous).

[edit on 7-4-2010 by jclmavg]

Originally posted by jclmavg
Well gee, The Shrike seems to be doin' just that. Why aren't you pounding him, eh?

I'm not pounding anyone.

Could you please show us where The Shrike relied on special pleading to turn an absence of evidence into evidence?

Originally posted by jclmavg
Are you saying the opposite argument - that there is no ET life - is not a faith-based argument?

At brass-tacks, isn't this entire discussion at least flirting with being faith-based?

Originally posted by jclmavg
(And I would definitely not agree with your statement that an argument based on probabilities is necessarily vacuous).

Nor would I.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Do you want to know a knuckle-dragging mentality? It's name-calling others who fail to share your beliefs, then backing your beliefs up with no evidence, and instead citing the "space is huge" argument.

Are you saying the opposite argument - that there is no ET life - is not a faith-based argument?

(And I would definitely not agree with your statement that an argument based on probabilities is necessarily vacuous).

[edit on 7-4-2010 by jclmavg]

I never said there was no ET life. In fact, I recently said it was certainly possible and that we should definitely keep looking.

An argument based on probabilities does not establish proof. That poster assured himself of the definite certainty of ET life based on an argument of probabilities.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I never said there was no ET life. In fact, I recently said it was certainly possible and that we should definitely keep looking.

Well, that is not what I asked. I wanted to know if you consider each extreme position (there is/there is no ET life) faith-based.

Regarding evidentiary standards you wrote:

An argument based on probabilities does not establish proof. That poster assured himself of the definite certainty of ET life based on an argument of probabilities.

Yet science does not deal in proofs. So with that in mind, can you convincingly argue such an argument would be without merit?

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Could you please show us where The Shrike relied on special pleading to turn an absence of evidence into evidence?

You do not believe the quote here, coupled with his continuous demands for evidence to show him wrong is enough to conclude he has turned a lack of evidence into evidence? I doubt one can argue convincingly that The Shrike has taken an agnostic position on this issue.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by jclmavg]

Originally posted by jclmavg
Well, that is not what I asked. I wanted to know if you consider each extreme position (there is/there is no ET life) faith-based.

Either position could be based on faith-based foundations.

Yet science does not deal in proofs. So with that in mind, can you convincingly argue such an argument would be without merit?

I never claimed it was an argument without merit. I do find serious fault with using it as the basis for absolute certainty.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Could you please show us where The Shrike relied on special pleading to turn an absence of evidence into evidence?

You do not believe the quote here, coupled with his continuous demands for evidence to show him wrong is enough to conclude he has turned a lack of evidence into evidence? I doubt one can argue convincingly that The Shrike has taken an agnostic position on this issue.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by jclmavg]

Why don't you ask the source, me? Here is the quote you link to above:

posted on 7-4-2010 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by The Shrike
"This thread is not for the logical thinker."

So why are you here?

On the third page one of your posts includes the following phrase:

"...the bottom line is that we are all there is in "creation" and we are our own evidence."

Alas, this is a positive claim ("we are all there is") and therefore you bear a burden of proof regarding that claim. No hiding for you here. Positive claims need to be supported with evidence, otherwise you're just practicing pseudoskepticism.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by jclmavg]

Let's take it one at a time. First, the title of the thread: "Why don't people believe in extraterrestrial life?" I'm not a believer. I don't have one believing bone in me. Why? Because beliefs are the result of mental conditioning. Religion depends on mental conditioning to result in beliefs. Since I'm not mentally conditioned I don't have a belief system. I either know or I don't know. I know that, so far, we are the only life in the universe or "creation." There is no evidence to support other life. No one has any evidence since none has been produced. Therefore, you can speculate all you want and you can quote Sagan, Drake, etc. THEY have not produced any evidence of other than human life. They speculate. Speculating is not evidence.

Therefore, it isn't necessary to be a skeptic to deny other life in the universe. You should not accept less than irrefutable evidence for any claim.

However, we do have a problem which is what gives life to speculation. We have UFOs and UFOs are "believed" (but not by me!) to contain aliens originating from somewhere in the universe. Once again, this is a romantic view devoid of irrefutable evidence.

Here I'm going off the wall:
Because we know for a scientific fact that there are wavelengths that are not visible to the naked eye (other dimensions, if you will), there is also the possibility that there are other dimensions which may be occupied by beings and these beings are the creators of UFOs. I know this is a long shot but accepting aliens from other parts of the universe is an even longer shot.

I'm also of the mind that no matter who claims what, humans have not interacted with the occupants of the UFOs, IF there are occupants. UFOs could be remotely-controlled craft IF they're craft to begin with. We don't know. We don't know a damn thing about UFOs, any occupants, any robots, anything...

So until we find out something that will stand scrutiny, and hope that the something is not mind games by a higher intelligence, I cannot accept (mind you, NOT believe) the concept of extraterrestial life. It ain't happening!




[edit on 7-4-2010 by The Shrike]

Originally posted by jclmavg
You do not believe the quote...coupled with his continuous demands for evidence to show him wrong is enough to conclude he has turned a lack of evidence into evidence?

Not at all. Whereas the Shrike says something doesn't exist because we see no evidence for it, Wartooth says something exists because we see no evidence for it, due to a special exemption.

The Shrike is drawing a conclusion based on the evidence available. The old maxim not withstanding, sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. While you may agree with his conclusion, or think that not all evidence is being considered, but the evidence is left as-is.

What Wartooth did was introduce special pleading to twist the evidence, forcing it into a conclusion that it does not support. Wartooth tells us the lack of evidence is due to a government cover-up, as if it were inarguable, thereby proving aliens exist.



[edit on 8-4-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

I nailed a preacher this morning, I feel ashamed...
I told him the Jordan Maxwell bishop test... if I had a torch and I touched it to an angle would the angle get burned...? bishop "No" he is a spirtual being and can not feel pain... JM said "but when I die, I turn into a spirtual being and I can burn in hell for ever... >>>?
and I also said this...
You know, GOD must be an Alien... preacher said No... and I said well what is an Alien... he describes UFO and the like... are they from this earth...? Preacher doesnt know and suggests they maybe demons. and then I asked well how do you tell a demon from a alien..? no comment.

Originally posted by demongoat

Originally posted by Viper2

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by wartooth420

how about this. you find me facts and files that give logical proof that extraterrestrials dont exist.

How about, no, it doesn't work that way.

How about, YES, it DOES work that way.

how about no, you are asking for people to prove something doesn't exist. you can't prove something doesn't exist, things that don't exist don't leave evidence.

you have to prove your claims, that is how a logical debate works.

How about: Get a clue.

When many intelligent ET civilizations on other planets in a mathematical certainty (Drakes Equation), one cannot logically argue that none of these civilizations have ever visited earth. Especially when there have been an enormous amount of UFO sightings and alien abduction reports throughout history. So purposely ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit your ideas is not scientific or logical. Ignoring mathematical certainty and evidence is ignorant and close-minded. And no, the evidence does not have to be physical evidence to be credible.

Originally posted by Viper2
How about: Get a clue.

When many intelligent ET civilizations on other planets in a mathematical certainty (Drakes Equation), one cannot logically argue that none of these civilizations have ever visited earth. Especially when there have been an enormous amount of UFO sightings and alien abduction reports throughout history. So purposely ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit your ideas is not scientific or logical. Ignoring mathematical certainty and evidence is ignorant and close-minded. And no, the evidence does not have to be physical evidence to be credible.

There is no "mathematical certainty" of alien life and Drake's equation is a primitive and weak tool that produces nothing more than a logical guess. UFO sightings and personal accounts of abductions do not offer any tangible proof whatsoever of extraterrestrial life. And yes, physical evidence is most certainly required to establish existence of alien life. You see other things as evidence because of your confirmation bias. And again, claims of ET life must be supported by evidence; it is not up to a skeptic to disprove an unsupported claim.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Viper2
How about: Get a clue.

When many intelligent ET civilizations on other planets in a mathematical certainty (Drakes Equation), one cannot logically argue that none of these civilizations have ever visited earth. Especially when there have been an enormous amount of UFO sightings and alien abduction reports throughout history. So purposely ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit your ideas is not scientific or logical. Ignoring mathematical certainty and evidence is ignorant and close-minded. And no, the evidence does not have to be physical evidence to be credible.

There is no "mathematical certainty" of alien life and Drake's equation is a primitive and weak tool that produces nothing more than a logical guess. UFO sightings and personal accounts of abductions do not offer any tangible proof whatsoever of extraterrestrial life. And yes, physical evidence is most certainly required to establish existence of alien life. You see other things as evidence because of your confirmation bias. And again, claims of ET life must be supported by evidence; it is not up to a skeptic to disprove an unsupported claim.

That is twisted logic, non-scientific, and very incorrect.

Originally posted by Viper2
That is twisted logic, non-scientific, and very incorrect.

Can you tell us why the logic is "twisted", "non-scientific" or incorrect? A simple declarative statement does not make it so.

Nothing what Traditional Drummer said is wrong. There is no mathmatical certainty that alien life exists; for all we know all that empty space could be empty space. We could be alone (though I don't think we are, it must be acknowledged as a possibility). The Drake Equation was never intended to tell us how many civilizations are out there; it is a thought-exercise designed to get us thinking about what factors contribute to the development of life. Physical proof will be required to convince anyone that extraterrestrials are visiting the planet; all the anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to do it, especially when the psychiatric/mental health community feels that alien abductions are been explained in Earthly terms. And the burden of proof is completely and absolutely on the claimant.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Can you tell us why the logic is "twisted", "non-scientific" or incorrect? A simple declarative statement does not make it so.

Nothing what Traditional Drummer said is wrong. There is no mathmatical certainty that alien life exists; for all we know all that empty space could be empty space. We could be alone (though I don't think we are, it must be acknowledged as a possibility). The Drake Equation was never intended to tell us how many civilizations are out there; it is a thought-exercise designed to get us thinking about what factors contribute to the development of life. Physical proof will be required to convince anyone that extraterrestrials are visiting the planet; all the anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to do it, especially when the psychiatric/mental health community feels that alien abductions are been explained in Earthly terms. And the burden of proof is completely and absolutely on the claimant.

Thank you, sir. I couldn't have said it better myself. Those who believe in ET life do so in the same manner as any religion: with an almost zealous anger and blindness to evidence or the lack thereof. One thing that seems consistent amongst the ET zealots is the arrogance and condescension, from the OP to this viper guy. I shouldn't expect rational discourse with the hardcores I suppose.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Can you tell us why the logic is "twisted", "non-scientific" or incorrect? A simple declarative statement does not make it so.

Nothing what Traditional Drummer said is wrong. There is no mathmatical certainty that alien life exists; for all we know all that empty space could be empty space. We could be alone (though I don't think we are, it must be acknowledged as a possibility). The Drake Equation was never intended to tell us how many civilizations are out there; it is a thought-exercise designed to get us thinking about what factors contribute to the development of life. Physical proof will be required to convince anyone that extraterrestrials are visiting the planet; all the anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to do it, especially when the psychiatric/mental health community feels that alien abductions are been explained in Earthly terms. And the burden of proof is completely and absolutely on the claimant.

Thank you, sir. I couldn't have said it better myself. Those who believe in ET life do so in the same manner as any religion: with an almost zealous anger and blindness to evidence or the lack thereof. One thing that seems consistent amongst the ET zealots is the arrogance and condescension, from the OP to this viper guy. I shouldn't expect rational discourse with the hardcores I suppose.


[edit on 8-4-2010 by traditionaldrummer]

Traditional science neither accepts or denies ET visitation to earth, it is simply in the "unknown" category. On the other hand, only the truly ignorant and close-minded deny the mathematically certain existence of intelligent ET life on other planets in the universe.

The point is that the enormous number of UFO sightings and alien abduction reports throughout history point to a higher probability of ET visitation to earth rather than not.

This is the way it is. Deny it all day long if you want, but that won't change it.

I am done with this thread.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Viper2]

Originally posted by Viper2
On the other hand, only the truly ignorant and close-minded deny the mathematically certain existence of intelligent ET life on other planets in the universe.

Then show us the math. Simple as that. If it is a mathematical certainty, show us the math that demonstrates it.

Originally posted by Viper2

Traditional science neither accepts of denies ET visitation to earth, it is simply in the "unknown" category. On the other hand, only the truly ignorant and close-minded deny the mathematically certain existence of intelligent ET life on other planets in the universe.

The point is that the enormous number of UFO sightings and alien abduction reports throughout history point to a higher probability of ET visitation to earth rather than not.

This is the way it is. Deny it all day long if you want, but that won't change it.

I am done with this thread.

I guess the poor guy couldn't stand the heat or just didn't have the intellectual armament to deal with common skeptics.

Actually, there is no mathematical certainty and as stated, the Drake equation establishes nothing.

Actually, the mathematics are strikingly against your theory of "certainty".

The conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe is approximately ten million billion (10,000,000,000,000,000). Of these, we know of a single planet that is definitely capable of producing life: Earth.

You are claiming certainty of ET life on mathematical odds of one in ten million billion.

As far as your other point goes, the number of UFO sightings and claims of alien abduction indicates a certainty that the human brain is easily confounded by experiences it cannot reconcile with supportive evidence. Thousands of years ago we attributed odd experiences with demons; today they are more commonly reconciled with the concepts of aliens. And to date, there remains so tangible, conclusive evidence that either actually exist.