Quote: DaButt @ July 3 2008, 6:59 PM BSTOk, now I believe:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031062/Faceless-aliens-spotted-crowd-Wimbledon.html
I only just saw this! Wow that's spooky! 
Aliens Page 11
Quote: Simon Stratton @ July 5 2008, 6:27 PM BSTSurely it doesn't matter and it's best not to know. For example - if you knew when you were going to die, you'd spend your life thinking, 'oh my god, I've only got X years left! I'll never get to do that thing I wanted to do, I might as well get pissed'. Same goes for living your life thinking about what happens after you die.
It doesn't matter but it's almost certainly human nature to wonder.
We don't just see a tree and think oh there's a tree I might piss on it, as (I assume) an animal would, we pause and wonder why and how the tree got there.
If we weren't like this there would be no science, and no drive or motivation for physisists. Yes science helps improve quality of life, but I don't think most scientists are looking to improve quaility of life I think they are looking at the universe with wonder and trying to get some answers.
Quote: Scatterbrained Floozy @ July 5 2008, 6:30 PM BSTI only just saw this! Wow that's spooky!
The look like "The Question" Thats quite cool.
Quote: ian_w @ July 5 2008, 6:37 PM BSTIt doesn't matter but it's almost certainly human nature to wonder.
We don't just see a tree and think oh there's a tree I might piss on it, as (I assume) an animal would, we pause and wonder why and how the tree got there.
If we weren't like this there would be no science, and no drive or motivation for physisists. Yes science helps improve quality of life, but I don't think most scientists are looking to improve quaility of life I think they are looking at the universe with wonder and trying to get some answers.
Obviously. But we're never going to know 100% about what happens after we die. So there's not much point worrying about it is t'all I'm saying. Who cares anyway - you'll be dead when it happens. Or shortly after.
I applaud Ian_W's attitude and it's imo the right one. Truth (whatever it is, comforting or uncomforting) is the crucial thing.
My main point (as Zooo understood) was a look at the way we can discount an opponent's argument yet see no contradiction in using exactly that same argument to then defend our own beliefs. People switch reasoning fluently, as it suits.
For example, here one group asserts there's no direct evidence of God, therefore God doesn't exist. But despite there being no direct evidence of aliens, that same group reverses the conclusion of the preceeding sentence to maintain their belief in the existence of aliens. The other group asserts as there's no direct evidence of aliens, aliens don't exist. But despite there being no direct evidence of God, they believe.
If we were following the same logic, both conclusions would have to be the same. But we're not dealing with logic, we're dealing with belief systems, that's why adherents of any side can believe they are open-minded while instantly dismissing all alternative explanations out-of-hand, can contradict their own logic, can ignore the lack of evidence for or against, and not see it as a problem. And personally speaking, I'm not free from that taint of obedience to a belief system in any respect. I'm as guilty (more so, in fact) than anyone.
We're not arguing over evidence and proofs, we're really arguing over the LACK of evidence in each camp and reaching the conclusion that suits us.
The fact that the universe is so huge isn't a proof. If we're really truthful, it's just a statistical trick. It's a series of assumptions based on "what happens here, happens elsewhere"; but belief based on an assumption is blind faith, no matter how many scientific or religious terms you drape on it.
There's also another contradiction of logic in using "what happens here, happens elsewhere" because the same group made an earlier suggestion that aliens can cross vast distances or exist in physically impossible forms (compared with this solar system) because the laws of physics aren't uniform throughout the universe. But for that to work, it means the universe is both uniform and non-uniform at the same time. But a belief system can swallow that contradiction without a wobble.
The high-priests of both camps speak latin and have to disseminate the higher truths to us plebs. But which high-priests will we choose to follow? I don't think that question mark should be there. The choice has really already been made. 
NOTE: I've been phrasing and rephrasing the above to keep it firmly in the middle but I realise that my points seem skewed to one side so I do apologise. It isn't intentional and doesn't reflect my own personal beliefs or non-beliefs. I'm trying in some small measure to even out the debate between pros and cons.
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 8:15 PM BSTThere's also another contradiction of logic in using "what happens here, happens elsewhere" because the same group made an earlier suggestion that aliens can cross vast distances or exist in physically impossible forms (compared with this solar system) because the laws of physics aren't uniform throughout the universe. But for that to work, it means the universe is both uniform and non-uniform at the same time. But a belief system can swallow that contradiction without a wobble.
Not sure that anyone of the 'liberal' persuasion said "what happens here, happens elsewhere"...?
Are you ever going to tell us what you actually believe though, Slag?
Quote: Aaron @ July 5 2008, 8:27 PM BSTNot sure that anyone of the 'liberal' persuasion said "what happens here, happens elsewhere"...?
Sagan's (Was it Sagan, if I remember right?) statistical idea to prove the likelihood of life is a series of assumptions based on 1) guesswork and 2) that our solar system is a rough pattern for solar systems elsewhere. To adhere to that means an acceptance by the sampler that the universe is uniform enough to make statistical projections.
Quote: zooo @ July 5 2008, 8:39 PM BSTAre you ever going to tell us what you actually believe though, Slag?
What I believe is immaterial, honestly. I just like a good strenuous debate and in instances where my own beliefs or non-beliefs would distract and dilute the issue rather than enhance, I try and drive straight down the middle.
Hm. Interesting. *strokes chin and ponders*
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 8:48 PM BST
But after you've done that, which is admirable, you should tell us your own views. You have just as much right to express them as everyone else.
Silly old slag.
And have the entire world rushing to my house, carrying pitchforks and clutching firebrands, shouting "Burn the Slag, burn the slag"? The quiet life of the apolitical, areligious, asexual vaugarist for me.
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 9:02 PM BST"Burn the Slag, burn the slag"?
That's a normal weekend for me.
Bucket of water, on the ready, ma'am.
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 9:28 PM BST
I can still bring popcorn right?
Quote: Gavin @ July 5 2008, 9:29 PM BSTI can still bring popcorn right?
An improvement on last time, when you just brought cop-porn.