Hi, new here.

Hello.
I have been self described atheist for years now (though that may not be fully technically accurate) and my current world/societal/moral views would probably most align me with humanism. I’ve joined here to engage in friendly debates involving morals, and common perception of them, as well as look for guidance in learning more about the world and the global state of human affairs.
I’ve read the Humanist Manifesto III, and agree, in a nutshell.
I plan on reading Corliss Lamont’s “The Philosophy of Humanism” to learn more, although if someone has a better suggestion I would like to hear it.
Aside from that, I understand a large part of Humanism is viewing the world (and morality) from a scientific stand point. Although I am far from a scientist (I have a tech diploma, that’s about it, lol) this viewpoint is one of the largest I agree with. The main reason I am an atheist is due to my basic grasp of probability theory.
Here’s perhaps a fun question for any who care to answer it; what do you think the odds are that their is intelligent life, aside from what is found here on earth, in existence today? My understanding is that while we have no direct evidence for it, we also have no direct evidence against it, so… 50/50?
Anyway that’s about it. Next time I post I’ll try to come up with something a little more interesting. ; )
Laters

Welcome Merc,
I don’t know the odds, but I think that 50/50 is only a starting guess. The chance that intelegent life is or has happened somewhere else are probably more likely than 50/50 with the vast amount of space and planets that likely exist in the universe. The odds that any of them can discover any of the others ones is probably much worse odds.

Hi Merc,
Welcome from another newbie and Seasons Greetings!
We have a discussion going on that you might be interested in about the probability of life on the “Richard Dawkins endorses intelligent design……” thread (no he doesn’t!)
An important fact may be, “One fact to be taken into account is that it seems that as soon as (in geological terms) the Earth became suitable for life then it began”, which may indicate that life occurs whenever the conditions are suitable. On the other hand the Earth could be just incredibly ‘lucky’.
If life forms readily then as there are 10^11 (1 with eleven noughts after it) or more planets in our galaxy There must be many intelligent species that have evolved in our galaxy, but not necessarily at the same time though, we have had technology for around 10^2 years whereas the galaxy is 10^10 tears old.
Regards Ockham

Hello. I have been self described atheist for years now (though that may not be fully technically accurate) How could it be accurate or inaccurate? You either believe in god or you don't. There is no a little of this and a little of that. You're equivocatimg. and my current world/societal/moral views would probably most align me with humanism. You can be a humanist and an atheist at the same time. In fact, it helps. Most humanists are atheists. I've joined here to engage in friendly debates involving morals, and common perception of them, as well as look for guidance in learning more about the world and the global state of human affairs. I've read the Humanist Manifesto III, and agree, in a nutshell. I plan on reading Corliss Lamont's "The Philosophy of Humanism" to learn more, although if someone has a better suggestion I would like to hear it. Yes, many books, Bertrand Russell"s essay on "Why I am Not a Christian." Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens. Many others. Aside from that, I understand a large part of Humanism is viewing the world (and morality) from a scientific stand point. Although I am far from a scientist (I have a tech diploma, that's about it, lol) this viewpoint is one of the largest I agree with. The main reason I am an atheist is due to my basic grasp of probability theory. Here's perhaps a fun question for any who care to answer it; what do you think the odds are that their is intelligent life, aside from what is found here on earth, in existence today? My understanding is that while we have no direct evidence for it, we also have no direct evidence against it, so... 50/50? highly unlikely, IMO, though not impossible. We need a lot more information before we can answer that question. Meanwhile there are a lot more important and pressing questions to investigate than whether there is life of any kind other than on earth. Anyway that's about it. Next time I post I'll try to come up with something a little more interesting. ; ) Laters
You don't have to try so hard. There are plenty of interesting things to consider and learn the truth about right here on earth. LL

Welcome Merc. As for intelligent life elsewhere, I’d say the odds have to be pretty high considering that there are 100 billion galaxies in our universe each with 100 billion stars. Problem is we are highly unlikely to make contact with other intelligent life.

Here's perhaps a fun question for any who care to answer it; what do you think the odds are that their is intelligent life, aside from what is found here on earth, in existence today? My understanding is that while we have no direct evidence for it, we also have no direct evidence against it, so... 50/50?
You are making an error here. Because you don't know something about the chances, because you have no arguments pro or contra, that does not make the chance of something to be true 50%. Take this example: what is the chance that there will be a strong earthquake where I live. Well, there are two possibilities: it will happen, or it will not. So the chance is 50%? No, of course not: where I live, earth quakes are very rare, so the chance is very close to 0%. Things look differently when you live in San Francisco. But we can say that because we have many grounds that we know these chances are not 50%. So having no knowledge does not mean that chances are 50/50. That means we just don't know if there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. So we also have no idea about the chances. It might be 100% (e.g. on average in every galaxy there is at least one planet with intelligent life on it). Or the chance is close to 0% (not exactly 0, because we know it can happen: we exist), because the events and circumstances that lead to our existence are so rare and fantastic, that it might be it happened just here. But to say "Don't know" does not mean "chances are 50/50". But welcome to the forum! There surely is intelligent life here.

I think that we’ll find life (or evidence of extinct life) elsewhere in the universe at some point in the future, but we might only find single celled life like bacteria. Like Ockham said, as soon as the conditions were right for life to exist here on Earth then we had bacterial life. Maybe that type of life spontaneously forms after just a few million years of a stable environment or maybe there is a lot of “life contaminants” floating around the universe that are ready to seed a planet in the proper conditions. But based on how long of a time it took to go from that to eukaryotic life (~1.5 billion years) to multi-cellular life (another ~1 billion years) to the Cambrian Explosion (another ~1/2 billion years), it seems like there needs to be a stable environment for a LOONNNGGG time to get to intelligent life (at least vertebrates).
The Earth happens to have a great big satellite that keeps its axial tilt relatively stable along with being the right distance from its host star which happens to be a smallish one that is fairly stable… the list goes on and on. A lot of water for a planet so close to its star, several large planets further out that reduce the amount of debris from crashing into the inner solar system, not being too close to the galactic center which reduces the chances of radiation bursts…
None of this means its impossible, of course, we could drill a hold through the ice of Europa and drop a rover in there an find all kinds of aquatic life swimming around. Then the interesting question would be: is Europan (European?) life different from life on Earth? Do they use DNA or something different? If it’s the same then does that mean Europa went through the same process as Earth did or did we “seed” them? I don’t think any of that is likely although I find the idea very exciting, obviously. :slight_smile:

Hello. I have been self described atheist for years now (though that may not be fully technically accurate) and my current world/societal/moral views would probably most align me with humanism. I've joined here to engage in friendly debates involving morals, and common perception of them, as well as look for guidance in learning more about the world and the global state of human affairs. I've read the Humanist Manifesto III, and agree, in a nutshell. I plan on reading Corliss Lamont's "The Philosophy of Humanism" to learn more, although if someone has a better suggestion I would like to hear it. Aside from that, I understand a large part of Humanism is viewing the world (and morality) from a scientific stand point. Although I am far from a scientist (I have a tech diploma, that's about it, lol) this viewpoint is one of the largest I agree with. The main reason I am an atheist is due to my basic grasp of probability theory. Here's perhaps a fun question for any who care to answer it; what do you think the odds are that their is intelligent life, aside from what is found here on earth, in existence today? My understanding is that while we have no direct evidence for it, we also have no direct evidence against it, so... 50/50? Anyway that's about it. Next time I post I'll try to come up with something a little more interesting. ; ) Laters
Welcome! You don't know if you're atheist or not? I find that very odd. As for an answer to your question: Our own existence is the best evidence for life or intelligent life elsewhere. The fact the we exist at all proves there's life in the universe and actually the chance that ours is the only planet with life would be astronomical. Again, welcome to the fo. MzLee
I think that we'll find life (or evidence of extinct life) elsewhere in the universe at some point in the future, but we might only find single celled life like bacteria. Like Ockham said, as soon as the conditions were right for life to exist here on Earth then we had bacterial life. Maybe that type of life spontaneously forms after just a few million years of a stable environment or maybe there is a lot of "life contaminants" floating around the universe that are ready to seed a planet in the proper conditions. But based on how long of a time it took to go from that to eukaryotic life (~1.5 billion years) to multi-cellular life (another ~1 billion years) to the Cambrian Explosion (another ~1/2 billion years), it seems like there needs to be a stable environment for a LOONNNGGG time to get to intelligent life (at least vertebrates). The Earth happens to have a great big satellite that keeps its axial tilt relatively stable along with being the right distance from its host star which happens to be a smallish one that is fairly stable... the list goes on and on. A lot of water for a planet so close to its star, several large planets further out that reduce the amount of debris from crashing into the inner solar system, not being too close to the galactic center which reduces the chances of radiation bursts.... None of this means its impossible, of course, we could drill a hold through the ice of Europa and drop a rover in there an find all kinds of aquatic life swimming around. Then the interesting question would be: is Europan (European?) life different from life on Earth? Do they use DNA or something different? If it's the same then does that mean Europa went through the same process as Earth did or did we "seed" them? I don't think any of that is likely although I find the idea very exciting, obviously. :)
Another thing that occurred to me is "What if life can form in very very very small sizes, given that necessary conditions are in place?" (I'm talking micro-micro-organisms.) Life could be somewhat ubiquitous in the Universe but even more difficult to detect than we may be considering.
Another thing that occurred to me is "What if life can form in very very very small sizes, given that necessary conditions are in place?" (I'm talking micro-micro-organisms.) Life could be somewhat ubiquitous in the Universe but even more difficult to detect than we may be considering.
Hi Tim, The problem isn't one of size, it is the necessary and very specific complexity required for the simplest self-replicating organism that is so difficult to explain. Certainly the search for life on Mars, Europa etc. will focus on looking for tiny micro-organisms.
Another thing that occurred to me is "What if life can form in very very very small sizes, given that necessary conditions are in place?" (I'm talking micro-micro-organisms.) Life could be somewhat ubiquitous in the Universe but even more difficult to detect than we may be considering.
Hi Tim, The problem isn't one of size, it is the necessary and very specific complexity required for the simplest self-replicating organism that is so difficult to explain. Certainly the search for life on Mars, Europa etc. will focus on looking for tiny micro-organisms. I would hope that the search for life on Mars, actually, does include a rigorous search for very tiny micro-organisms. Also, do we really know the lower (or higher, for that matter) limits, in terms of size, of self replicating life forms in environments that are drastically different than what have been the case on Earth?
Hello. I have been self described atheist for years now (though that may not be fully technically accurate) and my current world/societal/moral views would probably most align me with humanism. I've joined here to engage in friendly debates involving morals, and common perception of them, as well as look for guidance in learning more about the world and the global state of human affairs. I've read the Humanist Manifesto III, and agree, in a nutshell. I plan on reading Corliss Lamont's "The Philosophy of Humanism" to learn more, although if someone has a better suggestion I would like to hear it. Aside from that, I understand a large part of Humanism is viewing the world (and morality) from a scientific stand point. Although I am far from a scientist (I have a tech diploma, that's about it, lol) this viewpoint is one of the largest I agree with. The main reason I am an atheist is due to my basic grasp of probability theory. Here's perhaps a fun question for any who care to answer it; what do you think the odds are that their is intelligent life, aside from what is found here on earth, in existence today? My understanding is that while we have no direct evidence for it, we also have no direct evidence against it, so... 50/50? Anyway that's about it. Next time I post I'll try to come up with something a little more interesting. ; ) Laters
Welcome to our discussions. I have no way of knowing percentages on the probability of intelligent life but with the size of our universe I would say the probability is above zero. So from that point, go seek.

As a true blue Star Trek fan and a Humanist, I would like to think that there is intelligent life on other planets somewhere out in the universe. But as a rationalist and an atheist, I’m aware that what I would like to believe is not necessarily true. Whenever I’m asked this, I go along with Carl Sagan – we just don’t have enough information at this time to venture a judgment.

Thank you to all who have welcomed me and took the time to discuss my question. Shoulda kept a better eye on this thread and replied sooner.

I have been self described atheist for years now (though that may not be fully technically accurate)
While I do not subscribe to the metaphysical belief structures put forth by any religion, I do not completely discount the idea of some type of intelligent creator or afterlife. Because of that, some may consider me more of a gnostic than an atheist and I have read that there are actually many sub-genres of both atheism and gnosticism. So... for the sake of simplicity... I'm an atheist. I hope that clears up any confusion.
I go along with Carl Sagan -- we just don't have enough information at this time to venture a judgment.
So... "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." I am now grinning at the political connotations... :D
Thank you to all who have welcomed me and took the time to discuss my question. Shoulda kept a better eye on this thread and replied sooner.
I have been self described atheist for years now (though that may not be fully technically accurate)
While I do not subscribe to the metaphysical belief structures put forth by any religion, I do not completely discount the idea of some type of intelligent creator or afterlife. Because of that, some may consider me more of a gnostic than an atheist and I have read that there are actually many sub-genres of both atheism and gnosticism. So... for the sake of simplicity... I'm an atheist. I hope that clears up any confusion.
I go along with Carl Sagan -- we just don't have enough information at this time to venture a judgment.
So... "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." I am now grinning at the political connotations... :D
Do you believe there is any evidence for an intelegent designer and an after life, or do you just have faith that they might exist, or do you just want them to exist?
Do you believe there is any evidence for an intelegent designer and an after life,
No
or do you just have faith that they might exist,
No
or do you just want them to exist?
Well, I do think it would be really cool if biological life on planet earth in reality was nothing more than an experiment put into motion by an intelligent alien civilization to further it's own race's understanding of evolution but.... I understand that there is zero evidence for that as well. :-P Anyways... determinism vs. libertarian free will... go!
So... "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
Depends on the context. If I were to reach into my pocket hoping to pull out a hundred dollar bill, well absence of evidence certainly implies evidence of absence. :)

Sorry to say, I am not agree with your opinion.

Sorry to say, I am not agree with your opinion.
That's cool, Edward. That's what a discussion forum is for. What exactly don't you agree with, and why? Are you saying that if I don't find a hundred dollar bill in my pocket, that would not be reasonable evidence that I don't actually have one in my pocket?