Since many atheists consider scientific evidence the highest absolute, why do many scoff at the idea of...?

Question

intelligent life existing somewhere else in the universe?

as someone who leans more toward the scientific side than the *other* side, simply because of curiosity and exposure to nature and information, i am confused at the common habit of atheists putting the idea of the existence of alien life on the same level of fantasy/fiction as they say that the human concept of "god" so shamelessly pervades. scientific endeavors that have been evidence for any theory, discovery, or law became so because of a curiosity into the glimpses of the unknown, resources to test the unknown, observations which allowed for "educated predictions" of what could occur, etc.
though god and science obviously clash, what logic do the atheists use that must negate the possibility of intelligent life forms existing somewhere other than on our relatively minuscule planet?
if we are intelligible enough to understand the mechanisms of evolution, form a concept of the boundlessness of space, and use thorough facts

in order to predict the chance of countless natural occurences, what makes the possibility of life other than our own so elusory?
it seems as if the skeptics have put their own cultural habits combined with media imagery, generic and generalizing concepts of fantasy, and biased desire to disprove god , into forming their idea of an alien life as representative of a valid archetypal figure. isn't this the exact same thing that our species has also done with the concept of god?

to dare to approach the issue in a truly scientific manner, to challenge the culturally lazy concept of the man-created fictional stigma that little green men are accurately representative of alien life seems more pertinent to the educated atheist's 'rational mind'. the universe is calculated to be 12 to 15 billion years old. humans have only been around for 40,000 years. in that indsiscriminate amount of time, is it even possible that nothing has evolved in such a vast amount of space?

in order to predict the chance of countless natural occurences, what makes the possibility of life other than our own so elusory?
it seems as if the skeptics have put their own cultural habits combined with media imagery, generic and generalizing concepts of fantasy, and biased desire to disprove god , into forming their idea of an alien life as representative of a valid archetypal figure. isn't this the exact same thing that our species has also done with the concept of god? to dare to approach the issue in a truly scientific manner, to challenge the culturally lazy concept of the man-created fictional stigma that little green men are accurately representative of alien life seems more pertinent to the educated atheist's 'rational mind'. the universe is calculated to be 12 to 15 billion years old. humans have only been around for 40,000 years. in that indsiscriminate amount of time, is it even possible that nothing has evolved in such a vast amount of space? humans seem to be

the most intellectually advanced animals because there are evolutionary mechanisms that select intelligence- particularly among social beings. we were favored due to our abilities to communicate, invent language, and create innovative components to life, along with chance.
the building blocks of life on earth (complex organic compounds and amino acids) are abundant in the universe and can be found in meteorites, comets, and interstellar gas and dust. the hubble telescope has shown that there are at least 100 billion galaxies. our milky Way is home to at least 100 billion stars. (Visualize the disparity in the amount of resources out there, simply based on the differences in size!) our sun is an unimpressive star compared to those of other galaxies, and our planet is simply a rock. as intellectuals and truth seekers, openness to the concept seems to make more sense than not.

well good, i am happy to see a representation of atheists who understand what it means to be so. i wasn't accusing *you* of this, but unfortunately i've seen that claim against possibilities made over and over again here and everywhere by so-called atheists. thank you.

it's too bad the individuals who are taking offense are not the ones i was referring to. as i said, i am speaking about a 'representation' of the atheist population. i made no absolutes in terms of judgments, because i quite consider myself atheist as a loose term. of course the ones who have time and time related this idea with fantasy are not speaking up, and that is fine! and seeing so many reasonable responses to the topic gives me encouragement that there are still intelligent people out there.

btw, nurse, in no way am i referring to intelligent design, i don't believe in design.

Answer 1

I think its silly to think that we are the only ones in such a vast universe, even if 99% of alien "sightings" are hoaxes, explained phenomenon, or the product of overactive imaginations. As I type this, I am running SETI pattern search algorithms on my CPU's spare time, combing the radio noise picked up by Arecibo for something that is not noise. I haven't found squat yet, and the odds of another species being close enough for us to pick up stray signals is probably low, but I feel its worth trying anyway.

And then there are those 1% of alien sightings that make me wonder...

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/

Oh, and I am an atheist.

Answer 2

1) I am not an atheist.
2) I scoff at claims of alien life.
3) I scoff at most solutions to the Drake equation since we have a sample size of one planetary system studied which is not exactly an overwhelming sample set, especially since it is a biased sample.
4) That said, I think, give the vastness of the universe, that intelligent life will evolve elsewhere, but not necessarily in this galaxy

Answer 3

I dont personally appreciate the input of postulates of Intelligent Design hypothesis. Particularly in the Biology classes.

For one reason because its untestable.

Unfortunately "design" is a terribly subjective term. This also is problematic in terms that obviously the universe is not so equally well-ordered (try living on Mars without oxygen and you can readily see this) to be consistently defined with this supposed entity that originated it, whomever that might consist with this concept of yours.

In other words, it says nothing. It says absolutely nothing but mere conjecture. And this is not science. Science is obviously based on observation, correct?

Also while Im speaking I might as well say for myself, if the universe is so "intelligently designed", (however youll like to define this intelligence), this still has absolutely no bearing as to the origin of this "designer", (where it comes from, how it should interact observably, the qualities of its existence, the terms of its character and nature...)

Because it has no testablility, a postulate on which none to gain insight, there still seems no reason for me to assume that it shouldnt so soon be credited as a theory--(as a theory is credited by testibility and not simple conjecture) but I will strictly define it as a mere hypothesis at the moment of its imprecisness

....

As a sidenote, as an atheist, I havent readily dismissed the concept of "intelligent designer" altogether. There it should always exist as possibilty as an idea, but always at just that until I could be able to see some tangible evidence for such an creator.

Answer 4

.. ummmmm.... since when do Atheists scoff at the idea of intelligent life elsewhere? Of course there's intelligent life elsewhere. There are trillions upon trillions of other planets. It would be a sad day for the universe if humanity is the best it can offer considering the way we behave.

I've rarely ever seen an Atheist say that life on other planets isn't possible. That tends to be the religious idea. Life on other planets would mean that the religious aren't the priveleged few.

Answer 5

I don't at all. I am quite certain it does and I have been an actively donating computer time to SETI for over ten years. I think most of us think it does. I know Carl Sagan who is often a hero of ours thought that it did.

What a lot of us take issue with is the whole UFO thing. It has no evidence and it just really doesn't make sense the way it is presented.

Answer 6

I'm an atheist, and i believe that it would be highly improbable that we are the only living things in the world. I would never rule out the possibility of more advanced beings existing in our vast universe. i think most prominent scientists who also happen to be atheists, hesitate to accept the idea that aliens such as the ones we hear about in the media exist because they risk losing their credibility. as scientists they can't acknowledge something unless tangible evidence is found to support it. but i think if you ask most of them, they would also say that it is highly unlikely that ours is the only planet where life exists n all the universe.

Answer 7

Well, I think just about all scientists are pretty convinced that there has to be intelligent life in the universe.

The universe has been expanding at a amazing rate for billions of years.

It is absolute that we are not alone. Will we ever make contact? Who knows. It would have to be from someone more sophisticated than us for quite sometime, we just don't have the capabilities.

Answer 8

I am an atheist and have many atheist friends and I don't know any of them who doubt that there is life anywhere else in the Universe.

The Universe is huge and the chances that we are the only life in it are extremely small.

I can honestly say I have never heard the opinion you expressed in your question. Many atheists are sceptics, and many sceptics doubt that any intelligent life has ever visted our planet, but that doesn't me an we doubt they exist.

Answer 9

I love how you say the "atheists" as if there is one big cult of people that don't believe in God. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God and shuns organized religion, thus they don't, as a group, have a united image or standard belief. So first of all, your approach to the issue, to be blunt, isn't fair.

Secondly, I am an atheist, and I study astrobiology. Obviously, I don't believe that it is impossible for life to form on other planets. Its my life to study it. Science is science, what we can prove is what we can prove, and if we can prove it scientifically, then I will believe it. I am a skeptic, and I am a scientist. I don't think that one should generalize people to this extent.

Answer 10

I'm an atheist, and I don't scoff at that idea. I would certainly consider it if
A. the people who report sightings weren't rednecks starving for attention..
B. There was a decent piece of evidence laid out before me.

I won't drop the possibility, but I certainly won't be watching the skies for falling alien turds.