Here's an odd, theological sort of question for debate

[Witty]

Originally Posted by oats

@Objective atheism only refers to not believing in the existence of a God or god. I've never heard anyone say that ghosts=gods, so by definition an atheist can believe in a ghost. Of course, this is unlikely, because the existence of ghosts is often associated with ideas of afterlife and supernatural gods etc, but it depends on what you believe a ghost is; they aren't necessarily exclusive beliefs.

I agree with you (and @Witty) that aliens are far more likely to exist, but as of today there is just as much actual scientific evidence for alien existence as there is for the existence of a deity. IE none. so in terms of evidence or data-driven analysis, aliens are equivalent to a god insofar as belief is concerned.

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

[Fig]

Originally Posted by Witty

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

Scientists should just not believe anything? They gotta believe sometimes

[Witty]

Originally Posted by Fig

Scientists should just not believe anything? They gotta believe sometimes

People say scientists believe what they see, which is incorrect, when you see something the need for belief disappears and it becomes knowledge.

All belief is blind, by nature...sometimes what people perceive as belief is just their minds drawing conclusions based on evidence. Such as the belief of waking up in the morning, or the belief that it will rain in Ireland. This isn't belief, it is a subconcscious hypothesis based on experience.

[Answer]

Originally Posted by Witty

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

You focusing too much on semantics and the word belief. I could say "I believe that if I leave a full bottle of water in the freezer, the liquid will eventually expand, causing the bottle (or at least part of it) to "explode" and that would have a scientific basis.

You're correct - no real scientist would EVER state that life on another planet is a certainty, but they CAN say that based on observational data in regards to the Earth's conception and organism evolution on this planet, respective to the similar conditions appearing in millions of other pockets of the universe, that they *believe* that life on other planets is *probable*

[Witty]

Originally Posted by Answer

You focusing too much on semantics and the word belief. I could say "I believe that if I leave a full bottle of water in the freezer, the liquid will eventually expand, causing the bottle (or at least part of it) to "explode" and that would have a scientific basis.

You're correct - no real scientist would EVER state that life on another planet is a certainty, but they CAN say that based on observational data in regards to the Earth's conception and organism evolution on this planet, respective to the similar conditions appearing in millions of other pockets of the universe, that they *believe* that life on other planets is *probable*

In that case they would be using the word belief incorrectly.