Poll: One-third believe in ghosts, UFOs

[TechBear_Seattle]

Let's face it: Americans are idiots.

Poll: One-third believe in ghosts, UFOs

...

Put Conrad, a homemaker from Hampton, Va., firmly in the camp of the 34 percent of people who say they believe in ghosts, according to a pre-Halloween poll by The Associated Press and Ipsos. That's the same proportion who believe in unidentified flying objects — exceeding the 19 percent who accept the existence of spells or witchcraft.

Forty-eight percent believe in extrasensory perception, or ESP. But nearly half of you knew we were about to tell you that, right?

...

To put the roughly one-third who believe in ghosts and UFOs in perspective, it's about the same as, in recent AP-Ipsos polls, the 36 percent who said they are baseball fans; the 37 percent who said the U.S. made the right decision to invade Iraq; and the 31 percent who approve of the job President Bush is doing.

A smaller but still substantial 23 percent say they have actually seen a ghost or believe they have been in one's presence, with the most likely candidates for such visits including single people, Catholics and those who never attend religious services. By 31 percent to 18 percent, more liberals than conservatives report seeing a specter.

The complete article can be read at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_re_us/ghosts_ap_poll

[truebrit71]

1. I have seen both...does that make me an idiot?

:eyes:

[spoony]

12. Hello fellow (I guess) idiot

Well I haven't seen either but I believe both, so.

What I've learnt from DU, or one of the things, is that some people make it their life's goal to assure themselves they're smarter than other people, and make sure everyone else knows it, too. So don't worry about those who try to piss on others' beliefs and experiences--the wind will always blow back to them :)

[Basileus Basileon]

17. Just suggestible. nt

[truebrit71]

20. I know what I saw...

...I suggest you open your mind just a teensy bit more...

[Matariki]

22. Good luck with that.

*sigh*

[Basileus Basileon]

27. My mind is completely open.

However, that does not mean "I will embrace all ideas no matter how unlikely they may be." In addition to violating basic physics, and in addition to being one of a number of unfalsifiable theories for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, ghosts can be easily explained neurologically as hallucinations or as after-the-fact rationalizations for any number of visual phenomena. Hallucinations and various auras can be induced in people pretty easily.

You may know what you saw, but that doesn't mean it was there. You're a biological computer designed to rationalize, fill in gaps, and explain extremely complex inputs. Sometimes those computers fuck up.

[truebrit71]

41. And everyone else that saw the same thing? Oh..I know...group hallucination...

...Sorry mate, but I know what I saw...

[Basileus Basileon]

44. I'm sure you do know what you saw.

When a visual phenomenon exists, crowd effects can quickly force everyone's perception of the event to fall in line. People are enormously suggestible. Strong belief in ghost/UFO sightings can be easily induced in a clinical setting, even when the person has seen nothing of the sort. A clever researcher can even trick a patient into believing he went to Disneyland.

[truebrit71]

45. The only setting was my parents home listening to the ghost come down the stairs...

...and then walk through the living room...

Musta been the gin and tonics....

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. Why would something without a normal existence 'walk'?

It wouldn't have legs. Why would it cause the sounds you associate with a human being (or perhaps a pet) walking? Did you think it was something playing a joke on you?

[Zhade]

88. Add to that the fact that scientific tests have fashioned a way to trick minds into an "OOBE"...

...thus fooling your brain into thinking it's out of the body.

The power of the mid is so fascinating, it saddens me when people discount it in favor of delusions.

[Basileus Basileon]

103. The mind is reality.

It's also a fascinating exercise in shortcuts, crutches, half-truths, guesses, and extrapolations. It's interesting what you can make it experience--or believe it experienced.

And evidence of the utter falliability of perception happens every single day. How many times have you been convinced that you heard someone non-present call your name, simply because you happened to hear in the chaotic crowd noise a waveform that generally approximated your name and your mind latched on to it and presented it as such? How many times have you misheard someone, yet been convinced that you did not? How many times have you recognized someone's face in a crowd, then seen it melt into that of a perfect stranger? How many times have you looked at a sign, and for a split second been convinced it read something it actually did not?

There is a reason that people did not see UFOs before the advent of jet aircraft and space-capable rockets. There is a reason people do not see ghosts in cultures where people do not believe in ghosts--and yet they are everywhere according to those who belong to cultures where ghosts are believed to be an omnipresent reality. All too often we see what we expect to see.

[Terran]

60. Er, what aspect of "basic physics"

makes ghosts an impossibility? We're talking about something here that by definition is outside human understanding, ergo no scientific theory can disprove their existence.

[Basileus Basileon]

63. Well, for one,

the incorporeal yet visible / interactable nature.

[Terran]

67. ? Not exactly sure what you're talking about

And where's the "basic physics" you referred to? It seems to me that being non-corporeal is part of the alleged basic nature of being a ghost, but nothing known in nature actually partakes of that state; but just because it can't be explained scientifically doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

And anyway, how do you even know that a ghost actually *is* non-corporeal? People assume that they are because of what we *think* they are, but no one knows that for sure.

[Basileus Basileon]

69. This would be the second way in which ghosts are diametrically opposed to science.

Much as with creationists and UFO theorists, any attempt to discuss the particulars of ghosts leads to a declaration that it is "outside science."

Nothing that is real is outside science. "Science" means nothing more than a process of rigorous testing and knowledge-gaining. If something is completely unable to be shown to exist, it more than likely does not.

[Terran]

71. I said it's outside *known* science

It would be pretty ridiculous to think that any observable phenomenon does not in fact really exist merely because the current level of scientific investigation into the matter cannot explain it according to known scientific fact.

Did you know that, scientifically, no one knows why the moon looks bigger when it's on the horizon than it does when it's overhead? No scientific explanation whatsoever.

And ghosts, unlike God and "creationism", have been widely observed, ergo they are an observable phenomenon.

[Zhade]

89. wellll... maybe not. People THINK they have observed ghosts.

But let's be clear on this - we don't have any evidence that what they assert they've seen was actually there, or anywhere else but in their mind.

Which is why I'm all for the amateur ghost hunters - if they ever get concrete evidence, it would be very interesting to examine.

[Zhade]

86. You saw something. You may think you know what it was.

You might even be right, I wasn't there.

But let's not pretend you've proven that what you think you saw, was what you think you saw.

[cgrindley]

92. At least on that issue, yes (nt)

[SteppingRazor]

2. .

:banghead:

[SammyWinstonJack]

81. ....

:evilgrin:

[dipsydoodle]

3. Got or at least had a ghost in my house

Have not seen her some years now. House is a 160 years old Victorian. Never seem a UFO but I'll like to say FO to George some time.

[tridim]

4. Believing in ghosts is nowhere near the same as believing in UFO's

So why lump them into the same poll question? Sure, put ghosts, gawd and bigfoot in the same category, but millions of normal people have seen UFO's that may or may not be extra terrestrial.

[SteppingRazor]

6. You could probably find a lot of people to argue the opposite.

That millions of people have seen ghosts, but UFOs are horse-hockey. :shrug:

[Basileus Basileon]

16. Yeah, it is. The exact same.

Both rely on unconfirmed and unconfirmable witness reports from people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. Shouldn't it tell you something that so many UFO sightings occur near airports and Air Force bases? Perspective does funny things at night.

Both rely on an absolute disregard for established scientific principles.

And both rely on a large base of people who want them to exist.

[tridim]

23. A "UFO" is not necessarily analogous to an "alien spacecraft"

A fact that is almost always ignored by people who haven't been lucky enough to see one yet.

[Basileus Basileon]

All right, do I believe in things that fly that people can't identify?

Sure. Just yesterday I saw an aircraft fly overhead, and couldn't tell if it were a 737 or an A320; it disappeared quickly into the clouds. It was therefore a UFO.

Do I believe in UFOs that are not terrestrial in origin? No.

[tridim]

38. No, that was an airplane.. You ID'ed it.

What I saw in 1988 was a UFO. The 4 friends with me couldn't identify it, the thousands of people who called the radio stations that night with sighting reports couldn't ID it, the 'official' at the local military base couldn't ID it and the police interviewed on TV the next morning couldn't ID it.

It was an unidentified flying object. It was also the most beautiful thing I've seen in my entire life.

Screw your bullshit example, your opinion is noted and rejected.

[Lorien]

105. Like Jimmy Carter and all those nutty astronauts

Yeah, a craft that can zip around silently, come to a dead stop and change direction is JUST LIKE a commercial aircraft.

I'm quite a skeptic; I don't believe in an afterlife, don't believe in deities, etc., and I sure as hell never WISHED to "believe" in UFOs, but sometimes when you see something a couple of times right along with a bunch of other skeptical eyewitnesses you are forced to accept that we likely don't know everything. We have never known everything. To believe that the human race-a species screaming headlong towards it's own extinction, which will have been caused by it's own stupidity and greed- has somehow gotten it all figured out now is idiotic in the extreme. There is still a lot that we don't understand about the universe, what's in it, and how it operates.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. it is not a belief in UFOs, so much as a reasonable analysis

220 yrs ago electricity was all the rage - as a discussion topic and how Ben Franklin discovered it.
100 yrs ago we took flight.
60 yrs ago we split the atom.
40 yrs ago we landed on the moon.
20 yrs ago we communicated with the intertubes
15 yrs ago we proved other planets exist around other stars
10 yrs ago incredible new materials and warmer superconductivity were discovered
5 yrs ago we changed our understanding of the universe

presuming that we survive Bush and Cheney, our growth pattern is something incredible. There are people still alive who were born when the Wright brothers were experimenting.

any self respecting alien would be damned sure to keep an eye on us.

Then take Karl Sagan's Billions and Billions argument.

how many billion stars make up our measely galaxy?
how many billion galaxies are there?
with our simple tools we found planets. Where there are big planets, there will be small planets. Wet planets, life-providing planets. Alien life. WE arrived on this planet very late in its development. Who knows how smart the dinosaurs were, and where they would have ended up in development? They died off, and only then did we opposable thumbed bipeds took over. and that took 150,000 yrs.

of course they exist. They probably get a good laugh out of our foolishness.

[SteppingRazor]

8. Or they're wondering where their next meal is coming from.

Even assuming that small planets that have the potential for life are plentiful, you then have to postulate that such planets will give rise to life. This seems reasonable, since the only planet we know of that has the necessities for life did, in fact, develop it. But then, we have to assume that such life would develop intelligence. This is a much more dicey prospect. After all, of the millions of species on Earth, we're the only ones to develop the intelligence necessary for complex tools and language. And then, assuming that there are intelligent species, we have to assume that such species will survive as a race long enough to develop technology the likes of which we cannot even comprehend. After all, these UFOs would require faster-than-light-speed travel, some ability to bend space, or some other means of conveyance that, as far as we're concerned, belongs totally in the realm of science fiction. Developing such technology is also a dicey concept -- first, that any species could exist long enough, especially after developing the intelligence required for it. Second, that an alien species would think the same way we do and even be interested in space travel.

In any case, it's an awful lot of assumptions to make. And if there was such an alien species, even with all our recent advances, I doubt they'd be too interested in us, except possibly in a sort of anthropological way -- despite all our advances, we'd be incredibly primitive to them.

[BlueJazz]

13. All very true ..PLUS....We and other Species would have to have....

...evolved in a similar "Time Frame".
Stars can last for many billions of years and the chance of 2 races being in the same window
(1,000,000 years ??) is fairly slim. Even considering a star such as the sun, which probably has a useful lifetime of 8 billion years, when planets/life could rise...we're still talking about an 8000/1 chance that we'll be in the same Window. :)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

56. no, not windows! even with vista, it would never work

If other critters are out there, I'd bet that they use macs.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

68. our tools would be like the stone age to them, I agree.

but would it not be cool to visit neanderthals, see their creativity at work, their tool-making, their society, their toil and daily struggle?
Not to interfere, but to learn about our past.

Did they have a rudimentary legal system? Baby sitters? scouts guarding the tribe at night? did they specialize? did they make music and art?

[Basileus Basileon]

21. I do not doubt the existence of life on other planets.

Intelligent life probably, though intelligence on Earth was something of an enormous aberration--it's extremely costly to develop, it consumes an enormous amount of energy to maintain, it requires an extremely long development and dangerous childbirthing, and provides little advantage in most cases. We are fortunate in that our ancestors were bipedal, had hands, forward-facing eyes, were social, and had rudiments of verbal communication in place. Were any of those not the case, we would not have developed as we did.

Dinosaurs were stupid. So were most of the dominant forms of life. Looking at life before extinction events, there were several paradigms that were seemingly indestructible. There was aquatic armor; that died off in an extinction event. There was reptilian gigantism; that died off in an extinction event. As you state, intelligence developed very rapidly among humans. The fact that it only developed once in Earth's history, took as long as it did to develop (even still, social, sedentary society only developed once) all ought to tell you something about its likelihood of developing. It still almost certainly exists in our galaxy.

Of course, the visible sky is only a very small fraction of our galaxy, and mechanical transport is bounded by the speed of light. The odds that intelligent life has found us? Decreasing. The odds that intelligent life is paying us random little zip-and-and-out visits in mechanical craft? Extremely unlikely.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. another possibility is that

they have seen George Bush for who he is and were scared off.

[InvisibleTouch]

40. "Dinosaurs were stupid."

How could we possibly know? In fact there's evidence of social heirarchy and parental care in quite a few species, as well as healed injuries on some individuals, which the animal could not possibly have survived without assistance from pack-mates. Just because they didn't build pyramids or spaceships doesn't mean they were "stupid." A lot of current species have much more self-awareness and mental/emotional capacity than they've been given credit for in the past. And how intelligent is a species that poisons its own environment and outpaces its limited resources, despite ostensibly "knowing better"? There are different kinds of "intelligence," and the human version is not necessarily the universal yardstick by which all else is measured.

[Basileus Basileon]

42. Well, for one,

we can look at their cranial capacity in comparison with their body mass, which is the best predictor of intelligence. Of course, to digress mildly, cold-weather animals frequently have larger brains then warm-weather ones, simply because of the increased presence of protective glia. Dinosaurs come out stupid.

Parental care is not intelligence. Neither is a loose society. Both have developed repeatedly, and neither have developed into full intelligence except in the case of humans. Heck, only in dolphins, elephants, and a few apes did it even develop into basic self-awareness.

To answer your last question, extremely. Intelligence is not wisdom. Humans have the former in spades, and a mild amount of the latter. We are the only animal that deliberately attempts to project its future needs and adjusts its production accordingly. Finally, when you're talking about developing technology, there's only one type of intelligence that matters.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

58. there is so much we don't know about the animal king and queendom.

I am convinced that my dogs communicate with each other.

when the youngest (and largest) decides to tease the oldest, but not yet infirm 15 yr old, you can see his change in expression and see what he plans. there is absolutely no way we can know how or what they think, except they do think on some level, and we are too stupid or arrogant to understand how.

great point about wisdom v. intelligence, by the way.

[Basileus Basileon]

62. I agree there is much more to learn about animal social behavior.

It's a fascinating field.

[InvisibleTouch]

102. About that basic self-awareness...

...I have yet to meet an animal of any species who didn't have that. Some species just express it in a manner more familiar to us, which is why the mental/emotional lives of so many other species have been traditionally ignored and dismissed. You and I will have to disagree on what does and does not constitute intelligence (I wouldn't say it's limited strictly to the ability to create technology), but I did want to address that self-awareness point. If one actually sets aside the prejudices and studies the issue, it's been shown that even fish, reptiles, insects, amphibians, etc. are aware of themselves as distinct from others, and are aware of other members of their species as distinct individuals. They have obvious likes, dislikes, preferences, and personality traits, just like we do - only they express it in a somewhat different way. This gets a bit off-topic from the original subject, I realize, but as someone who has worked with ectotherms for most of my life, I always take a bit of umbrage to the notion that only human-like expression and intelligence is "valid."

[shain from kane]

7. "...conservatives report seeing a specter." How many believe in the single bullet theory?

[mondo joe]

9. An observation from Carl Sagan: "We have also arranged things so that almost no one

understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

[DavidDvorkin]

10. It all pales compared to belief in God

[Zhade]

90. Ironic, given that they're all unfounded belief in things with no evidence.

Why don't believers who reject, say, ghosts also reject gods?

I guess it's the whole "wanting to belong" thing. No one wants to belong to the ghost society, that would mean you're dead. :p

[DavidDvorkin]

109. Exactly

They're the same thing, and we should be alarmed at the percentages in either case.

Actually, belief in God is worse.

There are people who think they've seen ghosts or alien spacecraft. That is, they've seen something. The cause may have been subjective or it may have been real external (but neither supernatural nor alien), but to them the experience was real. So at least they have some excuse for believing in ghosts or alien spacecraft.

But with God, the vast majority of people believe in that being because they say that they know in their bones that he exists, or because they've heard or read about bizarre and absurd miracle stories, or because they're terrified of the idea of living in a mindless universe.

[Stuckinthebush]

11. How many believe in an omniscient being?

That's pretty idiotic too.

What's interesting is that the majority of those who believe in an omniscient being don't believe in ghosts (based on this poll). Fascinating. So it is quite logical to believe in a god or gods but not believe in a spirit? The mind is a cool thing.

[RebelOne]

14. I do not believe in an omniscient being. I am an atheist, but

I have experienced some strange things that I could not explain away.

[SteppingRazor]

15. Actually, it is kinda logical.

If one posits the existence of an omniscient, all-powerful being who controls the afterlife, then from a certain point of view, ghosts would actually be illogical. If an omniscient, perfect being controls whether people go to "heaven" or "hell," then a spirit being left behind on Earth would be impossible, since the being (God) is perfect, and this would constitute some sort of error on God's part.

[Stuckinthebush]

18. That supposes a single view of the omniscient being

There are many who believe in an omniscient being but don't believe this being sends "souls" to door number 1 or door number 2. But your point is well taken. Ghosts and gods are not synonymous. Both silly, but not synonymous.

[SteppingRazor]

25. Oh, of course it's a huge supposition.

I totally accede that. But once you open your mouth and say anything about any sort of "afterlife," you're already making a supposition, regardless of what comes out of your mouth.

"Both silly, but not synonymous."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[dmallind]

24. Really.

Makes you wonder whether they think the Bible is lying about Saul raising Samuel's ghost then. I mean if you believe in the god of the Bible but not ghosts, then you can't believe the Bible....

[Stuckinthebush]

26. Yes, and then there is the Spirt of the Lord

Father, son and holy spirit.

[dmallind]

32. Well in fairness to the believers

I don't think anyone outside of the snake-handling set takes the "ghost" part of the spook's title to be all that definitive or connected to being the remnant of a dead human being. Just more ineffability caused by trying to force together disparate belief systems into a coherent religion (and I am not claiming it works, just that they tried...).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

59. she doesn't believe in me, either, so we are even.

the mind is a wander-ful thing to waste

on weekends.

[gatorboy]

79. I was thinking the same thing but in an opposite sense.

There seem to be folks on this thread that don't believe in God but yet believe in ghosts. I would assume they'd consider both supernatural.

[Stuckinthebush]

107. Good point

I guess you could believe in energy that survives death but have no belief in a god....I guess.

Good point though.

[Zhade]

91. People want to belong to the group, and "ghosts" are well-known loners.

:P

[cooolandrew]

19. Ever noticed how aliens only kidnap rednecks.....

No offense those in the south just tends to be the case.

[dmallind]

29. Well in all fairness also prevalent in the west

but I concede the point. No UFO ever seems to want an encounter of the 3rd kind with anyone in downtown Boston on a rush hour freeway, or seems to want to anally probe a professor of physics, instead preferring isolated boonies and either the ill-educated or the spacey types. I mean that must be yet another way in which they are not like us in their mindset. Whenever NASA looks for signs of life they look where it is most likely to be, not where it is likely to be the most sparse.

[Basileus Basileon]

33. Not to mention how

they always seem to avoid being corroborated by radar readings, even though they clearly reflect electromagnetic waves, given the fact that the rednecks are seeing them. Plus, you'd think that if they were keeping an eye on us, it would require nothing more than pointing a radar dish at Earth and watching our television.

[dmallind]

36. Oh come on

...even aliens aren't that desperate to learn about us. I mean anal probes and implants are one thing, but what self-respecting grey-skinned googly eyed noseless biped would volunteer to watch earth television? Especially without cable?

[Basileus Basileon]

39. I imagine them being very confused by advertisements. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. And they seem to forget to turn their foglights off when they're not using them

I mean, how else can you explain the lights on UFOs? It's not as if they need them for letting us know whether its the port or starboard side of the UFO approaching us.

[Beelzebud]

31. Bill Hicks called his tour of the south the Flying Saucer Tour.

His opening line at the shows: "I call this my Flying Saucer Tour, because much like aliens, I'll be going from trailer park to trailer park, appearing before small groups of hillbillys."

[redqueen]

28. Do you really find it necessary to insult people like that?

Nice, really nice.

:puke:

[Mutineer]

46. Of course. It's DU

what do you expect? People from the South and christians are to be unmercifully mocked, even more so than those who believe in ghosts, ufos and the like.

[redqueen]

47. Yeah... well... I can see someone being ugly and nasty...

if it's in a debate that's wandered offtopic and starts getting personal... but even then, only for a while, and with an apology after the hotheaded party(ies) cool off.

That right-out-of-the-gate brand of assholery, I've lost all patience for it.

[Javaman]

30. well, almost 1/3 believe in moron*, which is worse? nt

[Alter Ego]

35. Um, I believe in ghosts, and I'm fairly sure

that we'd be stupid to believe we're the only sentient life in the universe.

Call me stupid, I guess.

[Stuckinthebush]

50. Why?

I'm not being a smart ass, by the way. I'm just curious why you believe in ghosts.

Oh, and I'd agree that we aren't the only sentient life in the universe. I think the problem with UFOs is the space travel thing. It's a tough sell (not saying it can't happen though).

[Alter Ego]

74. Fair question.

Mainly because of something that used to happen whenever there was a death in the family.

My grandfather died of cancer almost twenty years ago. My family was (and still is) extremely fractious, and they are constantly sniping at one another. However, my grandfather was a master at making peace between his and my grandmother's families--they all loved him so much that they were usually willing to defer to him. When he died, the families fell apart again...but since then, at every subsequent family death (there have been at least four), I recall seeing an oddly colored dove land on the windowsill of the bedroom or ledge of the hospital room. When the person finally died, the dove would take off again.

Coincidence? Maybe.

[InvisibleTouch]

37. I don't know that that's so idiotic.

My personal jury remains out on ghosts, but there's no logical reason to believe we're the only technologically advanced life-forms in the universe - or even that we're anywhere near the top of the ladder. What I don't think is that aliens are so fascinated by mundane little old us that they routinely visit and study Earth - but I have no doubt that they're out there, and might buzz past every now and then as they go about their own business. I would go so far as to say it's more idiotic (not to mention completely arrogant) to think we're "alone in the universe."

[dmallind]

43. good point, but false dichotomy

It's not only tenable but very rational to hold the opinion that, while we are unlikely to be the only self-aware species in the universe, it is equally unlikely that any of the others have a)developed faster than light travel and b)are using it to spend any time at all hanging around earth so that they would be visible to us.

Let's consider it this way. To reach earth from anywhere else where we do not know that there is NOT intelligent life currently, the aliens must have some form of faster than light or space/time bending transportation, agreed?

If they have such a transportation, then it would not be visible in transit but only, to use sci-fi parlance, when out of "warp speed" since obviously it's impossible for humans to see something that travels faster than light. The only reason to be visible on this planet then is if they are coming here intentionally and coming out of "warp speed" within visual range of isolated Montana farms (again we have to wonder why it's NEVER in Chicago or Houston during the light of day that they do this).

So if anyone has ever seen a UFO, which managed to avoid the huge arrays of Jodrell Bank et al but be visible only to some loner on that Montana farm, they must have come here intentionally. Understanding that the alien mindset would be....well alien, we are still then left with the inescapable conclusion that the only reason for their reported behavior is neither tourism, nor education, nor conquest, since they could do any of those things far more effectively by other means or with other patterns of visitations.

Nope - if UFOs have visited earth at all, forgetting all the scientific and rational dilemmas this would cause us to have to assume, then it can only be with the rather pointless purpose of fucking with the minds of a few rural earth hicks or spacey college kids. Seems, however alien the mindset, rather a waste of interstellar travel capability I would think.

[Stuckinthebush]

48. That whole faster than the speed of light thing....

that's a tough one. Not saying it can't happen but the physics are just not there.

Not to mention the problem of running into crap in space. "Warp speed, Captain!" POW! you hit a rock or star or planet or Voyager and blow up.

Oh, and navigation. That's a bitch I bet. "Go to that star and turn right." Well, that star was there hundreds of thousands of years ago but today it is somewhere else but we can't tell because we are just now seeing the light. Good luck with that navigation thing.

So many issues.

[TechBear_Seattle]

52. Well, as a wanna-be science fiction writer

There are ways around objections to FTL travel, or at least ways to decrease the span of one's suspention of disbelief. I am fairly certain that, in a few decades, we will have another major break with "accepted science" and discover things that make quantum mechanics look like the ballistics of a cannon ball. At least, that's what my future history timeline says.

I have no problem accepting the idea that there are other intelligences in the universe. That alien craft reflect the extremely narrow band of electro-magnetic radiation visible to the human eye while remaining perfectly transparent on every other frequency -- ultraviolet, infrared, gamma rays, x-rays, radio, television -- THAT I find extremely hard to swallow. That they never appear to people with independent credibility is, I think, quite significant.

[tridim]

49. What about autonomous robotic craft?

Maybe some eccentric dude (or several) from one (or several) of the billions of solar systems in just our own galaxy decided to send out 10,000 autonomous robotic probes a billion years ago? Maybe some are just arriving at our solar system.

Of course all this assumes that intelligent life will never be able to control space-time by folding space, or via travel in sub-spacial dimensions. Both of which could make multi-billion-light year journeys trivial. We're only just starting to postulate what's going on with string theory. There is so much we don't know about our own planet, let alone the Universe. In a million years, who knows what we'll know?

[SidDithers]

51. Yup...

Sid

[hiphopnation]

53. such active castigation of others for their beliefs

where does that come from? and don't say healthy skepticism, cuz i like to think i possess it as well, but i don't think that people's beliefs or willingness to believe, however preposterous it may seem to me, makes them idiots.

[mondo joe]

65. It's like people who believe in superiority of some races being idiots,

or people who believe the Jews are running the world are idiots, or people who believe gays want to convert and molest kids are idiots.

[hiphopnation]

72. that's lazy

these people are bigots, racists, zealots, xenophobes. there are accurate descriptors to employ that put a fine point on, and are more effective in exposing as dangerous, these beliefs. calling these people idiots, while you and i may colloquially agree, is, well, lazy, imho.

[mondo joe]

73. No, it's true.

Those people are bigots etc because they maintain beliefs that defy reality.

[hiphopnation]

76. and yet you sidestep the thrust of your point

which is that maintaining these beliefs makes them idiots or at least provides you, et al, with a reasonable level of comfort in calling them idiots instead of what they are, bigots, religious zealots, et cetera. we don't share that level of comfort

and before you try to twist this into me respecting people who argue that there's a superior race or supporting the notion that theres an international jewish banking conspiracy let me say that i believe in neither ufos nor ghosts. i just don't think those who do are idiots, nor do i see what is gained or constructive by so cavalierly casting aspersions on the beliefs of others. it smacks of ... something. not quite sure what.

[Owl]

97. Yup too...

[soothsayer]

54. Better to have an open mind than a closed one.

"Believe nothing, entertain possibilities" as my astrologer friend Caroline Casey says.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. There is FAR more evidence of UFO's and Ghosts than the god of the bible...

But Americans overwhelmingly believe the stories of the bible are true... in fact, there is pretty much proof that the exodus NEVER HAPPENED, but Americans believe in that.

So, I guess the premise of the OP is true... Americans are idiots, but not for the reason the OP suggests.

[Fox Mulder]

57. I must be an idiot.

:eyes:

[Generator]

61. I think believing in religion as absolute truth for all or

that America is the "greatest place on earth" and we are a superior people is much worse. Those are orthodoxies I can do without. The UFO people and ghost people are not a threat to the world. (I'm out on both of them personally though I do believe SOME of the people that say they've seen them-I do not believe anyone that says they've seen GOD-yes I find the existence of ghosts or UFO's a thousand times more believable than this GOD business-whom as I write this is not saving children from dying and animals from being tortured much less people-that GOD is such a loser!)

[Terran]

64. So, are people who believe in God(s)...

"idiots" too? there being so much less evidence of its/their existence than that of ghosts and UFO's...

[Zhade]

93. No, just very likely to be completely wrong.

(I mean, we MIGHT find actual evidence for gods some day. Not holding my breath, though.)

[ozone_man]

66. How many believe in holy ghosts?

Does that make them any more plausible? Being holy that is. At least for Halloween we know it's just pretend, but God is pretend for grownups. :)

[frogmarch]

70. I don't believe

in life after death, so I don't believe in ghosts. Also, I don't believe Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials, although I think it's possible, maybe even likely, that life of some kind exists outside our solar system.

However, my non-belief in the supernatural and the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs doesn't stop me from loving ghost/ET stories.

[Phoonzang]

75. Why was it neccesary of them to compare

believing in ghosts and UFOs (aliens) to being pro-Iraq war and liking Bush?

[hiphopnation]

77. a very good question

as yet unasked. :thumbsup:

[Zhade]

94. Because the two latter examples also rely on accepting as fact things which have no evidence.

WMD and b*s* being legally elected, for example.

[Vinca]

78. People who believe in UFOs and ghosts might be considered

entirely normal when compared to the much larger number in the population who believe in burning bushes, parting seas, immaculate conceptions, rising from the dead, etc. Personally, I find it easier to believe in E.T. than God.

[hiphopnation]

80. try this

One third of --fill in the blank-- believe in --fill in the blank--. Face it, they're idiots.

A very convincing argument you make! :eyes:

[nonconformist]

82. Well, I believe in both too

And I don't really give a fuck if anyone thinks I'm an idiot.

[hiphopnation]

83. according to OP, it virtually PROVES that you are an idiot

not to mention a red-stater...if you don't already, please uproot yourself and move to a trailor park in a rural area, preferably the rural south. it's obviously where you belong for espousing such "idiotic" beliefs.

[cgrindley]

84. I can't believe people are confessing to believing in this crap

not only in the wider country, but also here on DU. For shit's sakes. There's no such thing as ghosts. They don't exist. If you think that they do exist... you're WRONG. Stop believing in that crap.

[Zhade]

85. Seems about right - roughly a third of this country lacks ANY critical thinking skills.

And a majority believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Humans are NUTS, dude.

[mondo joe]

87. Heck, how many still think Iraq attacked the US on 911?

[Zhade]

96. The same reason - ignorance of the facts and the inclination to believe...

...with no supporting evidence whatsoever the things they feel emotionally inclined to believe.

It's the same reason people born in, say, Saudi Arabia grow up Muslim instead of (e.g.) Buddhist (generally speaking, in that they've adopted the flavor of belief in their region).

[johnnie]

95. You know what I think is moronic?

I think it is moronic that there are actually people who believe we are really advanced and since we have no way of scientifically proving something yet, it doesn't exist. How old is the universe? How long have humans been around? We aren't that advanced as we like to pretend we are. Shit, we don't even know how to get along. How hard can it actually be?

[Zhade]

98. Something not having been proven does not mean it exists.

Just because it can't be DISproven also does not mean it exists, no matter how badly we wish it.

[johnnie]

99. You are right

But I know what exists that I have experienced and a lot of people will tell me differently because I don't have the paperwork from a scientist to back up my claim. That's just plain silly. Some day maybe science will catch up to reality and prove certain things, but until then I will just have to know what I know.

[nonconformist]

100. Don't even bother debating them

They know it ALL, don't you know? ;)

Seriously, it must be sad to be so closed minded and ridged... they must be a blast to hang out with.

[johnnie]

101. I think it's funny

But I don't try to prove anything to people who need to have data. There is no point in it. They are the same type of people who thought the world was flat.

[Geek_Girl]

104. I guess I'm an idiot then

Oh well

[Kazak]

110. Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

Provide reproducible verifiable evidence of ANY supernatural phenomenon and please put the whole matter to rest once and for all.

For the love of *ahem* GOD!!