Bleh. I'm high. Rather not. Sorry.
Printable View
Bleh. I'm high. Rather not. Sorry.
ok, this debate can wait ;)
If a preacher gets up and predicts that there will be tornadoes and droughts and hurricanes because it is the end of times or to fulfill Biblical prophesy, he is mercilessly mocked by the same people that run and cower when Al Gore predicts the same thing...
Truly bizarre.
Since this thread has obvious left the tracks, I suppose I'll answer my own question. When did I start to question Anthopogenic Global Warming? I guess it was when I stumbled across a peer review scientific paper that apparently contradicted everything that the theory was founded on.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
According to the AGW theory, we're in a unique and unprecedented warming event that is directly caused by human activity. That paper shows that even in the last 1000 years the warming is not unprecedented, or extreme.
If AGW is purely a scientific theory, and truly can be refuted, that study refutes it. Since it has somehow survived that paper, it's very clear to me that it has long since passed into the realm of religion, where empirical refutation is not possible.
Even if AGW is fact (which it isn't), isn't it better to start preparing for it now anyway? It's a little late to start saying, "Oh shit, I think we messed up. Better start trying...". It's not like reducing the number of cars on the road is going to stop it. Only slow it down, which isn't much help.
When you find evidence that goes agaisnt a scientific theory accepted by millions you accept it even though most scientists agree with it. When youre shown evidence that goes agaisnt the idea of religious experiences also accepted by millions (says they exist but arent "religious" but a product of unlocking the full potential of our own mind) you refuse wholeheartedly to believe a word of it. Why is that? That's not faith, its arrogance and ego - in the same way people believe in global warming without doing research or even considering the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
In other words, most people will just believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence and facts because it makes them feel good, which is priority no. 1 to them - not finding the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://deoxy.org/8_larvals.htm
tarajunky, you speak of AGW becoming like a religion. This means you clearly understand and accept what me and many others have been telling you in threads like these, that religion isn't a proper way of finding truth.
I don't understand how you can criticise AGW for being like a religion when you hold religious beliefs yourself. You've shown that you understand that a religious attitude is wrong.
I don't have a problem with science or religion. I do have a problem with religion masquerading as science, especially when tens of trillions of dollars are at stake.
Upon seeing this picture:
http://i.imgur.com/6NqRU.jpg
Clearly Jesus is saving the clansmen in this picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
Wizzup, those KKK men are not real Christians.
Doesn't matter that they furiously study the bible, doesn't matter that they believe in Jesus, doesn't matter that they have never missed church, pray every night before they go to sleep and bring up their children in the faith.
They still arn't real Christians(tm). ;)
You are badmouthing those people but they do a lot of good too. They are always helping their church and their community, they give a lot of their money to charity and they have upmost respect for the morals given to us on Mount Sinai. Do you do any of that stuff? thought not dirty atheist...
(seriously now)
@tarajunky
science is in the business of finding the truth about the universe. Religion does this as well and it also deals with moral truth and provides a social club for a community.
If two methods for finding the physical truth get different results, at most one can be correct. Now some varieties of religion hold that a man walked on water, turned water into wine, made a dead person rise again, was crucified but then rose him after 3 days. Other variates hold that the moon was split in half then made whole again. The catholic variety for instance, holds that sperm can pass through the latex that condoms are made from.
I don't know why you can't see that religion makes factual physical claims about the universe as well which are not backed up by empirical or logical investigations. If you discard AGW on the basis that it's a religion, you have to discard your Christianity too. You can't have it both ways.
I am an AGW unbeliever, but I am tolerant of those who believe otherwise. I am a Christian believer, but I am tolerant of those who believe otherwise.
I don't see a superficial incongruity as the major problem that you seem to believe it is. That's the fundamental difference between empirical science and philosophy. You could simply theorize everything about how the world works, based on a few basic principles you know to be true, and come up with an answer for everything. What empirical science does is to take those same hypotheses and test them. When the empirical data does not match the theory, is that bad? No, of course not. It's a chance to learn.
But there are several fundamentally different explanations for why that mismatch occurred. It could be that the theory is flawed, or that the data is flawed, or that the interpretation of the data is flawed.
So, attempting to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific theories is not as black and white as you suggest it is. There are times when there is disagreement, but I generally consider those to be open questions that require a better understanding. The easiest thing to do is to say "My faith is always right," or "The science is always right". That allows one to stay in their comfort zone, by immediately rejecting anything inconvenient, simply on the basis of where it came from and not necessarily on its merits.
You see this in AGW, for sure. Rather than rebut the many studies that contradict the premises behind AGW, the strategy is usually to attempt to discredit the individual. Some are said to be paid by oil companies. Others are said not to have a background in a certain scientific discipline or another. But this is not a scientific rebuttal at all. AGW is really a monstrous combination of science, religion, and politics. Instead of combining the best characteristics of those fields, it borrows the worst from each in order to foist its agenda on the world.
It uses the same doomsday preaching you hear in religion. It uses the same personal destruction you hear from politicians. And you see collusion and bias and manipulation from the scientists.
Sounds like a half dream state, or possibly sleep paralysis. Nothing unusual, I get it all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsetst
Answering the original poster, I believe I was 4-6 because I don't remember being in kindergarten at the time. I just told my mom that I didn't believe in Jesus and didn't want to go to church anymore, I cried at the time because I thought she would be really mad. Luckily she is not hardcore, so she said it was OK :)
Well, to be honest I started questioning when I met my girlfriend. Yea I know lame, but its legit, cause until I met her a year and a half ago I never really went to church. Then I went with her and started wondering about it.
Now I know he's there after my car accident in January. Went off a guardrail, flew 150ft, rolled the car a few times, and I escaped with only a screwed up arm. Was wandering around in the fog on the highway after somehow crawling out of the windshield.
Lol'd. :p Obviously some sort of supernatural being is the reason physics happen. Obviously.
Meh. I figure I should actually say something other that what I just said.
And I've nothing against you, aran. :) I just don't see how that's any proof of any deity at all. It's probably one of the silliest proofs that people say ("I survived a horrific accident; God exists."). (The punctuation for that looks wrong.) How is it that if one survives something that may be fatal in most occurrences, a deity exists? Does that one accident change all of the horrendous things in this world? Because you (just a single person that most people don't even know about) lived, does that make Hitler's (the bad parts about him, not the good things he did. Happy belated birthday to him, as well. :3) actions those which never happened? Of course not. People will always die. Evil will always be in this world. Just because you survived a car crash, along with the tens (hundreds?) of thousands who do every year, doesn't at all justify a omniscient being.
kthx? :3
(And I'm not trying to say you're wrong or you shouldn't believe in God or anything. I know why you do, I know how your God behaves, and I know when you ask Him for certain things (and what those things are). It makes perfect sense that you would believe in Him. Just as every other past society has dealt with things of that matter. I just felt as though my original post was lacking in anything constructive. :) And I like to type/write out my thoughts. ^^ All chill, broski? :p)
i dont get how people get so hung up on religion.
I luffs yeww,
I see your point, but have you ever almost died? Like literally? Im not going to sit here and argue, I could, and it would entertain me, but would be a waste of time when I/we could be scripting. PS... Think its supposed to be a ':'.
Yes, sir. I was in the hospital for a few days due to a heart attack. It's pretty interesting to listen to people in a hospital. It was overall a very good experience. And I learned how to REALLY lower my heart/respiratory rate. Those monitors are pretty useful to those who have anxiety. :p
Have you seen Fight Club? (Or read the book.. I think it's in the book as well. Can't remember. I should read it again. ^^) When they're driving (Tyler and Tyler, with the two people in the back, and then imaginary Tyler is asking the people in the back what they want to do in their life, and one says build a house and the other says he wants to paint a self-portrait), and then imaginary Tyler lets go of the wheel and they get into a crash, and then after they crash, imaginary Tyler tells real Tyler that real Tyler just had a near-life experience. That's a good scene.
And I've fallen out of a raft thing on the Deschutes and stuff like that. Most of which wasn't a big deal or anything. And I've over dosed on some stuff and gone to the ER, etc.
I'm not trying to just say you're wrong, but I have some knowledge about near death experiences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience is a good read, imo). Definitely not anything tragic, but I do read almost nonstop about trauma, religion, and people in general. I understand why people believe in a supernatural power, as I previously said, if they were in some sort of accident. That's fine, whatever floats your boat. But I do believe that they should grow up and grow out of it (not that they're immature for it, just that it's something that a well-off adult shouldn't do to live a productive and (mentally) healthy life style). You know? :)
Aran, as luffs said, you have to think logically about the physics involved in your accident. All of the events that took place (the speed at which the car rolled, where is landed, etc.) were pre-determined to happen, based off your takeoff etc.. I don't imagine that the laws of physics were altered mid-flight by anyone (including a supernatural being). However, it's up to you to discern the truth.
It's not that i don't believe in god, because i do actually, but like all of us, I'd like some solid, tangible proof. Without proof, it's really impossible for the human mind not to question somethings existence.
There are some that suggest that EVERYTHING that happens is "just physics".
People don't even have free will, we just THINK we do because the physics of molecules colliding inside of our brains and causing chemical reactions to take place dictate that we should.
Of course, those same Newtonian Physics that tell us how a car will crumple and where the metal will impact on our body and the velocity and force of that interaction on our arm have been shown to be inaccurate at the quantum level.
Some people look at the birds and the trees and the world around them and are humbled and amazed at the wondrous creation before them. Others need to look into an electron microscope or a telescope or a genome database before they arrive at the same point. The arrogant few that are never humbled or amazed at any point are the exception, in my experience.
Also, it's interesting to think about being able to see something to know that it's real. That's actually something that young babies outgrow very early in their development. For young babies, playing Peek-a-Boo with them can be a terrifying experience, because when they can't see you, you're not there. But as they develop, they learn that even if they don't see your face you are still there, and it becomes a fun game for them.
So, I would argue that to "growing out of religion" as part of maturing is exactly the opposite of what actually happens. People start out with no ability to understand something they can't see and feel at that moment, and eventually grow out of it.
First of all, tara, thanks. :3 Honestly, your posts are the ones I always read. ^^
Now to the rest of what you said.
I know, as well as I assume you do, you saucy little minx, you, that the atomic world acts much differently from our world. But to me, that doesn't have anything to do with the physics argument. As you most likely know, our understanding/observation of it is what defines the atomic world that we see. But that's not how our world, and our physics in this case, work. They are not predetermined, like tofu said, however. They (the objects) acted accordingly with their velocity, mass, force, etc. I hope you can agree with that. However, I'd rather not worry too much about this physics nonsense; this is a debate about religion, not physics. ^^
What you said about peek-a-boo is a very good example. Although, I see it differently. You stated (which I would concur with), "... can be a terrifying experience." That, to me, is why religion itself was created. My reasoning with that is that we (humans) created religion to deal with that terrifying experience of the unknown. But, in the case of peek-a-boo, we don't find terror in the actions once we understand what's happening (there is merely a wall of some object that is not the face that we were looking at previously), and then it's purely a joke, or a fun game if you will, and nothing more. It's not something that you don't outgrow, because it's not a terrifying occurrence, nor do we find joy in it (because of what, is what I find interesting. Some ideas are that we outgrow the unintelligent play we once enjoyed at a younger, more ignorant, age, or maybe even we've no time for such silly games now that life has problems to be solved by ourselves, etc., or a few others, but now it's off topic again. :p), and so we stop playing it. That, obviously, is not the case with religion, as it's still a universal answer to the unknown.
Another thing that you said was "People don't even have free will, we just THINK we do..." which I completely agree with. Maybe you were being sarcastic, but I really don't think we, as humans, have any free will at all. To me it's silly to think that our ideas our solely ours. And in my mind, it doesn't even make sense. How could we not be influenced by each and everything we see/feel/touch/taste/hear? :) I just don't see how people think they've any free will at all (unlike what I feel about religion, because, again, it makes complete sense to me why people would be religious).
Sorry for the wall of text.
I always believed in the existence of God, because I cant live this life believing the world and the people in it were an accident.
http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif
@kingarabian those statistics don't really mean much, even if 100% of people believed X, it wouldn't make X true.
It seems to me you're saying that any clash between faith and science is only due to us misunderstanding or misinterpreting. You seem to be defining them in such a way that you cant help but be right!Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
So everything where faith and science clashes that just becomes an open question that we require more understanding?
I suppose the sun stopping for Joshua is something we require more understanding of? Perhaps we need to reformulate celestial mechanics since the bible has shown it's wrong? Or perhaps we need to reinterpret the Book of Joshua because science has shown it's impossible?
Well actually quite those studies do come to the attention of climate scientists, but when they rebutt them, they are dismissed as being handwaving. Although I don't really want to dwell on AGW as there is another thread on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
'Quantum physics shows Newtonian physics to be inaccurate, therefore all physics is wrong'Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
It was physics that enlightened itself, the physics community replaced one set of theories with another. It doesn't mean physics is wrong, if anything it means physics has come out stronger. I can't believe you're trying to use this example to somehow show that physics is wrong, especially as in a previous post you said how science becomes stronger when things are shown to be wrong. I really hope I've misunderstood you and that you're not practising doublethink.
I agree that it was probably unhelpful for i luffs yeww to bring up physics in this way. I probably would have gone with aran armath's sense of retrospect.
God allowed the car to hit him in the first place, why should God get any credit when then decides to keep him alive?
Oh no I must insist! I knew this would come up eventually, accusations of arrogance.Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
It is not science that is arrogant: science can be defined as 'humility before the facts' — it is those who refuse to submit to testing and make unsubstantiated claims that are arrogant. Arrogant and unjust.
Almost all the scientists I know are in the field because they were inspired by it.
There is grandeur in this view of life, those birds and trees you speak of fit together in a beautiful and elegant way, the more you learn about it the more wonderful it seems. Our planet continues to circle the sun according to an apparently fixed law of gravity and inertia. We are humbled every day when we know we are very small beings, clinging to a rock moulded into a sphere by its own weight. Our sun is one of billions of stars and our galexy is one of trillions. If the current trend towards dark matter turns out to be correct, it would be that the "stuff" we are made if is a minority, that over 70% of the universe is made of things completely alien to us. We are poorly evolved mammals in a very small island of tranquility in a vast universe. We're afriad of the dark, we're afriad to die, we're territorial and we act on impulsive irrational calls to nationalism
That is humbleness, my friend. Accepting the facts as they are, accepting that we're going to die one day and to make the most of our lives.
What do we find in religion? Where is the grandeur, you guys are impressed by nothing more then a burning bush and a talking snake.
Where is the humbleness? Most religions confidently assert that we are special in God's plan. God made the entire universe especially for us. He watches over each of us. He sent his only begotten son so we could have eternal life.
We're afraid to die, so Jesus will give us eternal life. We're afraid of the dark, so Jesus became the light of the world and who follows him wont walk in darkness. We're afraid of being alone, so God watches over us everywhere. We are afraid of chaos and randomness, so we note that God has a plan. When we're afraid about food, water or a job, we're told "The lord will provide".
Some communists and socialists not that Jesus threw out the moneylenders, and find comfort in that. Capitalists note that God helps those who help themselves. Homophobic people note that the book of Romans talks down gay people, while homosexuals say Jesus himself hung around with 12 guys.
Everyone can find what they're looking for, their religion is a big comfort blanket that stops them being humble and facing the facts. This to me is very childish and I hope I've explained why in this post.
Islam is tolerant with other religions. I myself have 2-4 atheist friends. I pretty much dont care what you believe as long as no harm is done. But when people start to litterly bash other religions/beliefs that irks me.
See my sig for further details!
^ God*. Anyway, why can't you just pray to your all powerful, all loving, all knowing god and ask for people to never bash anyone else's religion? If you're sincere enough, and believe that it would be a truly divine thing, why wouldn't your god accept your prayer? What if you got 100 people who were truly devout Islams to pray with you? Why wouldn't he accept it?
"God works in mysterious ways," is not an acceptable answer in the slightest. And I'm literally asking you, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, but it is something I've been interested in for awhile. As far as I know there hasn't been a huge group of devout Islams (or Christians/Hindus/whatever religion) attempt this, and who knows, maybe it'd work.
Yakman you should just give up lol. Unfortunately for the world, intelligence != openmindedness or lack of arrogance/ignorance. You can defeat all of some peoples main points and arguements comprehensively, but they will still refuse to accept them - because its "easier" for some people to live in a world where you have meaning and are "special" (gods children, here for a purpose, etc), rather than being a zetascopic mite of dust that occured by chance and means nearly nothing in the grand scheme of things. Believe it or not, the truth is amazingly liberating lol.
Just to show us that this life isnt perfect. God gives people opportunities. Either be good or bad. The hear after is much more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by i luffs yeww
@Claw
Breaking faith is a bitch aint it.
I really like the way dr kent hovind explains the way how to earth is created. Its in a Christian context. I think he is right in most of his stuff and at least he tells and proofs that the atheists theory's are false. They represent it as the truth but many things are unknown and its just a theory. So stop teaching kids that its the absolute truth. Through the years Darwin theory is becoming less and less true.
Actually evolution got promoted from theory to fact relatively recently. Once this becomes common knowledge (will take a while, as people have heard/read the phrase "theory of evolution" a lot), many will move on to the debate of the creation of the earth and the universe. Pretty cool, as we didn't get to see the debate shift from the earth being round, or revolving around the sun, but current generations will see this new shift with lots of books/sites/shows/etc.
Boreas, I never really thought about those things (debating about the earth being round, or it moving around the sun), but I think it would've been basically exactly the same as it is today. Shows how well humans have evolved their thoughts and actions. :<
Anyway, Matsetst, it wasn't/isn't (as far as I know) taught in schools as fact. This was a very common argument with a debate that my class had about this. This is not true in any sense (that evolution was/is taught as fact), and I attempted to argue against it but I can't argue against a false statement such as that. Every single person I know is aware that it was/is the "theory of evolution," not the "fact of evolution," or whatever.
Anything else?
Why does he want to show that this life isn't perfect?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingarabian
What opportunity did He give Fatima, the 2 year old child from Haiti who died in the earthquake. What bad did Fatima do to deserve dying from thirst after 6 days trapped under solid bricks and cement?
I suppose you're going to say she will go to heaven, but why the 6 days in darkness, fear and thirst? Why did she suffer for that long, under the rubble an hour probably feels like an age.
If God is really all-loving, why not give her a heart attack or something so she has a painless exit from this world?
although this post it old, i believe in agnosticism. what agnosticism really is, is that you believe when you die you go into the ground (which is the most logic reason), and where we came from, no body will ever have 100% proof of where we came from, so id rather just say none of us know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Awkwardsaw