2) Show me. And we are talking about religions beyond the tribe level here.
3) Sins with a capital S, dear. Substitute anything the religion teaches is BadWrong to do. The point here is that religions provide some kind of community benefits, and free riders are a concern. Thus, religions increase the cost of joining artificially to avoid those.
5) Any big one is. Otherwise, show me.
Ahh. Moving goalposts. My favorite! First you say all religions. Now you're like "well, the BIG ones. The REAL ones. You know what I mean!"
No, we're not talking about "religions beyond the tribe level", you made claims for all religions.Yes, a religion in a region or community usually has a monopoly on defining good and bad. That's not the same as sin. And sin isn't capitalized, regardless of how insultingly you assert it.
I'll just reassert that many of your points don't apply to Discordianism. What's that you say? No one practices Discordianism? Well that's half my point, and nonetheless even YOU are a Discordian POPE!
BLOOP BLOOP! BLOOP BLOOP! WARNING!! WARNING!! WARNING!!
We haven't done the whole debate the definition of religion thing since the good ol' days of Citizen Duck.
That way lies madness, brothers and sisters.
You can't make me, Doodlebug.
YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD!
The Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll Warning of Impending Theological Pontificating Device can't make you do anything, Citizen Meatrace.
Now, go clean your room.
BLOOP BLOOP! BLOOP BLOOP! WARNING!! WARNING!! WARNING!!
We haven't done the whole debate the definition of religion thing since the good ol' days of Citizen Duck.
That way lies madness, brothers and sisters.
You can't make me, Doodlebug.
YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD!
Actually, with the amount of humping he does on a regular basis, we might as well be all brothers and sisters here.
As for the debate on religion (seriously, we religious folk seem to be the soul of the party no matter what's the discussion), this chart is pretty interesting.
You'll see that may religions don't even address the issue of afterlife. Religions are cultural expressions of a faith shared by a community. That's as far as rules go. What that faith is about or how that community of faithful organizes can, and does, vary as wildly as human ideals and social structures do.
As for the debate on religion (seriously, we religious folk seem to be the soul of the party no matter what's the discussion), this chart is pretty interesting.
You'll see that may religions don't even address the issue of afterlife. Religions are cultural expressions of a faith shared by a community. That's as far as rules go. What that faith is about or how that community of faithful organizes can, and does, vary as wildly as human ideals and social structures do.
Feel free to blame me. I guess I did sort of bring it up. I just have this love/hate relationship with religion. I mean, I think it's obvious to everyone around here that I think religion and religious thought is fundamentally loathsome. But I also find it absolutely fascinating.
I don't think you can really like any aspects of human culture without having some level of appreciation for religion in some form. It's fundamental to the human experience.
It baffles me that someone can look at a chart like the one you linked, the variations and absolute disconnects between disparate faiths practiced throughout the world, and still come to the conclusion that theirs is the "right" one. Rather than that, maybe, there's nothing special about their religion or *gasp* nothing special about religion at all.
Also, this thread has so totally run its course. Can you blame me for wanting to change the subject?!
Okay... we have an AGW battle. We have Freedom. We have Religion. What else can we glomp into the mess? The right to bear arms? Abortion? Copyright?
Come on. There must be SOME way to make this mess a bit more ludicrous.
People who want to turn a blind eye to stuff like this would preferably change the topic rather than think about what the other side has to say. Somehow this is not surprising at all.
Okay... we have an AGW battle. We have Freedom. We have Religion. What else can we glomp into the mess? The right to bear arms? Abortion? Copyright?
Come on. There must be SOME way to make this mess a bit more ludicrous.
Well, the "UK membership in the European Union" is a nice topic too, and there is always the subprime crisis if we really are in a tight spot.
(more seriously, got some bits about the emails, but nothing really damning so far. Got better luck? Still interested, or we can call it quit?)
Let the anti-evolution people speak. Let the flat earthers speak. Let the Freudians speak. Let the bloody people worried about 4 meter lizards replacing the president speak. I have no problems with letting them all speak in school as well - the evolution issue is that the Intelligent Design people don't want anyone to teach anything else. Just like the AGWers. Free speech and the right of people to get the information they want is a challenging concept. If my kid gets taught that Intelligent Design is a possibility, I am sure I can set the record straight. If it's the only allowed opinion, and he/she becomes a social outcast for thinking differently, it's a different situation.
No one is arguing against free speech. But you've just spent several pages decrying bad science, now you want to institutionalize bad science in science classes.
Science class is not an exercise in equal time for all ideas. Science is looking for good ideas and discarding bad ones. If an idea can't stand up to scrutiny, such as the flat earth theory, than it should be discarded and has no place in a science class.
Flat Earth proponents can still go on the street corner and talk all they want.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Pfft.
Environmentalism and religion. Losers.
In the Bride of Gov't Folly thread, we're talking about union hookers.
Vive le Galt!
Okay... we have an AGW battle. We have Freedom. We have Religion. What else can we glomp into the mess? The right to bear arms? Abortion? Copyright?
Come on. There must be SOME way to make this mess a bit more ludicrous.
Well, the "UK membership in the European Union" is a nice topic too, and there is always the subprime crisis if we really are in a tight spot.
(more seriously, got some bits about the emails, but nothing really damning so far. Got better luck? Still interested, or we can call it quit?)
Good ideas there, Smarnil. Of course, I have strong opinions in more or less any field you want to name, but this train wreck of a thread may not be the place for it. To be honest, my day at work sucked with a capital S, so regarding the emails I am going to refer it till another day. Perhaps tomorrow. I am game if you still are, also willing to quit if you want that.
Honey, what are you doing?
Making dates with Comrade Frenchie while I'm in the other room?!?
Call it sparring, gobbo. =)
People who want to turn a blind eye to stuff like this would preferably change the topic rather than think about what the other side has to say. Somehow this is not surprising at all.
We're waiting for you to say something that justifies your position that isn't
- patently false (global conspiracy!)
- undermines the entire scientific process with a spurious plea to epistemic nihilism (we can't tell yet! My feelings are valid because they're my feelings!)
- or astroturfed GRARRARARAR that makes angry sounds over absolutely nothing ("climategate")
Seeing the responses Sissyl got, you'd probably put anything I say in the "patently false" category anyway.
Seeing the responses Sissyl got, you'd probably put anything I say in the "patently false" category anyway.
No, just things for which there is no evidence (but which there is evidence AGAINST).
Why am I not surprised that a guy choosing to deny science isn't all hung up on presenting evidence...
Okay... we have an AGW battle. We have Freedom. We have Religion. What else can we glomp into the mess? The right to bear arms? Abortion? Copyright?
Come on. There must be SOME way to make this mess a bit more ludicrous.
I think you're making this ludicrous enough on your own. (Ha! Zinged ya! Well I'm leaving, back in a few more days with my trademarked snark.)
Seeing the responses Sissyl got, you'd probably put anything I say in the "patently false" category anyway.No, just things for which there is no evidence (but which there is evidence AGAINST).
Why am I not surprised that a guy choosing to deny science isn't all hung up on presenting evidence...
When exactly did I say I choose to deny all science?
Oh wait, I never did such a thing. Learn to debate right, please.
Oh wait, I never did such a thing. Learn to debate right, please.
Then put out an argument for your position rather than some back handed insult that we're turning a blind eye to a valid point of discussion.
Its a double secret probation ad hom.
Seeing the responses Sissyl got, you'd probably put anything I say in the "patently false" category anyway.No, just things for which there is no evidence (but which there is evidence AGAINST).
Why am I not surprised that a guy choosing to deny science isn't all hung up on presenting evidence...
When exactly did I say I choose to deny all science?
Oh wait, I never did such a thing. Learn to debate right, please.
You added the bold word. You'll notice that he said "deny science" you said "deny all science".
And you are denying science when you argue against AGW, because there has been a lot of legitimate work done that shows it's the most likely cause of climate change.
AGW has a higher likelihood of being true than the chance you'll be in a car crash on any specific car trip, but most people wear their seat belts.
Thanks for the backup, gents.
Also f!$& seatbelts. I live on the EDGE!
I just wonder why is it okay to mock people who are willing to question things in case they've been lied to, no matter what the source of the information is. Is it okay to cover your ears and yell loudly when something might become questionable just because "the guy telling you looks trustworthy" or something? That kind of blind trust will just lead to ruin one way or another, especially if everyone chooses to be a blind sheep following the damned herd. Then again, something tells me that you guys are just going to pick some part of this post (or earlier ones) and continue with the snark instead of actually adressing the question itself...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say question everything! But don't just take everything as a lie either.
Always ask two questions, "Are they right or wrong?" And " What kind of information can I find while not making assumtions about the accuracy of the data?"
Also note, carbon dating is highly inaccurate, we just don't have anything more accurate, so people tend to forget how inaccurate it is.
I just wonder why is it okay to mock people who are willing to question things in case they've been lied to, no matter what the source of the information is.
Mostly it isn't the question, its that even when its shown conclusively that the argument is bunk someone either doesn't change their mind, falls back into a logic loop, or drops back into feelings as evidence or more rhetoric in place of answers.
I mean at what point do you demonstrate that something is false beyond all sane doubt?
That kind of blind trust will just lead to ruin one way or another
Its the exact opposite of blind trust. A scientist has to lay out from beginning to end exactly what their evidence is and how it leads to their conclusion. While we can't all do the science at their level nothing their doing is particularly hard to follow if you paid attention in highschool.
What you're hinting at is a worldwide and deliberate conspiracy of a large number of scientists to defraud the public. There is no evidence this is occurring. There is no mechanism for it to occur. There is no motive for it to occur. So what you have is some wild eyed story with no evidence that doesn't even bear the weight of plausibility.
Then again, something tells me that you guys are just going to pick some part of this post (or earlier ones) and continue with the snark instead of actually adressing the question itself...
What deep and ponderous question is it that you think you're bringing up?
The evidence is being ignored or denied, apparently.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by mechanism here.
Motivation for such things is money, which isn't really a big surprise.
I'd rather wait for Sissyl to address this, since he/she knows more about this thing than I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also note, carbon dating is highly inaccurate, we just don't have anything more accurate, so people tend to forget how inaccurate it is.
What are you defining as innacurate? They've checked it against tree rings and it held up fairly well.
The evidence is being ignored or denied, apparently.
WHAT evidence? You can't just say that there is evidence and its being ignored.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by mechanism here, so yeah.
I mean how. How do you get that many people from the scientists to the technicians together to start faking their data without screwing each other up?
Motivation for such things is money, which isn't really a big surprise.
Step 1: Fake global warming
Step 2: ?????Step 3: Profit.
I keep asking this, and there's never an answer. Its a gnome underwear plan. The solar/wind industry isn't nearly big enough yet to pull something like this off
I mean you don't spend 8 years in school and then commit fraud to get grant money to freeze your bearings off in Alaska with a plywood shack with 8 other bearded dudes who haven't bathed since july.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wonder why is it okay to mock people who are willing to question things in case they've been lied to, no matter what the source of the information is. Is it okay to cover your ears and yell loudly when something might become questionable just because "the guy telling you looks trustworthy" or something? That kind of blind trust will just lead to ruin one way or another, especially if everyone chooses to be a blind sheep following the damned herd. Then again, something tells me that you guys are just going to pick some part of this post (or earlier ones) and continue with the snark instead of actually adressing the question itself...
Because some ideas have failed, and failed so spectacularly that holding onto them is an act of ignorance, worthy of mockery.
Flat earthers, and creationists are amongst the best examples of this.
Their ideas are so weak that they must create grand and elaborate lies, which clearly fail the parsimony test, just to support their own belief. That behaviour is both funny and sad to many outside observes.
Let me be clear, Climate scepticism does not fit into this category. There are perfectly legitimate scientists, with expertise in climate science, who are climate change sceptics. There are many fewer than those who accept the hypothesis that human activity. Only about 1.35% survey did not believe human activity was having any effect climate, while about 15.1% thought the effect would be minor. It is relatively reasonable to be a climate sceptic.
And no one here is being mocked for being sceptical about climate change.
If any one is being mocked it is not for their sceptism about Anthropogenic global climate change, it is because the ways in which they try to defend their position are so badly formed that it makes them look like creationists.
example:
Sissyl's belief that their opinion on climate change is as valid as a specialists in the field of climate science, when talking about that subject.
It is of course a ridiculous notion. Climate is an immensely complex subject, one which to understand in any depth takes years active study. Specialists are a requirement of modern science, a lay person can no more model the climatic effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, than sequence a genome.
However, when told that their opinions are unlikely to be accurate, because of a lack of expertise, Sissyl's responce is to claim that they are being denied their opinion.
Which is of course, codswollop. No one is saying Sissyl cannot or should not have an opinion, we just don't consider it likely to be accurate, especially when it conflicts both with our understanding of the availible evidence, and the consensus opinion of legitimate authorities on the subject.
Almost every discussion with Sissyl in this thread, appears to have gone along these lines
sissyl: "this is true..."
everyone else: *evidence it is not*
sissyl: Option A - You just don't get it/you don't understand science
Option B - Your sources are untrustworthy, but mine are
Option C - Your denying me my opinion
Option D - There is a massive conspiricy
Okay, I can take quite a lot in discussions, but this last one I really had to consider whether to flag or reply to. Please, if you take issue with what I say, do take the time to quote me correctly, or don't waste your time and mine. And, since I am apparently being mocked because of the "conspiracy", I could add that things should be clearer for you if you cared enough to go back in the thread and actually read what I have written about that.
The evidence is being ignored or denied, apparently.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by mechanism here.
Motivation for such things is money, which isn't really a big surprise.
I'd rather wait for Sissyl to address this, since he/she knows more about this thing than I do.
We cant deny evidence we haven't been provided with. I would like to see and discuss it, in a civil way.
Okay, I can take quite a lot in discussions, but this last one I really had to consider whether to flag or reply to. Please, if you take issue with what I say, do take the time to quote me correctly, or don't waste your time and mine. And, since I am apparently being mocked because of the "conspiracy", I could add that things should be clearer for you if you cared enough to go back in the thread and actually read what I have written about that.
Hold of flagging until I get back from work and I will happily provide citation for all of those claims about your behaviour in this thread.
I just wonder why is it okay to mock people who are willing to question things in case they've been lied to, no matter what the source of the information is. Is it okay to cover your ears and yell loudly when something might become questionable just because "the guy telling you looks trustworthy" or something? That kind of blind trust will just lead to ruin one way or another, especially if everyone chooses to be a blind sheep following the damned herd. Then again, something tells me that you guys are just going to pick some part of this post (or earlier ones) and continue with the snark instead of actually adressing the question itself...
I've started actually reading the science of climate change. Have you? Or are you just blindly following people like Anthony Watt?
I don't even know who Anthony Watt is, so there's that.
Yeah, that movie is awful. So many things in that have been thoroughly debunked it isn't even funny. Like crop circles and chem trails.
But if you WANT to believe that conspiracies like that are true, it's a pleasant enough movie.
So you're sticking to that one part to refute all of it?
And you seriously believe nobody would abuse power when they have that much money?
Yeah, I'm not really sure of what to say to people here anymore. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.
I don't even know who Anthony Watt is, so there's that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!I don't even know who Anthony Watt is, so there's that.
I should be the one laughing at the fact that you didn't even watch it.
Your response came seconds ago, and that documentary takes two whole hours to watch.
|
|
I don't trust what is made specifically for public laymen. Too much embellishment and they all to often state things as fact rather then theory.
Scientific journals I am more willing to trust but I still take those with plenty of salt. Particularly when there is conflicting knowledge or conflicting personal experience.
Not that I immedietly dismiss them, because I don't, but the majority of the time I suspect somewhere between two camps of beliefs from scientists.
I also think scientists try to define clear lines where there are no clear lines. Like is characteristic A, nature or nurture? I tend to believe that both play a major role, or that one can overcome the other, thus negateing any concept of clear drawn lines.
Metepforically illustrated with math, since I am one of those people are way less able to clearly present ideas to others.
Imagine everyone as an equation,
A+B+C=Person
Now imagine rules for each variable.
A is between 1 & 3, unless B is an even number, then it's between 2 & 6.
B is between 7 & 13, unless A is odd, then it's 5 or 6.
C is 5, unless A and B are both even, then it's 3.
So imagine that nature would set A=1, B=5, C=5
But as this develops, B is changed by nurture, to 6, which then changes A to 2, which changes B to 8, which changes C to 3.
Notice how a scientist who is incapable of seeing the equation would have trouble figuring out how it works? You can look now in the spoiler and see that reletively simple rules can produce these complex and seemingly wild results.
Now realise that in reality, the equation is like that times 10^245 power or greater.
Scientists can discover to their hearts content, and even discover a lot of connections, but they never know when an unforseen connection will suddenly throw it all for a loop.
----------
I am skeptical of global warming because of how much volcanos put out every year. Also there is an asteroid that has a near miss with us every 20 years or so, this could be a astronomically recent development, and the asteroid would effect our planet with it's gravity, it's possible that the passes of this asteroid are inflaming our tectonic activity and causing volcanos to blow up more often.
Just a theory, but a very possible one.
I am skeptical of global warming because of how much volcanos put out every year. Also there is an asteroid that has a near miss with us every 20 years or so, this could be a astronomically recent development, and the asteroid would effect our planet with it's gravity, it's possible that the passes of this asteroid are inflaming our tectonic activity and causing volcanos to blow up more often.
Just a theory, but a very possible one.
Oh my. Without sweating much, how do you think those asteroids gravity pull do compare to the one of a much bigger space that pass us all the time, aka the Moon ?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!I don't even know who Anthony Watt is, so there's that.
I should be the one laughing at the fact that you didn't even watch it.
Your response came seconds ago, and that documentary takes two whole hours to watch.
A short detour on the Thrive internet site is all it takes : libertarian and conspiracy gobbledigook (all governments are bad, even democratic ones). All financed by a american multibilionnaire without any ulterior motives about taxes, of course not !
By "evidence", we didn't mean that kind of paranoid mess.
You did say that men of power are tempted to use it to further their own ends : you should apply that to Thrive and Mr Gamble.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are perfectly legitimate scientists, with expertise in climate science, who are climate change sceptics. There are many fewer than those who accept the hypothesis that human activity. Only about 1.35% survey did not believe human activity was having any effect climate, while about 15.1% thought the effect would be minor.
Can you name any "perfectly legitimate scientists" who "did not believe that human activity was having any effect"?
I cannot. Every climate change 'skeptic' science I have heard of accepts that and only challenges the degree of warming. I suspect that the 1.35% you cite in a survey was either due to ambiguous wording or seeking to 'stack the deck' in an anonymous survey where an indefensible position doesn't NEED to be defended. Or possibly people in a completely unrelated field who have no knowledge of the subject at all.
The furthest extreme of climate change 'skepticism' amongst scientists is represented by people who have merged 'free market fundamentalism' and Christianity (e.g. one argument actually advanced by groups such as the Cornwall Alliance is that 'negative environmental impacts from human activity, such as AGW, are impossible because God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply and would not have done so if it could have negative side effects'). Yet even they admit that humans are causing atmospheric CO2 levels to increase and that this inherently must cause warming.
AGW is an inescapable fact. Anyone who knows the way a desert region rapidly cools once the Sun goes down, while a very humid region can remain warm all night has first hand experience of the mechanism behind global warming. In that case the greenhouse gas is a local increase in water vapor rather than a global increase in CO2, but the effect is exactly the same. Higher greenhouse gas concentration equals more heat retained in the atmosphere. This is a direct result of the fact that these gases absorb and redirect infrared radiation... which can be directly observed by spectroscopy. Solid incontrovertible science for more than a century.
And thus only denied by people who do not know what they are talking about and paid shills deliberately trying to deceive the public.
BTW, relevant article in The Independent yesterday. Oil tycoons still secretly funding climate denial
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am skeptical of global warming because of how much volcanos put out every year.
CO2 emissions from volcanoes average approximately 250 million tonnes per year. Human CO2 emissions are in excess of 29 billion tonnes per year. That is, we are out-emitting the volcanoes by more than 100:1.
Further, volcanoes do not emit CO2 at anything like a consistent rate. They let out a relatively tiny trickle on an ongoing basis and then a big spike when there is a major eruption. If volcanoes WERE responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2 levels we would thus expect to see the CO2 level jump up after each major eruption. Instead, because volcanic CO2 emissions are a tiny fraction of human emissions, the impact of the eruptions is undetectable;
So you're sticking to that one part to refute all of it?
And you seriously believe nobody would abuse power when they have that much money?
Yeah, I'm not really sure of what to say to people here anymore. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.
His obsession over perfect shapes is reminiscent of some greek mathematician/philosopher who thought the universe had to fit inside these geodesic shapes he thought were perfect (that Copernicus later tried to make his math fit too, until he realized he was wrong).
It's new age b*@%*#%#. He isn't relying on science, but what his own idealistic vision of the universe.
I have no sympathy for the Global Domination theory. Mostly because it has it's roots in 18th century antisemitism, as does the hatred of the financial industry (as much as I don't want to defend them).
Your video is an excellent example of people who put blinders over their eyes because they don't want to see the truth. I know this, because they decide to believe in fairy tales instead of scientific evidence on a regular basis (people controlling earthquakes and chemtrails being two excellent examples).