Heretic;1792796 wrote:Meanwhile, through history, there have been countless religions, each with their own pantheon, illustrating that religion has repeatedly been wrong on many fronts for centuries and will continue to be wrong in perpetuity.

I am not sure there is anything wrong with living in a Christ-like manner and effectively 'loving our neighbor as thyself'.

QuakerOats;1792799 wrote:I am not sure there is anything wrong with living in a Christ-like manner and effectively 'loving our neighbor as thyself'.

Better hope you don't live anywhere where you have Democrats as your "neighbor" then!

OSH;1792792 wrote:I "singled" it out because that is the crux of much of your discussion about science/religion with most people. It was with me, so why continue to discuss what I believe, think, study, and feel if you continue to have a wrong preconceived notion about me? Defeats the purpose of a discussion if you continue to retort back to "The reality is, you believe in what you believe because you were born into a family who believed it and passed it along. You never really took time to critically examine each religion for proof and validity and yet you want to pretend a scientific consensus with a 1% margin of error isn't good enough for proof."

Because it's a valid stereotype. You don't think it's a coincidence that those born to a christian family grow up as a christian?

Congrats on pointing out that individuals have different stories/ideas/beliefs, etc. That isn't a revelation and pointing it out isn't clever.

But please, tell me why Islam is wrong and why your religion is correct. You claim to not fit the normal mold of believers, so clearly at some point you evaluated every belief system looking for the correct one. I'm curious as to the process and the evidence you used to come to that conclusion. I'll get my popcorn ready.

QuakerOats;1792789 wrote:Not sure about Islam, but science has repeatedly been wrong on many fronts for centuries, and will continue to be wrong in perpetuity. The more we discover the more we realize how wrong we got it previously. Right?

That's the process of science. A continuous vetting of current beliefs until evidence overwhelmingly supports one conclusion. The more knowledge gained about how the world works; the stronger the evidence can be built to support a certain conclusion.

This is the opposite of religion. Religion stays static and the more knowledge gained the more dubious religious beliefs seem. It's not a coincidence that the use of the internet and religious belief are negatively correlated.

sleeper;1792803 wrote:That's the process of science. A continuous vetting of current beliefs until evidence overwhelmingly supports one conclusion. The more knowledge gained about how the world works; the stronger the evidence can be built to support a certain conclusion.

As if there were a beginning and ending.

sleeper;1792803 wrote:This is the opposite of religion. Religion stays static and the more knowledge gained the more dubious religious beliefs seem. It's not a coincidence that the use of the internet and religious belief are negatively correlated.

As if the practice of living in a Christ-like manner needs to change.

Sleeper-
You've obviously come to the personal conclusion/decision that religion(s) are a waste of time and you will not follow them. If I'm understanding you correctly, it is your contention that science pretty much debunks all religion(s). I would guess that is fine with most everyone who believes in freedom of speech, including me.

I find it interesting that you are willing to take in known scientific fact with regards to making your decision about religions, however, you obviously do not do the same when it comes to your admitted belief in man-made climate change.

In that regard you are beginning to appear to be incredibly flawed in your consistency and thusly, at least to me, looking like you are being crushed on this thread.

How is it that you can debunk religions due to scientific reasoning yet you are so willing to follow the climate-change believers without the same due process?

Apple;1792827 wrote:Sleeper-
You've obviously come to the personal conclusion/decision that religion(s) are a waste of time and you will not follow them. If I'm understanding you correctly, it is your contention that science pretty much debunks all religion(s). I would guess that is fine with most everyone who believes in freedom of speech, including me.

I find it interesting that you are willing to take in known scientific fact with regards to making your decision about religions, however, you obviously do not do the same when it comes to your admitted belief in man-made climate change.

In that regard you are beginning to appear to be incredibly flawed in your consistency and thusly, at least to me, looking like you are being crushed on this thread.

How is it that you can debunk religions due to scientific reasoning yet you are so willing to follow the climate-change believers without the same due process?

No I am not saying science debunks religion. I am saying that any man made religion lacks evidence entirely.

Also, at this point, the scientific evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in support of humans influencing the climate on this planet. I am also aware there is scientific research out there providing evidence that humans do not significantly influence climate change. You have to weigh the amount and validity of every study(conveniently, science calls this peer review) to determine the currently held "correct" belief. You also need to be open minded to new data that can build that goes against that currently held belief. Right now, the scientific community has concluded the majority of evidence supports humans having a significant influence on climate change. Let me know when you want to take your head out of the sand.

QuakerOats;1792826 wrote:As if the practice of living in a Christ-like manner needs to change.

That isn't the issue. The issue is proving that JC was the son of god and did all of the things the Bible claims he did. Currently that evidence is regulated entirely to one book that scholars need 1,000 of years to determine what is real and what is not. That isn't evidence, that is fraud at best.

QuakerOats;1792825 wrote:As if there were a beginning and ending.

It is continuous. We learn, collectively, new information every day and continue to build upon our understanding of everything.

Keep pumping out the vague sentences though.

sleeper;1792835 wrote:That isn't the issue. The issue is proving that JC was the son of god and did all of the things the Bible claims he did. Currently that evidence is regulated entirely to one book that scholars need 1,000 of years to determine what is real and what is not. That isn't evidence, that is fraud at best.

We are all God's children.

sleeper;1792836 wrote:It is continuous. We learn, collectively, new information every day and continue to build upon our understanding of everything.

Obviously my comment went completely over your head. I'm sorry.

sleeper;1792833 wrote:Also, at this point, the scientific evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in support of humans influencing the climate on this planet.

Hilarious. At best it was shown to be less than 1% effect from humans (which is dubious), but if you BELIEVE that is overwhelming scientific evidence then feel free to participate in the destruction of the economy to feed the marxists who are selling you the kool-aid.

sleeper;1792833 wrote:No I am not saying science debunks religion. I am saying that any man made religion lacks evidence entirely.

Also, at this point, the scientific evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in support of humans influencing the climate on this planet. I am also aware there is scientific research out there providing evidence that humans do not significantly influence climate change. You have to weigh the amount and validity of every study(conveniently, science calls this peer review) to determine the currently held "correct" belief. You also need to be open minded to new data that can build that goes against that currently held belief. Right now, the scientific community has concluded the majority of evidence supports humans having a significant influence on climate change. Let me know when you want to take your head out of the sand.

Sleeper you are a hoot! That "take your head out of the sand" was funny! Good one!

ok... so you say that science does not debunk religion. I understand your position now.

You then say that "any man made religion lacks evidence entirely".

How is that any different than saying, "any man-made climate change lacks evidence entirely"?

Again, I ask, how can you NOT apply the same criteria in deciding about man-made climate change as you do to man-made religion? You are not sounding any where near being consistent in your reasoning.

Apple;1792843 wrote:Sleeper you are a hoot! That "take your head out of the sand" was funny! Good one!

ok... so you say that science does not debunk religion. I understand your position now.

You then say that "any man made religion lacks evidence entirely".

How is that any different than saying, "any man-made climate change lacks evidence entirely"?

Again, I ask, how can you NOT apply the same criteria in deciding about man-made climate change as you do to man-made religion? You are not sounding any where near being consistent in your reasoning.

There is plenty of evidence that supports man-made climate change; in fact the overwhelming majority of evidence supports it. You just have to take your head out of the sand to see it.

sleeper;1792833 wrote:No I am not saying science debunks religion. I am saying that any man made religion lacks evidence entirely.

Also, at this point, the scientific evidence is pretty overwhelmingly in support of humans influencing the climate on this planet. I am also aware there is scientific research out there providing evidence that humans do not significantly influence climate change. You have to weigh the amount and validity of every study(conveniently, science calls this peer review) to determine the currently held "correct" belief. You also need to be open minded to new data that can build that goes against that currently held belief. Right now, the scientific community has concluded the majority of evidence supports humans having a significant influence on climate change. Let me know when you want to take your head out of the sand.

I did a quick search in your suggestion of me needing to keep an open mind. I found this about scientific consensus:
http://noconsensus.org/what-is-consensus.php

[LEFT]"Is there really a consensus? What does that mean, anyway?[/LEFT]We're frequently told the global warming debate is over because a "scientific consensus" exists. Does this mean that all scientists of any stature believe the planet is in peril? Actually, vigorous debate continues. Smart people with impressive credentials can be found on all sides of this question. Freeman Dyson, one of the finest scientific minds of our time, disagrees with much of the global warming thesis. A petition rejecting global warming has attracted the signatures of 31,000 Americans with science degrees - including 9,000 with PhDs. A partial list of international scientists who dissent from global warming theory has its own Wikipedia page. If "consensus" means that a majority of the world's scientists believe in global warming - that's probably true. It's also true that prominent science journals and international scientific bodies have endorsed the concept. But scientific validity isn't determined by majority vote. It was Galileo - not the consensus of his time - who had it right. When French researcher Pierre Louis concluded, in the early 1800s, that bloodlettingwas of limited use in treating pneumonia, he was challenging 2,000 years of standard medical practice."

sleeper;1792845 wrote:There is plenty of evidence that supports man-made climate change. You just have to take your head out of the sand to see it.

There you go again with the funny stuff! You really crack me up!

Apple;1792846 wrote:I did a quick search in your suggestion of me needing to keep an open mind. I found this about scientific consensus:
http://noconsensus.org/what-is-consensus.php

[LEFT]"Is there really a consensus? What does that mean, anyway?[/LEFT] We're frequently told the global warming debate is over because a "scientific consensus" exists. Does this mean that all scientists of any stature believe the planet is in peril? Actually, vigorous debate continues. Smart people with impressive credentials can be found on all sides of this question. Freeman Dyson, one of the finest scientific minds of our time, disagrees with much of the global warming thesis. A petition rejecting global warming has attracted the signatures of 31,000 Americans with science degrees - including 9,000 with PhDs. A partial list of international scientists who dissent from global warming theory has its own Wikipedia page. If "consensus" means that a majority of the world's scientists believe in global warming - that's probably true. It's also true that prominent science journals and international scientific bodies have endorsed the concept. But scientific validity isn't determined by majority vote. It was Galileo - not the consensus of his time - who had it right. When French researcher Pierre Louis concluded, in the early 1800s, that bloodlettingwas of limited use in treating pneumonia, he was challenging 2,000 years of standard medical practice."

Your site doesn't work for me but a site called "nocosensus.org" is not biased at all! LOL

Here's NASA's take:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Tell me more on your views of climate change that are directly opposite of the views NASA among other academic institutions.

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world). The number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that reject the consensus on human-caused global warming is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. The small amount of dissent tends to come from a few vocal scientists who are not experts in the climate field or do not understand the scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

• Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
• “The scientific consensus on climate change,” N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
• “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).

In addition, here are only 200 scientific organizations that disagree with you:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Sleeper the relentless!!

But that virgin birth...totally plausible!

sleeper... its going to have to be after the weekend, my friend. We take electronics-free weekends from time to time and do a home-recharge. Until next week have a good one.

Apple;1792853 wrote:sleeper... its going to have to be after the weekend, my friend. We take electronics-free weekends from time to time and do a home-recharge. Until next week have a good one.

That's okay. Looking forward to your evidence that directly counters the opinion of NASA and 200 leading scientific organizations on climate.

QuakerOats;1792842 wrote:Hilarious. At best it was shown to be less than 1% effect from humans (which is dubious), but if you BELIEVE that is overwhelming scientific evidence then feel free to participate in the destruction of the economy to feed the marxists who are selling you the kool-aid.

Please provide the incentive for NASA to want to present research that would purposefully destroy the economy. We may need to get you a tin foil hat.

sleeper;1792848 wrote: Here's NASA's take:

NASA is always right .........

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

QuakerOats;1792838 wrote:We are all God's children.

This is an unsupported conclusion.

sleeper;1792859 wrote:Please provide the incentive for NASA to want to present research that would purposefully destroy the economy. We may need to get you a tin foil hat.

You tout yourself as a money guy; follow the money trail.