Global warming one big hoax?

Prime Junta said:

Just beware lest you slip into a similar fanaticism in your new set of beliefs. .

Click to expand...

On the political compass I end up next to people like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Dalai Lama in beliefs of freedom and human rights. If I am fanatic, I am fanatic against fanatics, but I believe that fanaticism is cured by information, not violence or forbidding laws.

I go beyond religion. I spend alot of time learning more about the left-wing extremists, the right-wing extremists, the radical feminists, sects and cults. My interest comes from a sociological standpoint, how theese groups come to be, what ideas do they have, how are they different from eachother, and at what point do they get dangerous. Finding ways to prevent such groups from taking up numbers without resorting to violence or laws is a way to keep society in peace. It's better when fanatics are isolated, which happens if you teach about them in school. When everybody are aware of the arguments, it's also easier to take them down when they pop up or in the worst case, freeze them out and make them deviants. Deviants have little chance to cause harm on society.

Today everybody here knows the danger of nationalism. This makes people extremely critical to nationalistic behavior and racism, which is unfortunally helping radical Islam instead. When it comes to communism, our school system have been a failure and they have changed the curiccilum recently to cure this problem. I hope that the next generation wont take as easy on communism as our generation have done. Leaving such information out from the curiccilum is not only stupid, it's lethally dangerous.

Now we are facing the threat from radical Islam and I would personally like to stick the Ultra Fundamentalist Christians of the southern USA as well as the Vatican into the same group of politically dangerous religions (the vatican is the main villian between the genocidal stupidity going on in Africa). I also see a problem with different ideologies that do not mix and are likely to go to war unless they agree that they are actually the same people to begin with, only divided by ancient ideas. A muslim apostate and I are essentially on an equal ground, it does not matter what our past ideas about the world used to be. That's an equal ground in which a moderate muslim and moderate christian will never be able to stand on for a long time.

Beyond that I support gay rights, woman rights, the rights of autistic and epileptic children and the rights of several other minorities which the dogma "disagree" with, and I only see one solution which is learning more and spreading information that religion are unnatural ideas while the things it opposes are natural and should be accepted.

Pladio said:

Yes, South America is one of the most fanatic christian movement in the world. We're talking about Europe here.

Click to expand...

In this timeline it's good to be aware of politic movements on a global scale, not just locally. Their ideas spread here. The spread of Intelligent Design makes that point.

Pladio said:

Here in Belgium the Christian party just won the elections. It doesn't mean the whole country is going to take up arms against rock'n'roll now. It just means they're going to try and help restore faith to Belgium. Apart from that, they'll do what's good for the country (and of course for their pockets, like any other good politician). They'll attract foreign investors and companies, they'll try and find ways to create more jobs. But they won't start a crusade to the Holy Land again.

Click to expand...

I am sorry for your loss. That's a step backwards for sure. I hope they wont start to abolish civil laws, they are less likely to add them. The "good for the country" comment from a christian standpoint is as frightening as if it was spoken by a communist or nazist. The black and white ideology grows more lethal the more who believes in it, and the first that fanatics attack is the school system to be able to easier manipulate people to their point of view. The situation in Poland is severe. You might not believe in the crusade now, but the more a dangerous ideology grows, the closer you are to it's true form which is the good old "we are the best, kill the rest". Liberalism/socialism/capitalism are the only ideologies that sucessfully managed to lead a country while keeping individual freedom.

Pladio said:

This again shows it's not religion which is bad, but the more extremist parts of it. The second biggest party in Flanders is the Vlaams Belang (formerly, the Vlaams Blok). They're from the Extreme Right, if they ever get able to get a majority then they will try do their best to help the country in the way they think is best. They're not Catholic though, they are a nationalistic movement. Except that since they are extremists as well, they will probably send out all new(er) immigrants from Belgium to create jobs for the Belgians, instead of just educating Belgians more and/or better

Click to expand...

I disagree. It is in fact religion in itself that is bad. Humans are humans and you have potential nutcases in every generation. It's just a question which ideology you deliver to them first, the one about democracy and free speech or the one with satan and hell. The "it's not religion which is bad, only people" is pretty much the same argument that is used by drug liberals and gun liberals you know. When people are universally aware of why religion might lead to danger, fanatics are isolated and made deviants. When people are not universally aware, they may elect them as leaders.

Pladio said:

It's just extremism and fanaticism which is bad, not religion.
I understand that it's only a religion that managed to get to the white house, but 60 years ago it wasn't.

Click to expand...

The fact that a firm believer of end times now have access to nuclear weapons should make you worried.
So should news like this.

Like I said, when people universally know the potential danger of an ideology, fanatics are isolated and made deviants. When they are not aware, they may elect them as leaders of their country.

Pladio said:

We've seen what it means. Bush sent young children to fight a war for god. He failed and now the evangelicals and such will lose these elections to the Democrats who will restore the White House to its stagnant state as it was before 9/11.

Click to expand...

We are not there yet, and the potential Democrat presidents are outspoken christians as well. In Sweden we elect leaders on their political agenda which usually only take up increasing liberties, changing taxes and the environment. We do not give a crap about their faith.

Have a look at this. Americans are more likely to elect a homosexual than an atheist. Since beliefs is basicly ignorance to evidence and the US is a very strong nation this should make you worried.

Pladio said:

This can be said about almost any idea. If two hundred of the best scientists in the world all get broadcast on CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, France 2, RTL-TVI, ZDF,....
They all say the same thing that the world is facing an imminent threat from an possible explosion in one the US Nuclear facilities and that the only option for the world is to oppose nuclear power everywhere and shut every nuclear plant down . Then you can be sure they'll attract millions of followers, just because they are the best in their field. This is if scientists decide to manipulate the ignorance of the average Joe who has no idea how nuclear power works.

Yes, it probably won't happen, but it could.
A more realistic example would be how big corporations manage to sell their useless products to people. How many kinds of Monopoly do people need ? There's the Monopoly : Accountant , Monopoly : Soccer , M : Future, M : Past...
And they manage to sell all of them and you know why ? Because all the people are dumb (myself included; I didn't buy all those Monopolies though ) They will listen to anything and they will obey, intentionally or not, they will. It doesn't matter if it nationalistic extremism, environmental extremism (people chaining themselves to trees), or religion extremism. It's all the same. Smart people telling less smart people what to do and what to believe in.

Click to expand...

Do you have any example of this ever taking place? The pope do something like that several times per year and he's one of the key people responsible for fueling the widespread HIV epidemia in Africa.

Pladio said:

You're right about this except for the criminals not having a lot of power.

Click to expand...

Politicians tend to have very strong eyes upon them. While we cannot see all corruption them who get caught are enough to make me feel that things are working as they should.

Taken from a christian book "Why So Many Gods?":
“Humanists change their concept of truth whenever they find out some new piece of information. It’s never the same. Who’s to say people aren’t just making this stuff up as they go along? They’re really quick to give people lists of rules to live by, ways to do things. But they’re basing that on people, who change. In order to give someone absolute rules on stuff, you’ve gotta base your rules on something absolute. And we know the only ‘thing’ that doesn’t change is God.”

Now exchange the word "Humanists" with "Society" and change "God" with any radical political ideology as you would like. What you basicly have here is fascism dressed up as religion along with a rebutal of democracy. When you make "If God said it, then that settles it!!" as an accepted universal truth then you have a problem, since god have never spoken for himself you have to put someone in charge to decide what God actually said. This gives that person ultimate power and people who disagree disagree's not with that person, but with god, who as you might know is far more powerful than any human and should not be questioned.

The not so smart person who wish to control society try their best to be elected leader. The smart person who wish to control society take position beneath the leader, as an advisor or spokesperson. God is perfect for this since you really have no actual leader above you but you still have something which takes all the eyes away from you. If they speak against you, they speak against god, which is omnipotent and perfect in every way. Foolish are the ones who question him (you).

JemyM, you have just displayed you're even dumber then me when it comes to utter points of view. Unless you do the same as roqua, you're nothing more then an stupid spot on the face of the earth. Your point of view is absolutely a fanatics point of view if you utter an opinion about a party in my country that you have never heard of. You just are to blind to see anything else then that sect you're in now called atheïsm and do NOT tell anyone that you're agnostic, because that is something that you are far from.

I am sorry for your loss. That's a step backwards for sure. I hope they wont start to abolish civil laws, they are less likely to add them. The "good for the country" comment from a christian standpoint is as frightening as if it was spoken by a communist or nazist. The black and white ideology grows more lethal the more who believes in it, and the first that fanatics attack is the school system to be able to easier manipulate people to their point of view. The situation in Poland is severe. You might not believe in the crusade now, but the more a dangerous ideology grows, the closer you are to it's true form which is the good old "we are the best, kill the rest". Liberalism/socialism/capitalism are the only ideologies that sucessfully managed to lead a country while keeping individual freedom.

Click to expand...

You are quite wrong to say this, since it is very simple.
Yes, they are Christians, but they are not extremist in any way.

And you're talking about removing civil liberties. Then look at France, quite a big country and you know what ? People aren't even allowed to dress how they want in public. Religious people of any faith aren't allowed to wear their clothes, clothes which they have worn for generations. They can't by law wear them. And you're saying only religion will take civil liberties away.

In this timeline it's good to be aware of politic movements on a global scale, not just locally. Their ideas spread here. The spread of Intelligent Design makes that point.

Click to expand...

Spread there ? Yes, maybe, no. They've been there for more than 400 years. Ever since the Spanish and Portuguese settled in South America.
You're right about being aware of political movements globally. What about Great Britain bringing armed men on the street for 'protection' of its civilians after the bombings and stopped bombings. Great Britain isn't really so religious, they have a socialist party at its top. All the arrests being made now... Are you telling me those are not invasions of civil liberties?

I disagree. It is in fact religion in itself that is bad. Humans are humans and you have potential nutcases in every generation. It's just a question which ideology you deliver to them first, the one about democracy and free speech or the one with satan and hell. The "it's not religion which is bad, only people" is pretty much the same argument that is used by drug liberals and gun liberals you know. When people are universally aware of why religion might lead to danger, fanatics are isolated and made deviants. When people are not universally aware, they may elect them as leaders.

Click to expand...

But I'm not saying 'it's people', I'm saying 'it's extremism'.

The fact that a firm believer of end times now have access to nuclear weapons should make you worried.

Click to expand...

It does, but since he hasn't detonated any nuclear bombs till now and he's going away next year, I don't see it as being a real problem anymore.

We are not there yet, and the potential Democrat presidents are outspoken christians as well.

Click to expand...

So, you mean to say they'll bomb Sweden because it's an atheistic country ?

In Sweden we elect leaders on their political agenda which usually only take up increasing liberties, changing taxes and the environment. We do not give a crap about their faith.

Click to expand...

So do most people in Belgium and in the rest of the world, including the US.

Have a look at this. Americans are more likely to elect a homosexual than an atheist. Since beliefs is basicly ignorance to evidence and the US is a very strong nation this should make you worried.Have a look at this.

Click to expand...

Not really. Atheism as a sense of belief is quite new to the public. Not every one knows exactly what it stands for yet. AND if it stands for anti-religion fanaticism then people won't vote for atheists.
What does worry me is that so few people still wouldn't vote for homosexuals and that there are substantially less people who would vote for a woman.

Do you have any example of this ever taking place?

Click to expand...

If you're talking about scientists, no. About corporations, I do though.

Politicians tend to have very strong eyes upon them. While we cannot see all corruption them who get caught are enough to make me feel that things are working as they should.

Click to expand...

I think it was just a year ago that they declared a third mistrial in the case against John Gotti Jr., the son of John Gotti, leader of the Gambino family IIRC.
I even used to know people who were working in the Falconplein in Antwerpen. It used to be a place where you could get anything you wanted cheaper, since everything was stolen, just as you see in the mob movies and series. They hijacked trucks full of electronics and just sold them in their stores. After 20 years of successful business, most of them moved out of the country since the police were at last catching some of them. So, no, they're not really keeping criminals out.



Bart: I think the whole point of this topic is not to insult the debaters, but to debate.

Sitting where I sit ( in the middle U.S., close to the South, bordering Arkansas, Missouri and Texas) I frankly don't see this supposed sub-nation of right-wing bible-thumping fanatics as any kind of true challenge to established power. There are more aetheists in the practical sense(i.e., people who have never thought about belonging to any religion, rather than people who have made an intellectual decision about it ) in the present population of America than there are Christians. All you have to do to substantiate this statement is watch one night of reality TV.

Christians and the ultra-right are in a complete minority here. They talk in a loud voice, but they only get media attention because they are a curiosity. George Bush is a politician, not a man of religious belief. Espousing conservative religious values is a political position, and a lot of propaganda, not a true stance of any kind.If you disbelieve all his other lies, why would you believe this one?

The thing you should be worrying about is not the last gasps of a dying medieval faith, but the growing lack of any cohesive system of ethics, morals and values which leads to a self-centric culture where the desires and greed of the individual matter more than the good of society.

It's unfortunate that Corwin shies away from this sort of discussion for fear of alienating people. His extensive knowledge on the topic might offer some additional insights and points of discussion. That said, I throw in a few thoughts.

First, kudos to everyone for a well-mannered discussion. With such an explosive topic, I think everyone's done a great job of being passionate without the aggression.

Second, as F_B pointed out, nobody has really made an honest attempt at answering my question of how Joe Nobody is to determine which robed guy with a beard and a book to listen to. They all say they are reading the book right and all the counter views are misguided, mistaken, or just plain evil.

Last, it really should come as no surprise that folks like JemyM (and, for the record, my personal views probably qualify me to be somewhere close to "folks like JemyM") cannot comprehend the appeal of religion. As Corwin mentioned a few pages back, at its core religion requires faith. A person must decide, without any concern to evidence for or against, that they're willing accept something as true. Without that faith, there's no acceptance. Now, the thoughtful twist I have for you is this: Nobody has ever shown me a quark. I've never seen evidence of one and would have no way to truly understand the validity of any evidence pro or con. I hear they taste good with ketchup. Since I accept the existence of quarks without concern for the evidence for or against, does that mean that I have faith in science? I suppose I could wear a robe and carry around a book of atomic theory, but my beard really looks scraggly on the rare occasion I let it go.

dteowner said:

I

.... Now, the thoughtful twist I have for you is this: Nobody has ever shown me a quark. I've never seen evidence of one and would have no way to truly understand the validity of any evidence pro or con. I hear they taste good with ketchup. Since I accept the existence of quarks without concern for the evidence for or against, does that mean that I have faith in science?.....

Click to expand...

IMO,Yes. You are taking someone else's word for it. That's why I said earlier that Science is today's God, the knowledge jihad. I think they have the potential to be equally dangerous and self-justifying exactly because of that point. When Galileo or Newton or whoever first propounded their scientific ideas, they were considered heretics and suppressed for precisely that reason--they were a huge threat as they were setting up the basis for a counter-movement that relied on people repudiating the current consensus.

But here I do fall into the Jemy camp and say that it's a better system overall, because it relies on reason and proof rather than arbitrary acceptance. But it's fallible as well, as are all human systems.

People need the answers though, they need to believe that there is more to life than just the messy process of birth,reproduction and death. Different systems provide that for different people. I don't think you'll ever have a time when the world operates on pure logic.

dteowner said:

Second, as F_B pointed out, nobody has really made an honest attempt at answering my question of how Joe Nobody is to determine which robed guy with a beard and a book to listen to. They all say they are reading the book right and all the counter views are misguided, mistaken, or just plain evil.

Click to expand...

Count all the different religions that exist and have existed and choose one. Choose wrong and in many cases somthing really bad happens to you like eternal torture in som hellish place or another. For one thing god sure has a sense of humour.

Or then we need him more than he needs us so he is not really interested on forcing us to choose anything. Perhaps its just one god and people just intrepit it differently leading to various cults and sects who add their own salt into it.

In anycase the choice is really easy atleast for me. I choose a religion that is humane. If god doesnt like that then I rather live without god.

Pladio said:

And you're talking about removing civil liberties. Then look at France, quite a big country and you know what ? People aren't even allowed to dress how they want in public. Religious people of any faith aren't allowed to wear their clothes, clothes which they have worn for generations. They can't by law wear them. And you're saying only religion will take civil liberties away.

Click to expand...

This is not true. The restrictions only apply to schools.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools ]

(Of course, it would be absurd to say that only religion will take civil liberties away, given the large number of entirely secular dictatorships we can point to. The French school dress law, however, is a long way from that IMO.)

Prime Junta said:

This is not true. The restrictions only apply to schools.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools ]

(Of course, it would be absurd to say that only religion will take civil liberties away, given the large number of entirely secular dictatorships we can point to. The French school dress law, however, is a long way from that IMO.)

Click to expand...

I can add to this that there are a few restrictions in Belgium as well -> You can't cover your face fully, unless in time of carnaval.
The law was meant against bandits, but it has a use against extremistic female moslims now. I would think it'd be funny though to see all of them wearing their 'boerka's' in public during carnaval.

First of I had a reply written out and I know this sounds stupid, but my Internet client crashed when I was finding sources of interesting material for both sides of the aisle.
I'll try to remember what I was writing tomorrow, but I'm too tired now.

Just one comment. Aren't school children supposed to have the same rights as other human beings ? So, you're saying I could hit my child just because he's a child ? I can also not give him any clothes as that is not a right a child should have ? (extreme examples are just there to make a point)
So, why not the opposite ? Why can't they wear headscarves, kippot, turbans, ... ?
Your taking one of their rights away any way you want to twist it, you are.

One minor point. The rules I teach for interpreting the Bible correctly, are not based on faith or blind obedience, but on sound, logical academic principles. One of the foremost of these, is the absolutely essential nature of determining scope and context. Only charlatans use quotes out of context, and often that context can be several layers deep. For example, there is the immediate context determined by the verses on either side; there is the context based on the theme or scope of the chapter in which the quote is found; then there is the context of the scope and purpose of the book in which it resides. All of these must be taken into account, along with the sense inherent in the choice of words used in the original language. There is MUCH more than this to proper Bible interpretation, but my point is that it ALL is based on academic rigor, not my preferred personal belief. To be honest, there are some passages in the Bible I don't like, but they are there and I have to deal with them. The problem we have today, is that there are far too many people out there with a very limited knowledge of proper Bible interpretation who are spouting forth their ignorance on both sides of the debate!!

Bible wasn't carved in stone by the finger of god. It's infallibility is certainly not solid. I always prefer plane words...If this self-proclaimed life instruction book needs an interpretation of a ph D. Maybe I don't need it.

Actually much of it doesn't:- Thou Shall Not Kill- is fairly straightforward!! However, shall we say some sections have been misinterpreted.

Like I said, I only like the part that is carved in stone

Corwin said:

Actually much of it doesn't:- Thou Shall Not Kill- is fairly straightforward!! However, shall we say some sections have been misinterpreted.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not. The original commandment was "You shall not kill your neighbour", which even in english can be interpreted into "You shall not kill the ones close to you". The word that have been translated into "neighbour" also have other meanings that would suggest a similar use. In context it can also be translated to "You shall not kill your fellow jew", "you shall not kill another worshipper", "You shall not kill someone from Israel", "you shall not kill someone in your city" etc. etc. All cases basicly means fair game on people outside your closest group. Makes more sense considering an estimate of 2 million deaths was brought out by the israelites and god in the bible.

Then there are thoose who would like to translate it to "You shall not murder" instead, which have another meaning.

The value of human life was not fully stressed until the humanism movement about 1400 years after the supposed birth/death of Jesus. Our society would have been very different without that movement which drew more inspiration from secular sources than biblical.

Pretty much the entire bible have several translations and several interpretions. As long as it is used as something else than fiction, it will cause people to do try to kill eachother: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20027027/?GT1=10150

I would like to reply to you Pladio, but one of my 3 day migraines have started making it difficult for me to get words together.

Exodus Chapter 20, verse 13 says Thou shall not Kill (some translations read Murder). There is NO mention of Neighbours!!

The word translated Kill is the Hebrew word Ratsach and means kill, slay, murder, or commit manslaughter. It is a purely Hebrew term having no cognate in the other ancient languages.

I usually charge for giving lessons in theology and ancient Hebrew!!

Pladio said:

Just one comment. Aren't school children supposed to have the same rights as other human beings ? So, you're saying I could hit my child just because he's a child ? I can also not give him any clothes as that is not a right a child should have ? (extreme examples are just there to make a point)
So, why not the opposite ? Why can't they wear headscarves, kippot, turbans, ... ?
Your taking one of their rights away any way you want to twist it, you are.

Click to expand...

No, children aren't supposed to have the same rights as other human beings.

In most countries, children aren't allowed to vote, enter into many types of contracts, have sex, buy alcohol, buy tobacco, drive cars, work full-time, and so on. Most schools impose some kind of dress code. (Come to think of it, most workplaces do too, formally or informally.)

Of course, children also have some rights that adults don't.

The intent of the French school dress law isn't much different from the rules in certain Californian schools that forbid clothing articles of certain colors. In California, because the background is formed by potentially or actually hostile gangs that use the colors as markers, in France, because crosses, kippot, turbans, or hijabs are markers for potentially or actually hostile religious groups. In both cases, the attempt is to make school a neutral territory.

Personally, I very much doubt it'll work. In that kind of situation, the kids will know perfectly well who's a Blood, Crip, Christian, Jew, Sikh, Hindu, or Muslim with or without the external markers.