Global warming one big hoax?

zakhal said:

What about different theories? One scientist believes his whole life that ball is flat. Another one believes its round. Neither has real proof. Both of them spend their lifes to find answers that would prove right what they believe.

Click to expand...

We use the words "true" and "false" but in science it's more common to use words like "likely" and "unlikely" because it's considered unscientific to claim that you know for sure. We can never be sure. We can however determine that something is highly likely since we can predict the outcome of scientific experiments.

The greater we are to predict the outcome the sharper our tools are and we may grow to trust them, but we often go back to try again. Some of the more established experiments we give our students to try for themselves, thus something we pretty much know is true (highly likely) is continued to be tested over and over and over again. Sometimes someone find something new and then we reevaluate since our tools are sharpened.

No other field have this continued testing, experimenting, reevaluation process going on forever. For a scientist, that's his job, and usually we enjoy the fruits of their jobs and sometimes we do not care since it does not effect us that much. Take a battery for example. A simple battery is the product of science. It's highly predictable that a battery will work, so we use batteries, we trust in batteries. Still building your own battery is part of physics class just to verify that batteries work.

zakhal said:

Faith comes before religion. Person who does not have faith is not a believer of the religion. Noone is expecting you to believe. If you dont have faith then in reality you just arent a believer. Its simple as that.
If you believe into somthing unknown (flying hydrogen cars from mars will save you if you destroy the planet) then that is faith too and certainly does sound like a religion. In the least you are a believer.

Click to expand...

I personally use the "likely"/"unlikely" philosophy in my everyday life. When I say that I consider something to be highly likely you might say that I have faith. But I do not see faith as a good word. I just prefer to say that I have examined the evidence and I consider it to be likely.

zakhal said:

Depends on the religion. Punishment by death is hardly a common trademark atleast in modern times. Science can be bad too like racial sciences of the early last centry around there world. Genetically inferior people were killed or "stopped from reproducing" so that that the blood of the race would stay cleaner.

Click to expand...

The ethics within science have changed since then and is completely different for us today. Racial biology was already back then considered pseudoscience and it's use within politics was not scientific. Racial biology have changed. Not only because our ethics have changed, but because careful study have discovered that earlier claims was unfounded. Racial biology today have use within medicine as well as crimefighting (tracking race within DNA helps to reduce the suspects) and all ethnic groups and genders are welcome as scientists today.

Still christians consider homosexuals, nonchristians, pregnant teenagers etc as unpure since their book say so. In the current theologies around the globe people are executed and imprisoned on the grounds of religion.

Still christians consider homosexuals, nonchristians, pregnant teenagers etc as unpure since their book say so.

Click to expand...

Their "book" also says to forgive them,help them and love them, btw. At least the New Testament part. I agree not all Christians live by the book, or any other religious group, but not all scientists are changing the world for the better either. You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone espousing the scientific approach.

magerette said:

Their "book" also says to forgive them,help them and love them, btw. At least the New Testament part. I agree not all Christians live by the book, or any other religious group, but not all scientists are changing the world for the better either. You are making a lot of sweeping generalizations for someone espousing the scientific approach.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Using the new testament as it is gives you a perfect excuse to forgive an axe murderer. It also gives you a perfect excuse to kill your own child for being disobedient or kill every nonchristian in your city because Jesus himself said so. The bible in itself is frozen in time. It's not updated when morals change or new discoveries are made. It also do not ask you to disprove it's content. Science is. It's not considered unethic or disrespectful to question scientific claims, instead you are asked to and much about the job as a scientist is to do exactly that.

Imagine if the job of an Imam was to rewrite the Quaran every day according to new ideas, new morals and new discoveries.

I think this is the point where Corwin pops in to remind us that organized religion is not necessarily indicative of divine purpose, or something like that.

*pulling pin on the grenade*
For, as we all know, organized religion really boils down to a secular governance system that uses/abuses spirituality to appease and control the masses.
*slamming door*

As I said in my earlier post, it's all about control and people needing to find the answers. Of course that's a wonderful tool/excuse for power freaks and mass-murderers. Whether that is the true intent of religion or science is debatable, but the human element certainly can make it that way

I'm an agnostic pagan, personally. (which basically means I ain't believin any of it, but if I was going to worship something, it would be nature.)

@JemyM--Some good points and I can't argue with them. Global warming( to actually revert to the thread topic ) is a case in point, where scientists do debate both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the human element enters in here as well, when the politically motivated and funded scientific establishment questions and sometimes maligns all scientific views that oppose their conclusions.

magerette said:

@JemyM--Some good points and I can't argue with them. Global warming( to actually revert to the thread topic ) is a case in point, where scientists do debate both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the human element enters in here as well, when the politically motivated and funded scientific establishment questions and sometimes maligns all scientific views that oppose their conclusions.

Click to expand...

Well, im proud I live under a prime minister who used his one hour with president Bush to discuss what to do with the environment.

Sweden have a long scientific tradition and I feel that science and politics go hand in hand on many topics as a politic advisor, but it's the government that are the ones who use it for good or bad. Science is not a politic tool in itself.

In MOO you just had to build a "Atmospheric Renewer". That would certainly be handy.

JemyM said:

Sweden have a long scientific tradition ...

Click to expand...

And I bet that started back when you found out you could march an army over the frozen ice ... damn sneaky swedes
Stealing back Skåne, Halland and Blekinge that we rightfully stole from you many years before

JemyM said:

...or kill every nonchristian in your city because Jesus himself said so.

Click to expand...

Jesus never even remotely suggested anything about killing non-Christians. Not to be nitpicky, but I think that's worth keeping straight, especially with what's happening in the world right now.

Science, like religion, is accomplished by human beings, and human nature has a similar effect on it. There's the scientific method, of course, but it's still up to people to do the science, and people just aren't perfect.

Last night I watched a cool show on TV that featured a story about the paleontologist who recently discovered that dinosaur bones sometimes still contain soft tissues. She recounted how she immediately rejected the results as impossible. But they were confirmed. When she announced the results to the scientific world, they were met with immediate universal skepticism. None of the other scientists could believe it either, because it was supposed to be impossible.

Paleontologists worked with dinosaur bones for decades without making that discovery. When it finally was made, it was due to an accident. Their human nature and faith in what they believed to be true caused them to think it was virtually impossible for soft tissues to exist in bones that were supposed to be millions of years old. So they never bothered to do a thorough check -- ever.

The fact is, unless you've performed the research yourself, you're expressing faith whenever you believe in or disbelieve a scientific result. Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand science. Or doesn't understand faith.

Squeek said:

Jesus never even remotely suggested anything about killing non-Christians. Not to be nitpicky, but I think that's worth keeping straight, especially with what's happening in the world right now.

Click to expand...

The bad apple is Matt 11:20-24. Everytime you hear someone speak that unbelievers, sinners, teenage pregnancies and homosexuals are the cause for earthquakes, hurricanes, the tsunami or bad economy, then you see christianity in it's purest form. When you honestly believe in the bible and learn what happens to cities with unbelievers in them, then it's just plain self-defense to consider to enforce Deutoronomy. If you truly believed, would you risk afterlife because your neighbour have another religion? Many would not. Remember that other religions break the first commandment, the first (most important?) commandment within the "golden rules" given by the one true god.

Squeek said:

Science, like religion, is accomplished by human beings, and human nature has a similar effect on it. There's the scientific method, of course, but it's still up to people to do the science, and people just aren't perfect.

Last night I watched a cool show on TV that featured a story about the paleontologist who recently discovered that dinosaur bones sometimes still contain soft tissues. She recounted how she immediately rejected the results as impossible. But they were confirmed. When she announced the results to the scientific world, they were met with immediate universal skepticism. None of the other scientists could believe it either, because it was supposed to be impossible.

Paleontologists worked with dinosaur bones for decades without making that discovery. When it finally was made, it was due to an accident. Their human nature and faith in what they believed to be true caused them to think it was virtually impossible for soft tissues to exist in bones that were supposed to be millions of years old. So they never bothered to do a thorough check -- ever.

The fact is, unless you've performed the research yourself, you're expressing faith whenever you believe in or disbelieve a scientific result. Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand science. Or doesn't understand faith.

Click to expand...

Yes, humans are not perfect, but science is currently the sharpest tool we have to do our best.

fatBastard() said:

And I bet that started back when you found out you could march an army over the frozen ice ... damn sneaky swedes
Stealing back Skåne, Halland and Blekinge that we rightfully stole from you many years before

Click to expand...

You can have em. They do not speak our language anyway.

Where's Corwin? I was curious how he was going to jump on my grenade.

On a side note, we seem to have 3 worthwhile topics going in the same thread: global warming, evolution, and general theology. Perhaps a little cut-n-paste by a friendly neighborhood moderator would be helpful?

Moriendor said:

Errr... Antarctica is a continent, Bart . It's not an "ice cube" floating in water. Ice that is melting down there (at least the continental ice) is adding to the volume of the oceans. That's not a fable but a fact.
Another fact is that -while the Arctic is indeed basically a huge "ice cube"- if the water melted, it would still also cause a rise of the ocean levels because of the effects of Earth's gravity. Unless you're totally old school and still believe in the pre-Gallilei theory that Earth is a disc, you'd have to acknowledge that the Earth is not perfectly flat. The water from the Arctic will not distribute equally across the ocean surface as would happen with a flat surface in a glass of water. It will "migrate" towards the equator region and cause quite a bit of havoc (flooding of coastal areas) on its way if the models that have been calculated so far are true.

Click to expand...

Indeed but the antartica ice is growing and it's the Nordpole ice that's melting. Global warming does not mean what it actually says: not the whole world gets warmer, but large areas -> A shift, a ballance that gets out of ballance is a more precise point of view

magerette said:

Religion has been behind a lot of bloodshed(and still is) but the hands of Science are not completely clean either. I think an objective view would have to state that they can both be tools for good or for destruction.

Click to expand...

WW1 and WW2 had much more to do with science then religion. Don't forget that the camps in WW2 provided a boost in the medical science, no matter how cruel it is to hear this.

JemyM said:

The bad apple is Matt 11:20-24. Everytime you hear someone speak that unbelievers, sinners, teenage pregnancies and homosexuals are the cause for earthquakes, hurricanes, the tsunami or bad economy, then you see christianity in it's purest form. When you honestly believe in the bible and learn what happens to cities with unbelievers in them, then it's just plain self-defense to consider to enforce Deutoronomy. If you truly believed, would you risk afterlife because your neighbour have another religion? Many would not. Remember that other religions break the first commandment, the first (most important?) commandment within the "golden rules" given by the one true god.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but what you call Christianity is a actually just a small part that believes that everything that has been put down in the Bible is the one truth and has to be taken like it is written. It was a verry common method not to tell everything exactly like it happened back then, but create a story about how they felt like it happened. I for one do not believe what 'people' put in the bible, because they were just' people'. I search for the meaning behind those lines and try to see it from that time perspective. My faith is that there is a god and that there was an extraordinary man called Jesus 2000y ago. I believe that he came to do good and give us an example of what good is. All the other things are questionable for me (some more then others).

Matt 11: 20-24 has nothing to do with killing non-Christians!! He is using an analogy and referencing the Day of Judgement. He is using an example to illustrate how stubborn and ungrateful these people are. The key words in true Christian doctrine (as opposed to 'church' doctrines) are REPENT and FORGIVE. A Christian is called to a life of forgiveness and one way to tell if a person really is a Christian, is to check out that aspect of their life.

Dte, I actually agree with the main thrust of your point; some secular religions do just that. As I've said before, don't confuse what Jesus really taught with what many so called churches teach today; heresy is rampant in the so called 'Christian' church!! That's why several years ago, I left a large denomination (AoG) and went independant, I couldn't take the hypocracy and deceptions that were taking place, not to mention the heresies being spewed out of some pulpits, but that's a different debate!!

Bartacus said:

Indeed but the antartica ice is growing and it's the Nordpole ice that's melting.

Click to expand...

Could you post a link to the source that says so, please? I only found something from 2005 (probably paid for by Bush & co ) that would confirm what you are saying.
However, countering these older studies, here's an article that talks about a California-sized area of ice melting in Antarctica in 2005. The article says that the temperatures are still rather constant but that there are clear signs that periods of melting are taking place when the temperatures rise during the Southern hemisphere's summer.
Another article (also newer than the 2005 stuff) states that the Antarctica is losing 36 cubic miles of ice every year (for comparison -as stated in the article- the city of L.A. consumes ~1 cubic mile of fresh water per year).

Here's a quote from the second article that I linked to that might confirm that your data/knowledge is out of date:

However, computer models run in 2001 predicted Antarctica would gain ice during the 21st century due to increased precipitation in a warming climate. But the new study, based on satellite measurements between 2002 and 2005, shows the opposite.

Click to expand...

It's interesting how a thread about global warming often turns into a discussion about religion. I believe it's because religion see science as a threat and are therefore quick to attack new discoveries. The support for the theory of global warming as well as quantum theory, big bang and evolution, is much greater within countries where religion is rare than where religion is common.

Bartacus said:

Indeed, but what you call Christianity is a actually just a small part that believes that everything that has been put down in the Bible is the one truth and has to be taken like it is written. It was a verry common method not to tell everything exactly like it happened back then, but create a story about how they felt like it happened. I for one do not believe what 'people' put in the bible, because they were just' people'. I search for the meaning behind those lines and try to see it from that time perspective. My faith is that there is a god and that there was an extraordinary man called Jesus 2000y ago. I believe that he came to do good and give us an example of what good is. All the other things are questionable for me (some more then others).

Click to expand...

Moderate christians ignore their own religion and thus waste their chance of an afterlife. Most new christians are given the bible and most are told it's the truth If it was not there would be no need for the bible itself anymore. Understanding christianity as a concept and the theory of a savior requires you to also believe in certain things and follow certain laws. Also you will hear people say to you that you should be like Jesus, that Jesus is good and by following his words you are good. Well, to know what he did you just have to read the bible?

As I grew up I realised that religion was the most important thing in life since it was the only key there was to the greatest part of my life: the afterlife. But I wanted to get closer to the actual stories and I could not be convinced the bible was it. Unlike many fellow christians I started to fear that the authors of the bible might have been the false prophets warned about! So I started to look up the background and the history of the bible.
I have studied many books. Ancient civilization, archaeological digs, comparative religions, other religions, biblical theology, the history of christianity and Europe and the bible itself.

At the end of my study I had reached certain conclusions. The bible is too inconsistent to be literal events and by examining the history as well as the stories within the bible the only rational explanation for it all is that they are fiction, not based on actual characters or events, except a few pages in the end of the old testament. Given the light of modern archaeology the Old Testament is little more than a political tool founded on local pagan religions in southern Israel. We know that the Israelites and the Jews did not migrate from the north or the west but were part of the local stock. We know the tales the first part is based on, that the middle is not possible and we also know the actual events the last bits are based on.
We also know that apocalyptic cults speaking about messiah was very common in the era of which the new testament was born, in fact we have the historical data on many of them in which the story about Jesus is no different from the rest. We know that many distinct cults gathered 325ac in northwestern Turkey under the emperor Constantine of Rome where it became what we know as Christianity. This meeting decided the outlook of the Bible, scrapped 61 books and banned a few of the cults. We have a few of thoose books, which reveals to us more about the political design of the new testament and the tales within.

Given the historical light of the Old Testament Jehova as an ordinary pagan god worshipped among many gods by an ordinary nomad people in the mountains of southern Israel, or the historical light of new testament as just one of many apocalyptic cults, do the Bible in itself hold any moral value or the key to good behavior?

No.

By modern standards the god of the old testament is a vicious tyrant at best. A raving lunatic that have every negative trait known to man. The god character is more of a guideline about how to NOT behave in a modern society than it is the opposite.
Then we have the Jesus character. If you examine the "good" behavior of this man, it's driving out demons from sick people who have been infected by sin. This tells you that sickness and weakness are their own fault. 2000 years later we have a very good grasp on where diseases come from and we know demons or sin have nothing to do with it. So rip all of that crap from the new testament and look at what you have left. Jesus is selective, intolerant, inconsistent, threatening, speaking and acting against his own teachings and often short-tempered and angry. Look at the acts Jesus consider is appropiate and whats not and you find a character who are very different from the modern values of good ethics and good behavior. Chanting "God is great" and "Jesus loves you" over and over and over again have made many believe that is the case, but many turned away from it after picking up the bible and actually compared it with what is today widely accepted as good morals and ethic behavior.

Here's an example of the difference between the ten commandments and modern ethics:
Do not worship any other gods = Learn about other cultures and do not fear strangers.
Do not make any idols = Do not copy someone else, instead believe in who you are.
Do not misuse the name of God = Do not provoke, respect others feelings.
Keep sabbath holy = Respect peoples right to rest and privacy.
Honour your father & mother = Respect your family and they will respect you.
Do not murder = Do not harm other people.
Do not steal = Respect other peoples right to their possessions.
Do not lie = Only tell others what you know is true.
Do not covet = Do not be greedy, instead share what you do not need.

And unlike the bible:
Respect women, respect children, respect animals, respect strangers, respect freedom, respect other peoples choices unless they challenge yours, pay taxes and try to keep your intake of fat and sugar to healthy levels.

That's an example of what good is.

Due to this thread, I did some looking into it. (Especially the videos on YouTube.)

All I can say is: holy crap, thats probably the best news for humanity evar!

Corwin said:

Matt 11: 20-24 has nothing to do with killing non-Christians!! He is using an analogy and referencing the Day of Judgement. He is using an example to illustrate how stubborn and ungrateful these people are. The key words in true Christian doctrine (as opposed to 'church' doctrines) are REPENT and FORGIVE. A Christian is called to a life of forgiveness and one way to tell if a person really is a Christian, is to check out that aspect of their life.

Click to expand...

Many people have been tortured, mutilated and killed over that part alone.
Many tyrants have said the same words about thoose who questioned their power "You who have questioned me are ungreatful for not accepting me as your glorious leader". Modern ethics tells us that not believing everything you say is not the same as being ungreatful to you and a politician who openly condemn people who not yet trust his intentions will never be elected again.

All in all Matt 11:20-24 sounds very unforgiving and intolerant to me, and it's not the only time Jesus is both unforgiving and intolerant.
If you are the literal son of god, why would you go against your own teachings to threaten and curse three cities for not believing in your miracles?
A) Your manipulation have failed and now you try intimidation instead
B) You are only a human and you are frustrated.
C) The people who made you up were not bright enough to spot the inconsistency and flawed ethics of this behavior. After all, not many are.

Remember Matt 11:20-24 when you go to Matt 7:1 "Judge not and you shall not be judged". In my bible there are four pages between Jesus teaching others not to judge and then judging three whole cities rather angrily. Jump forth to Matt 23:13 and see Jesus uncontrolled anger, unforgiveness and judgement in full force. Then jump to Luke 23:34 "Father, forgive them..." words that are quite inconsistent with the curses Jesus hurled at his enemies before.

Theese inconsistencies gives us the insight of the new testament as a political statement more than a guide for moral behavior. It's ok to curse your enemies as long as you also say you should love your enemies (which is not as important as loving Jehova according to the same page). The strong emphasis on the difference between us and them, the believers and the disbelievers, our god and their god, our leader and their leader.

Fear is a very human emotion and pointing out enemies is an act of fear or a classic tool of manipulation. Thoose who have honest intentions do not need to point out enemies since they have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. Also you convince people to join you, you do not condemn them after your first try. Is it a coincidence that the enemies of Jesus are the current power of society as well as the well educated? Not when you see the new testament as a political statement to recruit members to their own agenda. Thoose who have honest intentions have never feared the truth. They have never feared "false prophets" or felt the need to point out who's the enemy, or the need to use threats and fear of tools to control their flock.

Compare theese words with other "good guys" through the ages. Check out the words of Mahatma Gandhi for example. He respected people who disbelieved in him. He wasted no time to point out enemies and he was consistent with his teachings. He had nothing to fear and nothing to hide, he just wanted peace.

Corwin said:

Dte, I actually agree with the main thrust of your point; some secular religions do just that. As I've said before, don't confuse what Jesus really taught with what many so called churches teach today; heresy is rampant in the so called 'Christian' church!! That's why several years ago, I left a large denomination (AoG) and went independant, I couldn't take the hypocracy and deceptions that were taking place, not to mention the heresies being spewed out of some pulpits, but that's a different debate!!

Click to expand...

I took that step 16 years ago. It took me another ten years to take the next one.

Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!

Corwin said:

Unfortunately, your reading of the Bible is flawed. I lecture in Hermeneutics and unless you follow certain principles (which you do not), you can make the Bible say anything (which you attempt to do)!! You make sweeping statements that have not been substantiated. You also need to examine the Bible using its original languages (which I do), rather than translations which frequently don't give the full meaning, or intent of the original!!

Click to expand...

The only problem I have with this is that there is such a thing as a 'living bible' (or Quran or whatever) - it lives in the modern day interpretations of the ancient text. It is like making a statement that seems clear enough to you but is completely misinterpreted by your wife - you can argue plaintively forever, but the best you will ever get is having to deal with *both* interpretations at once. The other person's interpretation really matters.

What I am saying is that all things exist 'in context'.