Liberals are...smarter!

[byteware]

There's no proof of that in any form.

It seems you have a hard time understanding the word subjective.

 

[Saintshroomie]

I would argue that you are wrong. There are some things that every scientist accepts as fact, that are hard to let go.

I will agree that there are some things scientists accept as fact, this is called an assumption, and they serve there purpose when it comes to further theorizing, something science does very well. But in science when those assumptions are proven false, any theory that encompasses them must be revised or thrown out. Should they be proven to be true then the theory can be advanced as law. This is how science works, and any

 

[Saintshroomie]

Here is how I look at it. I have seen evidence in my life, that proves to me, the existence of God.

Now, I am well aware that this evidence is subjective.

I am also aware that unless you come to that same conclusion independently, that there is no point in me trying to convince you that he exists.

I also know that the holes in our scientific knowledge are exactly where I would think they would be (origin of life [not evolution theory], origin of universe, etc...).

I'm not trying to convince you, because I know that I can not scientifically prove that God exists.

However, remember this: Up until recently, it was impossible to prove that LOVE exists.

If you have credible evidence, I would be interested (no snarkiness intended) to hear about it. I think it would be awesome to get to go to heaven when I die, I just don’t see any evidence to support that belief.

As far as there being a point in trying to convince others that he exists, the Christian religion is practically based around this. Your right though. If I don’t come to the same conclusion independently, I probably won’t believe you based on your evidence. Keep in mind though, evidence is not subjective. What you feel that evidence implies is what is subjective.

As for the holes in our scientific knowledge, lack of knowledge does not imply anything about the belief in a deity. However, it does indicate that we lack the capability to fill those gaps currently. Science used to have gaps regarding lightening, hurricanes, and tornados, all of which were attributed to things like deities, as is no longer the case.

BTW, I wouldn't mind seeing a source on the proof that love exists, of which I don't doubt. I love my wife, but I don't believe it is anything beyond a chemical reaction in my brain. This doesn't make it anyless real, in fact I think it only serves to enhance its definition.

 

[byteware]

It's a long post, so I will do my best to address each of your points.

I will agree that there are some things scientists accept as fact, this is called an assumption, and they serve there purpose when it comes to further theorizing, something science does very well. But in science when those assumptions are proven false, any theory that encompasses them must be revised or thrown out. Should they be proven to be true then the theory can be advanced as law. This is how science works, and any

 

[mpw]

.

 

[Isthmus]

Yes. So?

I think he means that subjectivity is the explanation for your claim of lack of proof. If you read his comment in the context of the rest of his post, I would say that yes it is reasonable and accurate.

 

[byteware]

I think he means that subjectivity is the explanation for your claim of lack of proof. If you read his comment in the context of the rest of his post, I would say that yes it is reasonable and accurate.

No, I'm not refuting that there is no scientific proof to support religion.

What I'm saying is that, there are things that occurred in my life that I see as proof (very subjective proof) of my religion.

This is proof that convinced ME, but I don't expect that same proof to convince anyone else, because it IS subjective.

 

[Saintshroomie]

Newton's law of Universal Gravitation was proven wrong (more like inaccurate, but still that's wrong).

The fact that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation was proven inaccurate or wrong, is the prime example of science at work. His theory (or law if you will), as accepted as it is, is still being reviewed by today’s scientists (perhaps not warranting to be called a law). However, it is still useful in that it accurately predicts gravitation models with the exception of those on a very small scale. You’re right though in that his law is not 100% correct, and obviously lacking in some piece of the puzzle, doesn’t make it useless to assume it’s true if you’re trying to say model our solar system because it works.

That being said... scientists have yet to actually "PROVE" man caused Global Warming. There is circumstantial evidence, but science doesn't accept circumstantial evidence as definitive. Yet, many scientists are willing to say they have come to a definitive conclusion.

You are absolutely correct that science hasn’t proven man has caused Global Warming, I can’t really argue with you there except to say the evidence leads some people to believe it points to that. I would be curious as to who is saying they have a definitive conclusion that man is responsible because to say so is plainly bad science. I do understand that many scientists, based on the statistical evidence available, have reached a general consensus that the Earth is getting warmer, as for proving the cause of that, scientists can only theorize at the moment due to the lack of ability to test any theory (I think you said the same thing, didn't notice it until now).

Ideally, science should be as you say, and I wish it were. However, scientists are human and become emotionally invested in a theory. It becomes hard to see when they are wrong.

I certainly won’t argue that all scientists are ideal or bias free, but to generalize that scientists have difficulty accepting that they are wrong based on their emotional ties is an ad hominem attack and does nothing to address their findings. Thats not to say it doesn't happen, but it's not really an argument against science. Seeing as how there isn’t any evidence that says global warming is definitively wrong either, I would acknowledge that there are scientists who disagree with global warming.

There are those that believe religion is like that. I'm not one of them. God made the world work as it does. I believe that studying how it works, explains a lot about God to us.

I think that is wonderful that you can mesh god and science together. You have managed to accomplish what many have failed to do. I simply believe that if you apply science to religion, you can never prove or disprove it, and therefore has no relevance.

I completely agree. However, that was an example. The gaps in science fall neatly within where they should be for religion to also be true. Creation of Universe and the Origin of Life.

I’m still not sure how you can believe that a lack of knowledge provides support for the belief in a religion. Since a lack of knowledge says nothing about religion. There are many things people don’t know, but that doesn’t imply anything spiritual. Yes, religion does provide what it deems are answers to those very issues, but just because religion says it knows what those answers are doesn’t mean they are right answers. A lot of bad things happen in this world, and we don’t know why, however the Westboro Baptists Church says that it’s because God hates homosexuals and is punishing us for allowing them into our society. Just because they provide an answer doesn’t mean they are right.

don't know. Definition 3 fits quite nicely

I still don’t see the irony, in my statement. Believing something firmly without support is just as na

 

[Saintshroomie]

Sorry for the length of my posts, I realize they are getting long, just a lot of issues that need to be addressed.

 

[Saintshroomie]

Totally unrelated, but the talk about global warming got me interested in the topic.

And if anyone is interested behind the science of Global Warming, an excellent source of information can be found at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They cite lots of evidence regarding the issue in their reports, some of it is quite complicated.

To say that they are coming to conclusions without the benefit of data is simply not true, in fact if you look through their report they site a whole crap ton of data. I'm not saying their concessus is right (I don't have the necessary qualifications to judge that), but they certainly do have data to back themselves up.

 

[Frisco]

Sorry for the length of my posts, I realize they are getting long, just a lot of issues that need to be addressed.

You're doing a great job of addressing each concern by segmenting the posts you're responding to; very easy to read and it's making your points well, in my opinion.

 

[byteware]

Totally unrelated, but the talk about global warming got me interested in the topic.

And if anyone is interested behind the science of Global Warming, an excellent source of information can be found at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They cite lots of evidence regarding the issue in their reports, some of it is quite complicated.

To say that they are coming to conclusions without the benefit of data is simply not true, in fact if you look through their report they site a whole crap ton of data. I'm not saying their concessus is right (I don't have the necessary qualifications to judge that), but they certainly do have data to back themselves up.

I wouldn't use them as a source of information. Most of the information that they have presented has been proven to be flat out wrong. I mean somewhere between incompetent wrong and fabricated wrong.

Here's a good article from a participant in the IPCC process about why that process is fundamentally flawed.

‘The IPCC goes looking for bad news’ | spiked

 

[byteware]

The fact that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation was proven inaccurate or wrong, is the prime example of science at work. His theory (or law if you will), as accepted as it is, is still being reviewed by today’s scientists (perhaps not warranting to be called a law). However, it is still useful in that it accurately predicts gravitation models with the exception of those on a very small scale. You’re right though in that his law is not 100% correct, and obviously lacking in some piece of the puzzle, doesn’t make it useless to assume it’s true if you’re trying to say model our solar system because it works.

I completely agree. However, it took a LONG time to win over consensus in the scientific community because it was challenging such an age old scientific "Fact".

You are absolutely correct that science hasn’t proven man has caused Global Warming, I can’t really argue with you there except to say the evidence leads some people to believe it points to that. I would be curious as to who is saying they have a definitive conclusion that man is responsible because to say so is plainly bad science. I do understand that many scientists, based on the statistical evidence available, have reached a general consensus that the Earth is getting warmer, as for proving the cause of that, scientists can only theorize at the moment due to the lack of ability to test any theory (I think you said the same thing, didn't notice it until now).

Yes, but these very same scientists will ridicule anyone who ISN'T convinced.

I certainly won’t argue that all scientists are ideal or bias free, but to generalize that scientists have difficulty accepting that they are wrong based on their emotional ties is an ad hominem attack and does nothing to address their findings. Thats not to say it doesn't happen, but it's not really an argument against science. Seeing as how there isn’t any evidence that says global warming is definitively wrong either, I would acknowledge that there are scientists who disagree with global warming.

I'm not arguing against science. It's the best process we have. What I'm arguing is that the reality of the process isn't as neat and tidy as you present it.

I think that is wonderful that you can mesh god and science together. You have managed to accomplish what many have failed to do. I simply believe that if you apply science to religion, you can never prove or disprove it, and therefore has no relevance.

I read this quote today (paraphrasing): Science is information. Religion is interpretation.

I’m still not sure how you can believe that a lack of knowledge provides support for the belief in a religion. Since a lack of knowledge says nothing about religion. There are many things people don’t know, but that doesn’t imply anything spiritual. Yes, religion does provide what it deems are answers to those very issues, but just because religion says it knows what those answers are doesn’t mean they are right answers. A lot of bad things happen in this world, and we don’t know why, however the Westboro Baptists Church says that it’s because God hates homosexuals and is punishing us for allowing them into our society. Just because they provide an answer doesn’t mean they are right.

What we don't know is exactly where I would expect it to be. Creation of life, Creation of the Universe.

God hates homosexuals? I've seen no evidence of that, even in the Bible. The real answer is that the speaker hates homosexuals, and hides behind God to get away with it.

I still don’t see the irony, in my statement. Believing something firmly without support is just as na

 

[Saintshroomie]

I wouldn't use them as a source of information. Most of the information that they have presented has been proven to be flat out wrong. I mean somewhere between incompetent wrong and fabricated wrong.

Here's a good article from a participant in the IPCC process about why that process is fundamentally flawed.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/boxarticle/3111/

 

[mpw]

.

 

[IOWA]

How did this turn into a god thread?

 

[DaSchmarotzer]

How did this turn into a god thread?

The first post had "Atheist" in it, what were you expecting?

The topic has "evolved" rolleyes and as long as everybody is respectful, it's alright with us.

 

[IOWA]

The first post had "Atheist" in it, what were you expecting?

The topic has "evolved" rolleyes and as long as everybody is respectful, it's alright with us.

Nice way to throw evolution in a god thread =P

 

[Isthmus]

How did this turn into a god thread?

actually it turned into an evolution thread, then into a religion vs science thread, and now it is a global warming thread. freaky huh?

 

[Xyro]

actually it turned into an evolution thread, then into a religion vs science thread, and now it is a global warming thread. freaky huh?

Lets just try and avoid mentioning any controversial subjects from now on.

The last thing we want is this thread going out with a big bang.

 

[DaSchmarotzer]

Lets just try and avoid mentioning any controversial subjects from now on.

The last thing we want is this thread going out with a big bang.

Yeah, you can't just create another thread like that.

 

[IOWA]

actually it turned into an evolution thread, then into a religion vs science thread, and now it is a global warming thread. freaky huh?

Head.. spinning.. make it stop!

 

[ElasticNinja]

TBH I'm not surprised
But the liberal/socialist party in my country has no policies and the ruling party pretends to be liberal (Their MEP for my area is joint pres of ALDE)

 

[byteware]

The article you posted has only establishes that Aynsley Kellow, IPCC participant, believes the IPCC has overstated their case and that their peer review process is compromised, not that the science behind climate change is wrong. If you have sources for this please cite them, I would love to read them.

I'll give you the most outrageous that I've been able to find.

Parts of the IPCC report were plagiarized, almost word for word, from a climate activists FICTION work.

The Book the IPCC Plagiarized NoFrakkingConsensus

This particular site goes crazy with their fact checking... They know their material well, to be able to catch that particular issue.


If the REVIEW PROCESS can't even tell that they didn't do the work themselves, how in the world do you really think it can be trusted?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another fun issue is the Malaria prediction. The IPCC makes the prediction that over the next 200 years, third world countries will achieve an average income greater than the US's 2006 income, but then goes on to discuss how bad malaria will become due to the increase in habitable areas for mosquitoes.

Did you know that malaria was once a major problem in the US?

Every nation that has progressed passed an average yearly income of $3,100 has overcome their malaria problem.

However, this was not taken into account. Why? Because the research into the malaria predictions were not done by an expert in the field of mosquito born diseases, or even someone educated in the field of mosquito born diseases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should study a list of the IPCC members. Most of them are not scientists (Heck a secretary from the University of [Wisconsin?] worked on the IPCC report). Remember, there is no scientific community that appoints IPCC members. They are appointed by the politicians in their respective countries.

Schlesinger (check wikipedia for his biography) is a rabid supporter of the IPCC report, but he'll tell you that 80% of the participants in the IPCC report had no education on studies of the climate at all.

The IPCC is NOT a source that you can trust.

 

[byteware]

I fully understand that your fully accept this evidence as subjective; what I'm saying is that if you share the evidence then others can give a view as to whether they see it as proof or not and why.

The conclusions they give with regard to your evidence may be that you're right, and it might convince me there's a God, or the opposite, they might give an explanation that's more believable to you and convince you that you're wrong, and that it's not proof of a God.

It will not convince you that there's a God.

You cannot explain it in another way that convinces me that there is not a God.

I am well aware of the subjective nature of my proof.