| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
I'd like to take an opportunity to discuss with everyone the positives and negatives of knowing the "Truth". You will never know the truth while you are still living on this earth. You simply have faith in what you believe. You need to die before you can know the truth of your beliefs. As amazing as the universe is, the truth isn't out there. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I believe in a god, his name is Fred, he wears boots, shaves when he feels like it & is going bald. He's my god, nobody else's. We have a deal, I believe in him & he looks after me. So far it's worked out fine. He's not worried about having millions of followers who distort what he thinks, or just pay lip service in their belief. He prefers quality not quantity. He knows that I'm basically a good person & appreciates that I'm not perfect. He doesn't need me to build things to glorify him, he's happy with his current place of worship, in my head. | ||
| Hex |
Last night when I started this, I was nervous. But now that it is unfolding, I think it is going very well. My head is full of good thoughts, and I hope to pace myself through it. | ||
| Sifo |
My God will smite your thread!  | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
No one is born with religion- it is learned, and by definition a personal experience. Religion is not the problem- human nature is. The solution is understanding, and finding a way to manage the true adversary- ourselves. Sometimes I think there is hope, other times it seems impossible- but nevertheless the wheel will turn with or without us. Ultimately, we control whether we make our brief time here enjoyable... or horrible. A double-edged sword in naive, undisciplined hands can be a very dangerous thing. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
 Thanks Sifo | ||
| Bjbauer |
I don't see the parallel between green science and religion. I would agree that some (many) have not given it much thought. There is much I think we all believe as truth without personal discovery. Have you counted the molecules in a mole yourself (Avogadro's number) ? Have you measured or calculated the speed of light yourself (186,00 miles per second in a vacuum) Have you worked out Newtons laws of motion for yourself? Do you believe the earth is round even if you have not traveled around it yourself or been in space to observe it? Human knowledge would be still in the dark ages if we did not believe in and build on the discoveries of others but had to discover everything ourselves. As I said there is good reason to be skeptical and it is good to be a skeptic most of the time but there is good reason to be concerned about anthropogenic climate change. It was -20 here last night. That doesn't prove one way or the other anything related to climate change. Climate change is a trend over time. Weather is what is happening now. Climate is what happens over an area over time. I can't believe how pissed off some people get over this one way or the other. I would look to receding glaciers ( have seen with personal experience) and melting ice caps with some concern. As well as the fact that I have observed personally changes in distribution of plants and animals (birds in particular) This does not of course prove anything. It is hard for me to believe however that there is a vast scientific conspiracy on this issue. I would agree that some scientists, being human, are prone to not always behaving as a scientist should and there are plenty of examples of people cooking data to make their pet theory look right. But again, to believe that the vast majority of thousands of scientists and universities are in some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous. I think that some people are worried that if this "global warming thing" is true (I can't help but say "inconveniently true") that it may just impact their lives in ways they just don't want to imagine. Skepticism is healthy but denial is not good, I would add this. I think that most can certainly agree that is is best not to pollute, that clean energy is good and worth pursuing, that we need to get off of our dependence on middle eastern oil. Too bad so many people had such a knee jerk reaction to nuclear power. We could be way farther on our way to clean energy independence by now than we are. People always fear what they don't understand and the level of scientific knowledge of most people, in the U.S. at least, is frightening. I thought this thread was to be on religion. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Hmmm, this opens another debate, can you discuss religion without discussing belief & gods? As previously stated, I believe in my own personal god. However I'm not at all religious, quite the opposite in fact, though I can appreciate the comfort some people get from it. In my opinion the world would be a much better place without religion, with the exception of architecture. | ||
| Sifo |
Do want a reply or do you want this thread to be about religion? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
How about a religious reply?  | ||
| Bjbauer |
Mr Grumpy. I think you are right. Ironically, organized religion can be a hindrance to personal revelation and experience of God. Organized religions are human institutions and are prone to all of the typical human problems and dogmas. (John Lennons song Imagine comes to mind.) I have spent time as an agnostic and even felt pretty much as an atheist at times. I now have come to believe. I also realize however, that at some deep level perhaps it is just wishful thinking or psychologically derived belief. I don't think that it is motivated by fear of death. It is easy to say but I really do not fear death. I mean, was it so bad before you were born? Everyone has to face it and if there is nothing you won't know it. (however, I am not ready to give up my seat at the table just yet!) | ||
| Sifo |
It is hard for me to believe however that there is a vast scientific conspiracy on this issue. That question is answered right here.
If you really want to discuss your other questions just start a AGW thread. | ||
| Methed |
Here's a link on the court case: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224961/Gr een-views-religion-environmentalist-wins-claim-sac ked-beliefs.html While I understand and agree with you that the original discussion and concept of climate change on a regional and global scale began as a scientific endeavor, the organizations and movements that have been created around it, and indeed the 'cult' following that popular 'leaders' have garnished certainly display the deference of many to understand this to be a subcultural and belief system. You can certainly see the historic influence of the human secularist movement in the 'green' or 'natural' or 'organic' or 'mysterianist' causes as FB pointed out. That said, if you are referring to the scientific study of these matters, then it could not be a religion at all. However, if when the discussion goes a direction you do not like and instead of coming with an open mind--I'm not saying you specifically, mind you--and with studies and facts to contribute and a willingness to learn, then you have crossed the bridge from objective discussion to subjective debate; that is, the line between science and belief has at that point been crossed. Unfortunately, suggesting that people are in denial points to the latter. Just sayin'. I am a conservationist, but not an environmentalist. I do not 'believe' that human influence on the planet is inherently evil, nor that 'the earth would be better off if we weren't here' as some have suggested, nor that people or animals are better than one another or that even such an illogical suggestion should be made. Additionally, I completely agree that there is 'good' in finding clean and efficient sources of energy, especially passive or renewable if the means don't outweigh the gain as the case with ethanol has become, and don't get me started on how much progress has been lost on illogical and incompetent fears regarding nuclear power. Going back to the OP, I was simply bringing a topic of discussion to the board for just that--it seemed fitting given the constitutional statement that was included. If you want to go down purely religious, doctrinal, and theological paths, then I have much more than questions to offer to a discussion as I posed previously, and that much more than many most likely.  | ||
| Bjbauer |
Sifo-None of that proves anything. Back to religion, If we need to die in order to know the truth (perhaps you are right) if there is no life or existence after death we will not be able to know it as we do not exist. I do agree there is a difference between faith and knowing. Some believe that it is possible to know the ultimate truth through personal revelation. Maybe they can, I have not experienced more than just a hint of anything I can say is like that and of course perhaps it is just a trick of the human mind. Back to the original start of this thread. It is great that we are free to pursue our religious beliefs and all of our other thoughts freely as we are now. Method-good post. Can you expand some on your last paragraph? You have my curiosity. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo-None of that proves anything. It proves that a scientist trying to get funding for environmental research was unable to get funding unless he was going to do a study that promotes the AGW myth. Back on track... Your dismissal of this just demonstrates your dogmatic beliefs. | ||
| Bjbauer |
I do agree that the AGW thing has gotten nutty. As stated I have many questions and skepticism about much of the climate change debate. I still think that it is unlikely that there is this vast conspiracy among scientists. There may be some bad science. And funding one point of view over the other is very bad for science. There may be some bad conclusions and a lot of politics for sure. I am no extreme environmentalist. I love the outdoors and nature and what it provides. I have spent my life hunting, fishing, riding off road and on road cycles, snowmobiling etc. Many so called environmentalists would be opposed to some of these things. I do believe we need to be good stewards of our earth. Either God or circumstances have put us in a position to be either good or bad stewards of this planet even though much larger forces can render our efforts and effects irrelevant and most likely eventually will. | ||
| Sifo |
Either God or circumstances have put us in a position to be either good or bad stewards of this planet even though much larger forces can render our efforts and effects irrelevant and most likely eventually will. So if we as stewards of the earth have the ability to control the temperature of the earth, exactly what average temperature should we set the thermostat at? This isn't meant to be a hypothetical or rhetorical question, but one that needs to be answered. We are now embarking on spending an unprecedented amount of money on exactly that - controlling the Earths temperature. Those in charge haven't bothered to mention what temperature they think is best though. What temperature fits best with your belief system? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
To me a good baseline of thoughts of faith has always been Pascal's Wager. To some of my agnostic friends, this is part of their belief system. Pascal's Wager posits that there may be or may not be a God, but the higher price is to be paid if there is a God and one lived their life contrary to God's will. If you have reached the end of your life and there is not God, you haven't lost anything in trying to live a more moral life. To me the pursuit of God comes as a furtherance of Pascal's Wager. If there is a God, can I find evidence of him or his effect in the lives of others? Is there historical evidence of his walk on earth (Jesus)? What is the evidence of God's involvement in my life? Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Phillippians 2:12. We are asked and, by virtue of the God breathed word of God, commanded to struggle through our own faith. Don't just accept what church leaders or others tell you. Test EVERYTHING for your self. Those who are blindly following ANYTHING do so at their own peril. I am living out that testing right now in my own life. I don't like it, but I expect to be stronger with a better understanding on the other side. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm currently Asatru. As a faith it gives me solace, I like the heaven, ( Valhalla ) and it offers an ethical course for people who are "sheepdog" types. http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesa ndsheepdogs.html AGW was a theory once, but became a "movement" and is now an established religion to many people. I consider the "movement" a con, but am interested in the science, since, after all, I live on this tiny ball with the rest of you. I'd prefer a planetary temperature about 2-3 deg warmer, please. Not too much more, since that might be too warm for tropical folk. Now are ALL organized religions a con? I'm inclined to think so, but that may just be my disappointment in the fallibility of human nature. I also still question some assertions made like "the unprovability of God". The "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" and the bit about the babel fish? In any event, believe as you wish. Don't impose your faith by force, don't tithe me for your faith, and I have issues with human sacrifice. Mr_grumpy, your faith seems great to me. Enjoy. Now, how upset someone gets over other's mocking their faith is another story. Do you think that how upset one gets is more the religion, the person, or? | ||
| Bjbauer |
Like I said much larger effects are ultimately in play. However, I think we should try to keep our impact at a level as to not impact the earth in any more of a detrimental way than we can within our power and within reason. We can not set the temperature at a point that is to our liking only try to keep our impact to a minimum if possible. I have no belief system about a particular temperature per say. Why do you think that I do? Perhaps you are reading more into my posts than I intend. I am neither pro nor con AGW. I would lean towards the side of caution. I am concerned as well about the amount of money that could easily be wasted in an over reaction to a problem that may not be such a problem. Don't even get me started on what an absolute waste ethanol is. It is a farm program disguised as some kind of energy solution. (as a microbiology major in college I am intrigued by the algae to fuel potential). I think it would be wise to minimize our impact on the earth, to find good, clean economically sensible ways to generate energy. Like I said earlier too bad we did not pursue nuclear a long time ago. Many people have their minds made up on this. I am concerned but I am not loosing sleep over it. Politicians, most of whom are as clueless about science as the average person are now in charge. Ft Bastrd, good last post. | ||
| Sifo |
I'd prefer a planetary temperature about 2-3 deg warmer, please. Not too much more, since that might be too warm for tropical folk. It the mechanism for the warming was greenhouse effect the tropical folk have little to worry about. The reason that the poles are so studied by the climatologists is that they are most affected by changes in the greenhouse effect. In the tropical areas the humidity is so high that adding CO2 really has no effect on preventing heat from the atmosphere. It's like painting glass to keep out the light. The first coat does a lot. The second coat does more. By the third coat it really make no difference. My big question is can more than one religion be "right". Can a Christian and a Buddhist both be "right"? Are not all things possible under God? | ||
| Sifo |
I have no belief system about a particular temperature per say. Why do you think that I do? It is simply a logical question to ask. If one believes that we can have an effect on the temperature, then isn't it logical to question if that effect is good, bad, or indifferent? What if the answer is that a slightly warmer climate is actually beneficial to the Earth? History tells us that is likely the case. Why spend trillions of dollars to prevent something that is beneficial? | ||
| Bjbauer |
The concern with temperature is that at some point it may not be beneficial and could be disastrous. What that point may be is largely speculation. To your bigger question, I do think that there is more than one path to God. Some religions may be wrong but more than one could be right. It is humans who get all dogmatic about their particular religion and who decide theirs is right and others wrong ( think Taliban or Christians during the Crusades and Inquisitions, among others ). Many religions share many of the same core beliefs. | ||
| Sifo |
Well both temperature and CO2 levels have been higher than what we are talking about with AGW theory without it being disastrous. That much is well supported by the evidence. The speculation of disaster OTOH is not supported with any scientific evidence. Holy wars such as the Crusades are usually not about religion. Religion is usually just a tool used by leaders to persuade the masses to support the war. It sounds like we have a great deal of common ground on all that we are discussing here. | ||
| Metalrabbit |
Aw jeez, I come off the mountain and and the kids have confounded themselves,, they have built a Golden Buell ! | ||
| Bjbauer |
A few weeks ago I got the History Channel DVD of their program on the Crusades. The leader of the Greek Orthodox church approached Pope Urban II and asked him for help in stopping the loss of and gaining back ground lost to the Moslems, in particular Jerusalem and the Holy land. Some of the people were in it for glory and personal gain some because they believed in the cause. No mater what, spilling blood in the name of God is WRONG. It is people putting their will before the will of God or using Gods name to motivate others to do their dirty work. As Lincoln said (I paraphrase) "we should not worry whether God is on our side but that we are on Gods side". Right now I'm watching an even better DVD. "It might get Loud" is well worth the rental if you're a rock and roll fan. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
the kids have confounded themselves,, they have built a Golden Buell ! No, but we've seen one:  (Message edited by ft_bstrd on January 09, 2010) | ||
| Sifo |
No, but we've seen one:  | ||
| Bjbauer |
Where is the Golden Buell? I want to go and worship it and pray for the resurrection of a certain company I have been fond of. | ||
| Moxnix |
My big question is can more than one religion be "right". Can a Christian and a Buddhist both be "right"? Are not all things possible under God? Being right is a consensus reality for those groups who "think" or "believe" they are right. There can only be one "truth." I'll welcome being shown anything in the Old or New Testaments of the Holy Scriptures that is not true, with supporting evidence. I'm in agreement with the god that is God. I am in disagreement with all the gods who are not God. If one does not "know" God, there is no opportunity for discernment of God's truth, that is: spiritual judgment and understanding. Perception is knowing things by the senses. One can be fooled by the physical. |
