I may have been too generous with my rating.
They keep warning us...
- Thread starter heelmanwilm
- Start date
11,000 scientists from 150 countries are speaking in direct opposition to what 80% of evangelicals believe (according to pew research) concerning climate science. That tells me all i need to know about religion and science. Sure there are exceptions. Maybe some of you guys represent those who embrace christianity but accept scientific research as well. If so good for you. But you are in the minority for sure.
The Bible was not penned in a way to explain science. It is a road map towards faith in God. A historical account pushing towards Jesus and beyond. There is no obligation form God to prove or disprove anything. I am quiet sure if God ripped the skies open and said hello, people would still not believe. I am a firm believer that there is a balance between science and faith. Your motherinlaws attempts and words may be off in a sense, and some her views outlandish, but there is basis in faith. If your ribs where healed when she prayed, would you have believed? Most people I know who are skeptic of any religious belief need proof across the board. You gave quiet a few examples of what the scripture says verses science. I myself feel there is a balance. It was explained in a way that people could relate. As people advance, those ideas progress as well. Less need for healings since we have come as far as we have medically. Simple faith in a creator, and living a moral code should have no impact on society. The fanatical people who strap bombs to themselves are crazy no matter how it shakes out.
America is poised as a place for freedom. But there are still rules we have to go by. They govern that freedom. As long as we live within the context of those rules, we are free to live in that freedom. Our constitution was penned at a time that seems ancient to us. The men that formulated the plan for our country did so for we the people to have choices. As much as we hold them in high regard, they still owned slaves, expanded land into other peoples territory, made some of the same mistakes we all make. Many of them followed a christian value, and lived as best they could according to the Bible. They also knew better than mandating a religious belief on the people. They gave us the right to choose.
Do you deny that we’re constantly told by the evangelcal community and its leaders that this is a christian nation founded by christian men based on christian principles and failure to reflect that in our laws (abortion, gay marriage,) will doom us to gods judgement?
Yes we have a right to choose but the evangelicals would love nothing more than to take that right. We see it every day with the push to legislate religious beliefs into law.
Regarding my mom in laws prayer...i already believe in god for lack of a better term. Not in the idiotic religious “get saved” science denying fashion she embraces (which according to her is my damnation), but i do believe. But had my ribs healed or the lame walked or the blind see as a result of her prayers i would certainly revise my thinking.
Last edited:
I think not. But again, you believe whatever you want to believe. But watch that "pew research" and take it with a grain of salt.
I think "God", for want of another word, encompasses all those concepts and more.
I've been to a lot of different churches. And while it's true that a handful still preach "fire and brimstone" for non-compliance to certain tenets, I've found those to be few and far between, and becoming fewer all the time. Are their religious zealots that wreak havoc all too often? Sadly so, but I would say political zealots are a much bigger problem than religious zealots in today's world.
I tend to believe this as well.
I dont deny that mainstream churches push beliefs to affect votes. No different than the black churches in their communities pushing for Obama for POTUS. I dont follow politics as close as most. I know the evangelicals have an influence. But as with our voting system, you are alone in that both to vote. Abortion, gay marriage, act. Should be decided by states or in the booth. If asked my opinion on these topics, I will give it. Some people oppose these topics and have never stepped foot in a church. As for pushing a global crisis for the environment, I will get behind almost anything that is not swayed by either party. That's why I stated earlier, that a world council of sorts manage and suggest method . New renewable energy source is a must. POTUS, Congress SCOTUS, are not the proper avenues. Politics is a major issue with progression. We are sharply divided to the point we may never recover. I do not rely on any politician to look out for my best interest.
What if we destroy the planet before Jesus comes back?
Before he comes back....to destroy it. Lol.
The planet is in no danger of being destroyed by us. We could make in uninhabitable for... us, however! The planet is going to be just fine, no matter what we do.
And as for those 11,000 scientists, a keyword search determined that only 240, or about 2%, of them could be construed to be meteorologists, climatologists, atmospheric scientists, or in any other way connected to climate research. So excuse me if I don't subscribe to this particular iteration of hysterical climate nonsense.
There are over 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the US alone. Were they all busy? Or did they not buy this BS either?
On the other hand, Mickey Mouse, Dumbledore, and Araminta Aardvark are all in and have signed the petition.
There are over 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the US alone. Were they all busy? Or did they not buy this BS either?
On the other hand, Mickey Mouse, Dumbledore, and Araminta Aardvark are all in and have signed the petition.
Lol that's the WHOLE point of the report. Scientists across a broad range of disciplines are noting the effects of climate change on their particular fields. Ie. a biologist who studies one particular subspecies of tree frog has a unique insight on its effects on that frog's habitat (disclaimer: completely made up example). But go ahead and dismiss it all as nonsense, I'm sure there won't be any long-term consequences for humanity or anything.
Some of the human species is begging to be extinctified.
Thanks for making my point for me. A biologist studying tree frog habitat is entirely qualified to talk about that. Tree frog habitat expanding or contracting, lifecycles, mating, anything of that nature is totally their area of expertise. What is not their area of expertise, however, is stating that these habitat changes are due to climate change, and by extension, human activity. They should stick to tree frogs, and not be signing petitions making proclamations that they don't have the academic chops to back up.
I could not have posted something That so accurately supports the subject of the op if i had written it myself. Thanks.
Come to work with me one day. I could easily take you around to speak with half a dozen researchers in different fields, none of them specifically climate scientists, who can demonstrate, with empirical evidence, how their work is connected to and affected by climate change. That's just on one campus, and I'm only familiar with the work of a small fraction of our faculty. They're not going out looking for climate change; they're working on other things and it's slapping them in the face.
Last edited:
Let me try this.
A republican politician fundraising, going to election rallies and going through the legislative voting process is qualified to talk about that. Fundraising, how to get elected and the voting process is totally their area of expertise. What is not their area of expertise, however, is stating that these environmental changes are not due to climate change, and by extension, human activity. They should stick to fundraising, how to get elected and the voting process, and not be making proclamations that they don't have the academic chops to back up.
Wow, that was easy.
A republican politician fundraising, going to election rallies and going through the legislative voting process is qualified to talk about that. Fundraising, how to get elected and the voting process is totally their area of expertise. What is not their area of expertise, however, is stating that these environmental changes are not due to climate change, and by extension, human activity. They should stick to fundraising, how to get elected and the voting process, and not be making proclamations that they don't have the academic chops to back up.
Wow, that was easy.
If politicians had to back-up claims with "academic chops", they'd all be unemployed. It's interesting how government is comprised of... what, 95% former lawyers! The body of people that we choose to govern us are mostly former, professional bullshitters. Now, I don't mean that all lawyers are purposely insidious. But, it is interesting to me how "law" and governance are so closely related, and then we look at the piss-poor performance of government, and wonder why. I would suggest more doctors, or professors, or engineers, or something. But, they're probably swamped with holding the machine together while politicians fvck it up.
You can post funny gifs all day, and that doesn't change anything. It just shows that you are lazy and have no argument.
Well... what you said is bullshit. I am arguing that and My Cousin Vinny is helping.
You can post funny gifs all day, and that doesn't change anything. It just shows that you are lazy and have no argument.
They may notice things due to changing climate. It changes, and has for all of recorded time. What they can't prove empirically is that we are causing it, or that there is anything we can do to stop it from changing. Where you are right now likely used to be underwater. But we didn't cause it to be dry land again. And we won't be the cause if it ends up underwater again.
I was afraid you may not be bright enough to understand. Sorry.
At least I've awoken the hysterical progressives. Glad to see you all in fine health and feeling feisty. Wrong, but feisty.
So, if they "can't prove it, empirically"... by your measure... then it's all just a big load of horseshit and politicians should use it to pander to get votes and the situation gets worse. Is that correct? Let's keep drilling and burning more and more and wait until we are underwater, and continue to refuse the blame. Earth gonna earth.
I have to admit... the LOL was legit here.
I understood, but apparently you didn't. You missed the point I was making, because you responded with the exact same point and thought it was original.
Yeah, that's certainly not an accurate description of me. Stick around and maybe you'll learn something. On second thought, feel free not to stick around.
Actually, I'm a bit tired. I had a heavy lunch. The good news is I actually know what I'm talking about. It appears you might need to go back to class.
There's the real incentive! Whatever the hell a "progressive" is, it's a threat to your ego, so whatever it takes to make it look like "progress" is the culprit.
How did we ever stop hurling virgins into volcanoes!?
