They keep warning us...

[heelmanwilm]

But we still filter the science through partisan political and religious beliefs l a bunch of fuking idiots. 11,000 scientists from 150 diff countries..:how many diff races, religions, and political beliefs you think are represented in this group? Yet the ignorant will still deny the science no matter how much its dumbed down. They’ll still insist that its a “liberal conspiracy” and let their political and religious beliefs trump scientific fact. They’ll go to doctors for their health, lawyers for legal help. But turn to fb memes, political editorialists, and young earth creationist nut jobs for their climate science. I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not a scientist at all. So i’m not gonna second guess other scientists. But thats just me. Anyone wants to interpret the data differently than these people lets hear it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/scie...tists-around-world-declare-climate-emergency/

 

[prlyles]

But we still filter the science through partisan political and religious beliefs l a bunch of fuking idiots. 11,000 scientists from 150 diff countries..:how many diff races, religions, and political beliefs you think are represented in this group? Yet the ignorant will still deny the science no matter how much its dumbed down. They’ll still insist that its a “liberal conspiracy” and let their political and religious beliefs trump scientific fact. They’ll go to doctors for their health, lawyers for legal help. But turn to fb memes, political editorialists, and young earth creationist nut jobs for their climate science. I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not a scientist at all. So i’m not gonna second guess other scientists. But thats just me. Anyone wants to interpret the data differently than these people lets hear it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/scie...tists-around-world-declare-climate-emergency/

I agree.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Thanks Al Gore for making it a political issue, you set us back years.

 

[Grayhead]

But we still filter the science through partisan political and religious beliefs l a bunch of fuking idiots. 11,000 scientists from 150 diff countries..:how many diff races, religions, and political beliefs you think are represented in this group? Yet the ignorant will still deny the science no matter how much its dumbed down. They’ll still insist that its a “liberal conspiracy” and let their political and religious beliefs trump scientific fact. They’ll go to doctors for their health, lawyers for legal help. But turn to fb memes, political editorialists, and young earth creationist nut jobs for their climate science. I’m not a climate scientist. I’m not a scientist at all. So i’m not gonna second guess other scientists. But thats just me. Anyone wants to interpret the data differently than these people lets hear it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/scie...tists-around-world-declare-climate-emergency/

I see no problem with people wanting to filter their beliefs thru religion, as long as you use common sense. Judging your poast recently, you have had it out for anyone who claims Christianity . Its politics that drives it.

Naturally we have a large dependency on earth based fuels. We all know that use of these products lead to eventual issues. It's not like this has snuck up on anyone. I also know that in the 30 years I have been driving, that great strides have been made in cleaning up emissions. My 2500 diesel truck has absolutely no smoke in its exhaust. It doesn't even smell like a diesel truck. As is with most commercial vehicles. We have a plethora of energy efficient appliances, lightbulbs, ect. The problem is, we are not going to move away from the trouble areas quick enough. There are not enough alternate energy sources to do away with dependency on fossil fuels completely.

I do a lot of contract work for a nuclear plant. They get their operating power from another steam generator plant near them. That other plant burns combustibles to produce the steam. There is a constant supply of wood chip trucks entering that place. Those places have to produce some problem emissions. The nuclear plant produces harmful results, but is monitored closely by the NRC. They have programs that check ground water and discharge water daily for contaminates.

You know well enough the story behind the sutton plant off of 421. Coal ash is nasty stuff. Thankfully they converted to natural gas. But I'm sure that even has undesirable results.
Long story short, fixing one problem creates others. My vote is to remove ALL political and religious organizations from the discussion of these sciences, create a non partisan group backed by the leading countries, and fix this issue. Anyone who uses a congregation of political base for votes is the real issues. I feel it's much more the latter than the former. Go to church to learn about Jesus, not get your latest political fix.

 

[uncboy10]

You can’t really base a judgement of nuclear power on the current reactors because they’re almost completely outdated. There is better, safer technology available now. For nuclear to truly be considered a viable option, new reactors would have to be implemented across the board.

 

[Grayhead]

You can’t really base a judgement of nuclear power on the current reactors because they’re almost completely outdated. There is better, safer technology available now. For nuclear to truly be considered a viable option, new reactors would have to be implemented across the board.

It is actually very efficient. The problem is all the regulation surrounding them. They takes allot to extremes in the name of safety. Not that it's a bad thing, it just the environment and culture in those plants. I think duke energy would replace the units with gas if not for the cost of termination the nuclear portion. The units at brunswick plant produce 1.2 million a day per reactor. 2 reactor's at that plant.

 

[uncboy10]

It is actually very efficient. The problem is all the regulation surrounding them. They takes allot to extremes in the name of safety. Not that it's a bad thing, it just the environment and culture in those plants. I think duke energy would replace the units with gas if not for the cost of termination the nuclear portion. The units at brunswick plant produce 1.2 million a day per reactor. 2 reactor's at that plant.

Modern technology would allow for the reactors to be passively fail safe, so that they don’t melt down even in the event of losing power to the reactor and cooling system (water pumps). It also would be possible to build reactors today that do not produce as much radioactive waste, and some prototypes could theoretically even re-enrich the spent fuel to use it again.

A passive fail safe reactor would never meltdown. That should be the standard.

 

[Grayhead]

Modern technology would allow for the reactors to be passively fail safe, so that they don’t melt down even in the event of losing power to the reactor and cooling system (water pumps). It also would be possible to build reactors today that do not produce as much radioactive waste, and some prototypes could theoretically even re-enrich the spent fuel to use it again.

A passive fail safe reactor would never meltdown. That should be the standard.

The industry is growing towards that. The problem with nuclear is,they get in their own way trying to do things. For example, we just finished laying 12000 feet of vct floor tile and 2 sets of restroom refurbishment. 279k to do that project. Cost outside of the plant would have been maybe 125k. And this is stuff that has nothing to do with the power block. When I started out there, it took 2200 people to supposedly run that place. Duke trimmed it to maybe 1000 people. They have implemented many money saving ideas in the last 2 years, but nothing like what you suggest.

I know they flirted with the idea of county or city size reactor's. The problem is guarding the fuel. They spend millions a year doing that very thing for just this one plant. I will say this though, it is a very safe place to work. I'm am not worried about that plant melting down. They have so many fail safes, it would be highly unlikely it could occur. Being out there changed my perspective on nuclear production

 

[uncboy10]

The industry is growing towards that. The problem with nuclear is,they get in their own way trying to do things. For example, we just finished laying 12000 feet of vct floor tile and 2 sets of restroom refurbishment. 279k to do that project. Cost outside of the plant would have been maybe 125k. And this is stuff that has nothing to do with the power block. When I started out there, it took 2200 people to supposedly run that place. Duke trimmed it to maybe 1000 people. They have implemented many money saving ideas in the last 2 years, but nothing like what you suggest.

I know they flirted with the idea of county or city size reactor's. The problem is guarding the fuel. They spend millions a year doing that very thing for just this one plant. I will say this though, it is a very safe place to work. I'm am not worried about that plant melting down. They have so many fail safes, it would be highly unlikely it could occur. Being out there changed my perspective on nuclear production

I agree that the current plants are already really safe. The main reason I would like to see the next generation of reactors is just in the case of natural disasters that might cause a catastrophic loss of power. Obviously they should have generators that could supply enough power to get things cooled down, but generators can fail too. The odds of that happening are incredibly small, but the damage caused by a melt down is so severe that I think its worth it to eliminate every possible risk.

Security is definitely a bigger concern anytime you're dealing with radioactive material. But then again, security is always going to paramount for any kind of power plant. They're just a logical target for terrorists because of the potential impact. In theory you could shrink reactors even further than just a city/county scale. But I'm not sure how you would secure the material if every neighborhood, or even every house had its own small reactor.

 

[WhatTheHeel?]

We need cold fusion.

 

[uncboy10]

We need cold fusion.

That would be even better

 

[heelmanwilm]

I see no problem with people wanting to filter their beliefs thru religion, as long as you use common sense. Judging your poast recently, you have had it out for anyone who claims Christianity . Its politics that drives it.

Actually Filtering science through religious beliefs is in complete denial of common sense. And religion drives political beliefs on the right including climate change. Btw who i “have it out for” are the ones putting religious beliefs (christian, jew...whatever) ahead of constitution , ahead of science, and ahead of doing whats right for fellow man including being good stewards of the planet. Name me one time....ONE SINGLE TIME...where religious beliefs refuted scientific claims and were proven right. Just one. I can name you dozens of times to the contrary. With climate change Its the idiotic premise embraced by evangelicals that the earth was created for our consumption and our wants and desires takes precedence over any environmental concerns esp those allegedly manufactured by the godless liberals. I sat in church and heard this bullshit for 30 yrs so dont even try to tell me its purely political.

 

[cletusnow]

Actually Filtering science through religious beliefs is in complete denial of common sense. And religion drives political beliefs on the right including climate change. Btw who i “have it out for” are the ones putting religious beliefs (christian, jew...whatever) ahead of constitution , ahead of science, and ahead of doing whats right for fellow man including being good stewards of the planet. Name me one time....ONE SINGLE TIME...where religious beliefs refuted scientific claims and were proven right. Just one. I can name you dozens of times to the contrary. With climate change Its the idiotic premise embraced by evangelicals that the earth was created for our consumption and our wants and desires takes precedence over any environmental concerns esp those allegedly manufactured by the godless liberals. I sat in church and heard this bullshit for 30 yrs so dont even try to tell me its purely political.

30 years? I’d say that church was ahead of the curve in refuting climate change.

 

[strummingram]

Actually Filtering science through religious beliefs is in complete denial of common sense. And religion drives political beliefs on the right including climate change. Btw who i “have it out for” are the ones putting religious beliefs (christian, jew...whatever) ahead of constitution , ahead of science, and ahead of doing whats right for fellow man including being good stewards of the planet. Name me one time....ONE SINGLE TIME...where religious beliefs refuted scientific claims and were proven right. Just one. I can name you dozens of times to the contrary. With climate change Its the idiotic premise embraced by evangelicals that the earth was created for our consumption and our wants and desires takes precedence over any environmental concerns esp those allegedly manufactured by the godless liberals. I sat in church and heard this bullshit for 30 yrs so dont even try to tell me its purely political.

You sat in church that long???

I just feel like the human race is in a transitional phase. The ancient religious filters have run their course. I see it diminishing. Now, I don't mean that there is no "God", not at all. However, the evolutionary understanding of what God IS, is moving away from the "He" version... the patriarchal Man In The Sky that western religions offer. Church memberships are dropping sharply.
https://apnews.com/f15241378057486ea437cad490a2ed67

The bigger question is; Can we evolve without wearing-out our welcome on the planet itself.

 

[uncboy10]

Religion itself defies common sense. Its an irrational response to our fear of death, and need for self-importance. Oh you don't want to die? Well boy have I got a story for you... You can live forever in paradise after you die! Its gonna be awesome. And all thanks to the son of god getting nailed to a tree so god could forgive the behavior of his own creations that he made in his own image.

Oh you don't like that story? Well what about the one where our prophet marries a nine year old and flies to the moon on a golden winged horse?

Still not your jam? Well maybe you'll be reincarnated as the most sacred animal of all, a cow.

It's all nonsense. Even if there were a god in the true sense of the word, its certainly not a benevolent one. If the world was created then all of the tsunamis, malaria, child leukemia, and every other horrible thing that kills people (many of them innocent children) is by design. Not to mention the fact that god watched human beings for over 100,000 years before he decided he should probably intervene and send his son down to take care of things. But none of that matters when you're shutting your brain off on sundays while you wait for the free cookies in a fancy dress.

 

[Grayhead]

Actually Filtering science through religious beliefs is in complete denial of common sense. And religion drives political beliefs on the right including climate change. Btw who i “have it out for” are the ones putting religious beliefs (christian, jew...whatever) ahead of constitution , ahead of science, and ahead of doing whats right for fellow man including being good stewards of the planet. Name me one time....ONE SINGLE TIME...where religious beliefs refuted scientific claims and were proven right. Just one. I can name you dozens of times to the contrary. With climate change Its the idiotic premise embraced by evangelicals that the earth was created for our consumption and our wants and desires takes precedence over any environmental concerns esp those allegedly manufactured by the godless liberals. I sat in church and heard this bullshit for 30 yrs so dont even try to tell me its purely political.

Trying to keep from a debate about scripture out of this conversation. I understand that the evangelicals typically vote right. But blaming all Christian's is a stretch to me. I am an ordained minister, and can find balance between my beliefs and science. And I do this while striving to live what I preach. I hate you had a church that politicised their messages. Church is for salvation of the soul, not the planet. And I am aware that many churches use it as a platform for such stuff. But i hardly think that church is to blame for the stance on global warming. It may be a contributor, but not solely at fault.
I'll add this, I weigh my beliefs almost equally between Christianity and science. The young earth view has always been an area of contention. I typically stay away from it when preaching due to such dogmatic views. Moses wrote of that account as its recorded. Common sense will tell you that try here is more to the story. Finnis Dake wrote a commentary on scripture that is about as complete as I have found. He was despised by mainstream churches in his day(early twentieth century) due to his in depth explanation of creation account. I studied it, and it made perfect sense to me at that point.

Ultimately, my take is Jesus saves souls. I have cast my lot in life to live for him. Several people on this board despise anyone who chooses to believe. I dont feel I am wrong in my belief. I've had to many experiences in life to make me believe otherwise. I/we all should be entitled to live our lives as we choose. If I am wrong, then I will have lived my life doing good to others, counseling people thru difficult times in their lives, and trying to give people hope. I hate that you missed that in your 30 years at church.

I live near Wilmington. I would love to one day eat lunch with you and hear your story away from the usual God haters that this board houses. Call me curious as to the church you attended. I dont want to drive people away myself

 

[strummingram]

Trying to keep from a debate about scripture out of this conversation. I understand that the evangelicals typically vote right. But blaming all Christian's is a stretch to me. I am an ordained minister, and can find balance between my beliefs and science. And I do this while striving to live what I preach. I hate you had a church that politicised their messages. Church is for salvation of the soul, not the planet. And I am aware that many churches use it as a platform for such stuff. But i hardly think that church is to blame for the stance on global warming. It may be a contributor, but not solely at fault.
I'll add this, I weigh my beliefs almost equally between Christianity and science. The young earth view has always been an area of contention. I typically stay away from it when preaching due to such dogmatic views. Moses wrote of that account as its recorded. Common sense will tell you that try here is more to the story. Finnis Dake wrote a commentary on scripture that is about as complete as I have found. He was despised by mainstream churches in his day(early twentieth century) due to his in depth explanation of creation account. I studied it, and it made perfect sense to me at that point.

Ultimately, my take is Jesus saves souls. I have cast my lot in life to live for him. Several people on this board despise anyone who chooses to believe. I dont feel I am wrong in my belief. I've had to many experiences in life to make me believe otherwise. I/we all should be entitled to live our lives as we choose. If I am wrong, then I will have lived my life doing good to others, counseling people thru difficult times in their lives, and trying to give people hope. I hate that you missed that in your 30 years at church.

I live near Wilmington. I would love to one day eat lunch with you and hear your story away from the usual God haters that this board houses. Call me curious as to the church you attended. I dont want to drive people away myself

Who, exactly, are the "God Haters" on this board?

 

[uncboy10]

Nobody here despises all Christians. That’s the typical persecution complex that always comes from the religious. Criticize the ideas and they will claim that you just hate anyone that chooses to believe. I don’t hate Christians any more than I hate Muslims. But both of the ideologies to which they subscribe are utter nonsense that have set humanity back at every turn.

And god hater? Lol how can I hate that which doesn’t exist?

 

[strummingram]

Being critical of organized religion does not equal "hating God." I believe that humans created religion in an effort to try and better understand, or personify what they could not explain. "God" is neutral, at best. God is ALL religions and none of them at the same time. God encompasses everything... you know... the Alpha AND the Omega. All the polarities are God.

I am very much driven by the works and words of Jesus Christ. I have to be because I was exposed to them very young and they made sense in terms of how I based my morality. Well... that and I saw practiced it in actuality by people around me. Jesus represents the human capacity to forgive endlessly, and love unconditionally. But, I don't even need for Jesus to have actually existed, in the flesh, to benefit from the idea and feeling that the story of his existence has conveyed to me. I don't need for him to "come back" because, for me, he never left! I am here, and therefore Christ is here inside me, and everyone.

 

[uncboy10]

"God" is neutral, at best. God is ALL religions and none of them at the same time. God encompasses everything... you know... the Alpha AND the Omega. All the polarities are God.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[Heels Noir]

Donald Trump is the Antichrist.

 

[strummingram]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

I doubt it. Not to where it would make sense to you (or anyone), If it's not understandable by what I wrote, I dunno if I can make it make-sense to you.

 

[uncboy10]

I doubt it. Not to where it would make sense to you (or anyone), If it's not understandable by what I wrote, I dunno if I can make it make-sense to you.

Sounds like you’re just saying god is everything and everything is god. If that’s the case then the word god would be meaningless because it isn’t providing any kind of meaningful distinction.

 

[strummingram]

Sounds like you’re just saying god is everything and everything is god. If that’s the case then the word god would be meaningless because it isn’t providing any kind of meaningful distinction.

Well, you're right, in a way. The word "God" might be meaningless. We seem to be preoccupied with the word and it is an interesting part of the whole human experience. We think to ourselves in language- in our conscious thought, anyway. God is definitely not meaning-less. But, the association of the word God with Religion seems automatic. It doesn't have to be that way.


"God", in my understanding, is more of an abstract. It's everything and nothing, all at the same time. So, there is distinction, but it's beyond the boundaries of what religious ideologies create... for ME, that is. It's some of it, but God is more than just what's in The Bible, or the Q'uran, or the Bhagavad Gita, or whatever. Those are all kinda like stations on a cosmic radio. Some people get better reception on one station or the other. But, "God" isn't restricted to religion. It's kind of a shame, in a way, that what humans perceive as God MUST BE filtered through some kind of religious text or belief system.

The western, religious idea of God as a sort of cobbler that "created the world" seems sort of archaic to me, now. That version, for me, automatically makes me think of God in the Abrahamic "He" context. The patriarchal God leads to a lot of things like "Why does HE allow children to die of AIDS?" or "Why does HE allow people to suffer from ______?" Things like that. It's always a He. The word He means male, or masculine-specific gender. God being a Him doesn't register with me. Those all seem to force a perception of God as some superhuman MALE parental figure that resides in some parallel plane of existence, BUT also gets described as being right here with us, keeping score, and, of course, HE is rewarding and punishing based on a system of morality that humans will insist that He/God- in some form- decreed to them directly. And, that's a reality for those people. So, that's one meaning for the "word" God.

I can reflect on the teachings/writings of the Bible and get plenty of guidance. But, the rituals and dogmas, especially in the Christian denominations, end up with these fear-based, coercive agendas. "If you don't do so-and-so, you go to Hell." The Hell consequence is a Christian/Catholic creation. Basing your belief on fear isn't very "divine" in my mind. But, there's also, definitely, some comfort in the traditions of Christianity.

If we must refer to God through a religious filter, then I guess I am presently in more of an eastern/Buddhist state of mind. But, it's not a precise version of that religion, either. God is all of us, and we are all God- collectively- experiencing everything as it continues to play-itself-out. "Science" is God as well.

There's always more for us to understand. Maybe, whatever God is, it's the process of understanding it all.

 

[Archer2]

Nobody here despises all Christians. That’s the typical persecution complex that always comes from the religious. Criticize the ideas and they will claim that you just hate anyone that chooses to believe.

Sorta like what many conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis in the mainstream media and on uberliberal social platforms, just for having different opinions. If you criticized Obama's policy, you were accused of hating black people and being a racist. If you criticize Hilary Clinton, you're accused of hating women and being a misogynist. If you're opposed to illegal immigration, you're accused of hating people of color and being a xenophobe. If you oppose gay marriage, you're accused of hating homosexuals and being a homophobe. It's the norm for most liberals that I know.

I don’t hate Christians any more than I hate Muslims. But both of the ideologies to which they subscribe are utter nonsense that have set humanity back at every turn.

And god hater? Lol how can I hate that which doesn’t exist?

You may not believe that God exists but 80% of the people living in the world believe in some divine power or God. It may be "utter nonsense" to you but I assure you it isn't to the vast majority of the world. When you make statements like those with utmost certainty in your correctness, as if you couldn't possibly be wrong, you look narrow minded and smug.

 

[tarheel0910]

One star thread.

 

[uncboy10]

Well, you're right, in a way. The word "God" might be meaningless. We seem to be preoccupied with the word and it is an interesting part of the whole human experience. We think to ourselves in language- in our conscious thought, anyway. God is definitely not meaning-less. But, the association of the word God with Religion seems automatic. It doesn't have to be that way.


"God", in my understanding, is more of an abstract. It's everything and nothing, all at the same time. So, there is distinction, but it's beyond the boundaries of what religious ideologies create... for ME, that is. It's some of it, but God is more than just what's in The Bible, or the Q'uran, or the Bhagavad Gita, or whatever. Those are all kinda like stations on a cosmic radio. Some people get better reception on one station or the other. But, "God" isn't restricted to religion. It's kind of a shame, in a way, that what humans perceive as God MUST BE filtered through some kind of religious text or belief system.

The western, religious idea of God as a sort of cobbler that "created the world" seems sort of archaic to me, now. That version, for me, automatically makes me think of God in the Abrahamic "He" context. The patriarchal God leads to a lot of things like "Why does HE allow children to die of AIDS?" or "Why does HE allow people to suffer from ______?" Things like that. It's always a He. The word He means male, or masculine-specific gender. God being a Him doesn't register with me. Those all seem to force a perception of God as some superhuman MALE parental figure that resides in some parallel plane of existence, BUT also gets described as being right here with us, keeping score, and, of course, HE is rewarding and punishing based on a system of morality that humans will insist that He/God- in some form- decreed to them directly. And, that's a reality for those people. So, that's one meaning for the "word" God.

I can reflect on the teachings/writings of the Bible and get plenty of guidance. But, the rituals and dogmas, especially in the Christian denominations, end up with these fear-based, coercive agendas. "If you don't do so-and-so, you go to Hell." The Hell consequence is a Christian/Catholic creation. Basing your belief on fear isn't very "divine" in my mind. But, there's also, definitely, some comfort in the traditions of Christianity.

If we must refer to God through a religious filter, then I guess I am presently in more of an eastern/Buddhist state of mind. But, it's not a precise version of that religion, either. God is all of us, and we are all God- collectively- experiencing everything as it continues to play-itself-out. "Science" is God as well.

There's always more for us to understand. Maybe, whatever God is, it's the process of understanding it all.

So it sounds like you don’t believe that god is some conscious entity with any kind of supernatural powers?

 

[uncboy10]

Sorta like what many conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis in the mainstream media and on uberliberal social platforms, just for having different opinions. If you criticized Obama's policy, you were accused of hating black people and being a racist. If you criticize Hilary Clinton, you're accused of hating women and being a misogynist. If you're opposed to illegal immigration, you're accused of hating people of color and being a xenophobe. If you oppose gay marriage, you're accused of hating homosexuals and being a homophobe. It's the norm for most liberals that I know. You may not believe that God exists but 80% of the people living in the world believe in some divine power or God. It may be "utter nonsense" to you but I assure you it isn't to the vast majority of the world. When you make statements like those with utmost certainty in your correctness, as if you couldn't possibly be wrong, you look narrow minded and smug.

Not believing in mythology doesn’t make one narrow minded. The god described by abarahamic monotheists is a contradiction. They claim god is omnipotent and omniscient, but also a loving benevolent god. If I told you I knew a bridge was going to collapse, and I had the power to stop it, but I let it collapse and kill 100 people, then you would consider me a psychopath. It would be even worse if you knew I’d designed the bridge that way. Your supposed god knows everything and can do anything, yet allows child cancer, horrible natural disasters and all kinds of other horrible things to happen to people. Religious people will do absolutely anything to avoid this contradiction. This is where silly cop outs like “god works in mysterious ways” enter the conversation.

No doubt many people are religious. But most view other religions as silly or crazy. They’ll even wage war over a belief that others are worshipping the wrong god. At one point, over 80% of the population believed the world was flat. All of those people were wrong.

You’re right it’s utter nonsense to me. The idea that god sent his only son to earth to become a scapegoat and get nailed to a tree so that people can be forgiven by god and live forever in paradise is utter nonsense.

 

[strummingram]

So it sounds like you don’t believe that god is some conscious entity with any kind of supernatural powers?

Well... unless the supernatural is harnessed by the Creation itself.


Example:

An ancient Roman, or even an American colonist, would view a smartphone as "supernatural." But, some kind of separated "Chief"' that creates this-or-that with the intent of punishing and/or rewarding? No. If there is a separated Creator that is picking sides, that hardly sounds like divinity to me. That's a creator that operates on a conditional basis. If I can conceive of, and put into action, what's considered unconditional love, forgiveness, and so on, then whatever created me is infinitely more obliging. If we can do all of what we have proven we can do, then if there's a separate creator, it's infinitely more capable. I think the universe is a collective self-realization. And, I've never taken LSD.

 

[Archer2]

Not believing in mythology doesn’t make one narrow minded. The god described by abarahamic monotheists is a contradiction. They claim god is omnipotent and omniscient, but also a loving benevolent god. If I told you I knew a bridge was going to collapse, and I had the power to stop it, but I let it collapse and kill 100 people, then you would consider me a psychopath. It would be even worse if you knew I’d designed the bridge that way. Your supposed god knows everything and can do anything, yet allows child cancer, horrible natural disasters and all kinds of other horrible things to happen to people. Religious people will do absolutely anything to avoid this contradiction. This is where silly cop outs like “god works in mysterious ways” enter the conversation.

No doubt many people are religious. But most view other religions as silly or crazy. They’ll even wage war over a belief that others are worshipping the wrong god. At one point, over 80% of the population believed the world was flat. All of those people were wrong.

You’re right it’s utter nonsense to me. The idea that god sent his only son to earth to become a scapegoat and get nailed to a tree so that people can be forgiven by god and live forever in paradise is utter nonsense.

We were created with free will. It’s what makes us what we are. And for those who place all their faith in science, I would imagine that 99% of the scientific theories ever espoused have been proven false.

Of course you’re entitled to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish. That’s free will. Man’s capacity for good is balanced against his capacity to do evil.

And I don’t believe for a minute that “most religious people view other religions as silly or crazy”. Most of the major religions have a lot more in common than they have differences. Religious fanatics are still fighting to prove their religion superior but they represent a tiny percentage of the followers of those religions. Most would prefer to peacefully coexist.

 

[uncboy10]

We were created with free will. It’s what makes us what we are. And for those who place all their faith in science, I would imagine that 99% of the scientific theories ever espoused have been proven false.

Of course you’re entitled to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish. That’s free will. Man’s capacity for good is balanced against his capacity to do evil.

And I don’t believe for a minute that “most religious people view other religions as silly or crazy”. Most of the major religions have a lot more in common than they have differences. Religious fanatics are still fighting to prove their religion superior but they represent a tiny percentage of the followers of those religions. Most would prefer to peacefully coexist.

That’s an entirely different discussion but there is no evidence that humans have free will. And arguing that we have free will because the boss said so doesn’t really make sense anyways.

That’s exactly the difference between science and religion. Science can be falsified. It improves and corrects itself as we get better evidence. Religious dogma simply makes unfounded claims that it cannot prove.

How does free will explain earthquakes or child cancer? Are you going to argue that children choose to get cancer? Horrible things happen to people independent of their choices all of the time. In a universe with an omnipotent and omniscient god, everything happens with gods consent. There’s no way to escape that logic.

If I started going through pagan traditions or some of the beliefs in the Quran or Torah you would probably think they are silly. Hell I could probably cite verses from the Bible that you would agree are silly. And there’s a long history of religious oppression and war that backs up my point. People have become less and less religious over time, and thankfully that has reduced religious conflict. But the most hardcore believers are always a threat to civilization.

 

[uncboy10]

Well... unless the supernatural is harnessed by the Creation itself.


Example:

An ancient Roman, or even an American colonist, would view a smartphone as "supernatural." But, some kind of separated "Chief"' that creates this-or-that with the intent of punishing and/or rewarding? No. If there is a separated Creator that is picking sides, that hardly sounds like divinity to me. That's a creator that operates on a conditional basis. If I can conceive of, and put into action, what's considered unconditional love, forgiveness, and so on, then whatever created me is infinitely more obliging. If we can do all of what we have proven we can do, then if there's a separate creator, it's infinitely more capable. I think the universe is a collective self-realization. And, I've never taken LSD.

They might see it as supernatural but that doesn’t make is supernatural. The concept of supernatural doesn’t even make sense. If something exists then it is part of nature. So by definition anything that actually exists is not supernatural.

The thing is, we know you and I weren’t created. There is a pretty damn complete accounting of exactly how we evolved to be what we are. Why insert creation into the equation when there is no evidence of design?

My main point was to highlight the difference between how you use the word god and the way that 99.99999% of the population uses the word. It seems like using the word in a way that doesn’t bear any resemblance to how others use it is pointless. Why not use a different word to avoid needless confusion?

Sure there is some kind of divine beauty to the universe. But there is also chaos and cruel indifference. The rules of nature do not care about us, and those govern the universe we occupy. Ultimately our lives are not significant. Our lives come and go in the blink of an eye on the cosmic scale.

 

[heelmanwilm]

We were created with free will. It’s what makes us what we are. And for those who place all their faith in science, I would imagine that 99% of the scientific theories ever espoused have been proven false.

Of course you’re entitled to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish. That’s free will. Man’s capacity for good is balanced against his capacity to do evil.

And I don’t believe for a minute that “most religious people view other religions as silly or crazy”. Most of the major religions have a lot more in common than they have differences. Religious fanatics are still fighting to prove their religion superior but they represent a tiny percentage of the followers of those religions. Most would prefer to peacefully coexist.

Whats important is that scientific theories can indeed be proven or disproven. Religious beliefs cannot be proven but have been DISPROVEN ad nauseum. How many hundreds of times will religious beliefs be proven wrong by science before y’all realize the beliefs are wrong? Science has PROVEN There was no global flood. PROVEN The earth isnt 5000yrs old. PROVEN An ark as described is not sea worthy. PROVEN All land life including humans didnt descend from a shipwreck in turkey. PROVEN The earth never stood still. Donkeys dont talk. All languages didnt originate in the middle east. You are not immune to snake venom if you’re a believer. A man cant survive in a fish’s stomache for three days. Noone can pray a mtn into movement. Noone can heal sickness with prayer. Speaking in tongues is just blabbering and is not any language of any kind... i could go on and on. Lots of people i love and respect believe and can explain away the conflicts with scientific fact in various ways to their satisfaction. So be it. To me if your belief system denies scientific realities then you need a new system

 

[strummingram]

They might see it as supernatural but that doesn’t make is supernatural. The concept of supernatural doesn’t even make sense. If something exists then it is part of nature. So by definition anything that actually exists is not supernatural.

The thing is, we know you and I weren’t created. There is a pretty damn complete accounting of exactly how we evolved to be what we are. Why insert creation into the equation when there is no evidence of design?

My main point was to highlight the difference between how you use the word god and the way that 99.99999% of the population uses the word. It seems like using the word in a way that doesn’t bear any resemblance to how others use it is pointless. Why not use a different word to avoid needless confusion?

Sure there is some kind of divine beauty to the universe. But there is also chaos and cruel indifference. The rules of nature do not care about us, and those govern the universe we occupy. Ultimately our lives are not significant. Our lives come and go in the blink of an eye on the cosmic scale.

I think another word would be helpful. God goes straight to ancient religious associations.

But, one thing I know with absolute certainty; I don't understand everything and I cannot explain everything. And, when it comes to "Science", I'm taking other people's word for it a lot of the time. That doesn't mean it isn't true, or factual, or whatever. It just means that I cannot personally confirm it as being those things. So, on some level, there's a sense of faith/trust that they (scientists) know what they're talking about. In the case of Climate Change, I trust them. But, I cannot prove it myself.

 

[heelmanwilm]

When i had my wreck, my mother in law, a woman who claims gods word says blacks are cursed by god and less than human, had the nerve to tell me “gods trying to get your attention”. Lol. Really i said. God allowed millions of innocent children to die of disease, starvation, and abuse today and chose instead to manipulate events to cause me to wreck in order to “get my attention”??!!! Then she laid hands on me and prayed my ribs would be healed and mended right there...claimed it was gonna happen in the name of jesus. “Now that” i told her “might get my attention for sure!” It didnt work.

 

[uncboy10]

I think another word would be helpful. God goes straight to ancient religious associations.

But, one thing I know with absolute certainty; I don't understand everything and I cannot explain everything. And, when it comes to "Science", I'm taking other people's word for it a lot of the time. That doesn't mean it isn't true, or factual, or whatever. It just means that I cannot personally confirm it as being those things. So, on some level, there's a sense of faith/trust that they (scientists) know what they're talking about. In the case of Climate Change, I trust them. But, I cannot prove it myself.

Well we have that in common. No one person understands all of science, or even all of their own field of specialty.

There is trust involved, but it shouldn’t be placed in the scientists as individuals. It’s the system that I place my trust in. We collect data and use that data to test hypotheses about the world. Sometimes they’re wrong, but the scientific method is an excellent error correcting system. There is always incentive to prove something wrong. Science has to hold up to critical analysis at every turns.

That’s why it is basically the opposite of religion. Religion makes dogmatic claims that can never be falsified. You can’t prove god doesn’t exist. You can’t prove any negative. That’s basic logic. Religion begins with an unfounded claim and then religious people do anything and everything to defend that claim, even to the point of ignoring science when they have to.

 

[Archer2]

Again, we’re all free to believe or disbelieve whatever we will, but I can believe in science and believe in God simultaneously, they are not mutually exclusive.

As for human suffering due to hurricanes, floods, disease, etc... if none of those things existed, neither life nor peace would be so precious because we would forget how wonderful and precious they are. We would come to take them for granted.

This is a moot point. I can’t explain religious faith to you, you have it or you don’t. They say almost everyone on death row “gets religion”. I would imagine much the same thing happens to most people diagnosed with cancer. Is it because they’re afraid to die and fear the uncertainty of what happens after death? Is it that life is so precious that they just don’t want it to end? Who knows?

There are religious people who lose their faith in God due to things in life that they see or experience, and people who don’t believe in God who adopt religion for the various reasons. Again, religious faith is a moot point, it’s been debated as long as man has been around.

So again, believe or disbelieve as you will.

 

[uncboy10]

If you need other people to suffer for you to appreciate the preciousness of life then something is wrong with you. And why would god create people who need to be surrounded by suffering to appreciate life? Why just not make your creation appreciative without the need for all of that cruelty? Seems like that kind of god has no issue with suffering. Seeing as he designed so much of it.

That was exactly my point earlier. Religion is a response to our fear of death. We want to live forever so we made up stories so that we can tell ourselves that we will. If religious people kept their stories out of public schools and government then I wouldn’t really care. But it is important that secular people continue to push back and keep religion where it belongs.

 

[prlyles]

Donald Trump is the Antichrist.

I would hope God could come with an antichrist a little smarter than Trump.

 

[TarHeelMark]

I would hope God could come with an antichrist a little smarter than Trump.

And, isn't the antichrist supposed to initially deceive everyone into liking them, before revealing themselves? Trump can't be the antichrist as he's only fooled about 40% of the US, and probably less than 1% of the rest of the world.