Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Clearly the scientific evidence is that climate change is real and having significant effects...

I have no doubt that climate change is real. However, the 'myth' that has been created  is that the climate in its natural state is relatively benign and that our emissions of C02 will cause the climate to become, on average, catastrophic for mankind and other species, and that we can make the climate relatively benign again, as it's supposed to be, by reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

This myth relies upon the obscuring or under-reporting of the history of past climate changes and the history of extreme weather events. For example, in the science of Geology, it is well-established that sea levels around 20,000 years ago, during the last Glacial Maximum (often called the Ice Age) were on average around 120 metres lower than today.

 

Doing some basic maths, 120 metres is 120,000 mm. Divide that by 20,000 and you get 6 mm. In other words, the average rate of sea-level rise during the past 20,000 years has been 6 mm per year. However, the average rate of sea-level rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution is claimed (by the alarmists) to be around 1.9 to 2 mm per year, with some recent rises as high as 3 mm per year, which appears to be very worrying for those who subscribe to the new religion. ????
 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

58 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I have seen 2 grand finals and still am confused about the rules. 

Actually the last one, 3 or 4 years ago, I was told that no one could be sent off, no matter what they did! 

 

Correct .. but if you do do something bad, particularly in the grand final,  you could be out for the next 10 games, 20,  or whole season. But you can finish that game and hold up the trophy..

[Fat is a type of crazy]

22 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I have no doubt that climate change is real. However, the 'myth' that has been created  is that the climate in its natural state is relatively benign and that our emissions of C02 will cause the climate to become, on average, catastrophic for mankind and other species, and that we can make the climate relatively benign again, as it's supposed to be, by reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

This myth relies upon the obscuring or under-reporting of the history of past climate changes and the history of extreme weather events. For example, in the science of Geology, it is well-established that sea levels around 20,000 years ago, during the last Glacial Maximum (often called the Ice Age) were on average around 120 metres lower than today.

 

Doing some basic maths, 120 metres is 120,000 mm. Divide that by 20,000 and you get 6 mm. In other words, the average rate of sea-level rise during the past 20,000 years has been 6 mm per year. However, the average rate of sea-level rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution is claimed (by the alarmists) to be around 1.9 to 2 mm per year, with some recent rises as high as 3 mm per year, which appears to be very worrying for those who subscribe to the new religion. ????
 

It may be true but I don't think it's helpful to talk about averages in this case given that it appears the temperature has varied up and down significantly in the intervening period and this was at a time of relatively few people that  could be affected.  Those that were there were more likely nomadic or just died - in the heat or the cold.  It appears the latest climate change is significant and the effect in a hugely populated world, if trends continue, could be catastrophic. 

I can see why some might compare this alarmism to a need to believe in a sort of God inspired armageddon but I have some faith that 99 per cent of scientists are not part of a conspiracy to control the world or make money and that action is required.

There's been a fascinating change in Australia where Rupert Murdoch owned media has done an about face and become climate action believer from strong denier. Let's see the latest in the upcoming meetings in Scotland. 

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I can see why some might compare this alarmism to a need to believe in a sort of God inspired armageddon but I have some faith that 99 per cent of scientists are not part of a conspiracy to control the world or make money and that action is required.

While I believe that Gaia is God in planetary form, I do believe that humanity has become so toxic to the planet that whether climate change is or is not caused by humans, it makes no difference to our fate as inhabitants of the planet, which is not a good one IMO. We have been pooping in our nest for way too long.

 

Anyway, whatever the cause of climate change ( which I believe to be an entirely natural process ) I doubt we can change it to anything else, no matter how rich Musk becomes selling his silly cars.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

There's been a fascinating change in Australia where Rupert Murdoch owned media has done an about face and become climate action believer from strong denier.

Perhaps someone told him there is more money to be made from being a "believer".

[VincentRJ]

23 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I can see why some might compare this alarmism to a need to believe in a sort of God inspired armageddon but I have some faith that 99 per cent of scientists are not part of a conspiracy to control the world or make money..

Thanks for your response. I'm a bit reluctant to engage in too much discussion on climate change issues because this is perhaps not the right thread, but I do see a connection in the sense there is a wide-spread tendency for most people, especially young people, to rely upon 'authority', rather than do their own investigations, and this applies very much to religious beliefs, and particularly the belief in that 'supreme authority' of a Creator God.

 

Anyway, hoping the moderator does not intervene, I'll respond, for the time being, to just a couple of your comments.

 

I also have some faith that 99 per cent of scientists are not part of a conspiracy to control the world or make money. When I first read in news journals and blogs that 97% of all scientists agree that our CO2 emissions are the driving force behind the current warming and that such warming would be catastrophic if we don't reduce our emissions, I felt instinctively that something was wrong with this claim, so I investigated the issue to find out how such a high consensus figure was obtained.

 

What I discovered is that most scientists, whether specialized in the field of climate science or not, do not respond to such polls asking them 'effectively' if they are a Climate Alarmist' or a 'Denier'. The 97% consensus figure is derived from a 'minority' of scientists who are willing to become advocates, under the guise that they are expressing the results of the application of the true 'Methodology of Science'.

 

The other 3% who express skepticism are not necessarily being just truthful. Some probably are, but some might be funded by the fossil fuel industry, which creates at least some bias. 

 

It would be a very expensive project to determine what all scientists really thought about the dangers of our CO2 emissions. I'm not sure we have sufficiently accurate 'Lie Detectors', which would be needed during the interviews. ????

 

[quote]There's been a fascinating change in Australia where Rupert Murdoch owned media has done an about face and become climate action believer from strong denier. Let's see the latest in the upcoming meetings in Scotland. [/quote]

 

I'll elaborate on this for the sake of the confused.
Rupert has stated clearly that he has never denied that climate is changing. Taking action relating to climate, or more precisely, protecting ourselves from extreme weather events, should be the main concern about changes in climate.

 

I don't rely upon newspaper reports for information on climate. They might sometimes stimulate my interest in a particular issue, which I then investigate on the internet and Google Scholar, in order to understand more, and do a 'fact check' for myself. The internet was initially created so that scientists could communicate their research and avoid unnecessary duplication.

 

My main concern is that ineffective action will be taken on climate change, such as spending trillions of dollars trying to exclude the use of fossil fuels because of this religious nonsense that CO2 , in religious terms, is the Devil.

 

The action we should be taking is to protect people from the effects of flooding, droughts, bush fires, cyclones etc, by managing the environment better, by building more dams and better drainage systems, by reshaping the urban landscape to avoid flash flooding, by changing the building regulations so that homes and buildings in cyclone or hurricane areas must be built to resist the maximum category of cyclones experienced in the area, and so on.

 

We have the technology and the energy supplies to do this, but it's not economically appealing. Who is going to become a Billionaire by building some large dams which prevent people's homes from being destroyed during the next La Nina event? ????
 

[seedy]

There is only One God - and His name is Death.

There is only One thing we say to God - not Today

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

especially young people, to rely upon 'authority', rather than do their own investigations, and this applies very much to religious beliefs, and particularly the belief in that 'supreme authority' of a Creator God.

Given there is IMO no actual documented "evidence" to be had about God, how would any do "investigations". As you know, I have faith in the creator, but it doesn't come from reading anything, but from a physical experience, a Damascus moment, if you will.

All there is IMO is religion, which I reject, faith, which I have, or disbelief, though many are sitting on the fence.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

We have the technology and the energy supplies to do this, but it's not economically appealing. Who is going to become a Billionaire by building some large dams which prevent people's homes from being destroyed during the next La Nina event?

Exactly. The world we live in is ruled by greed, IMO, and only that which enriches the already wealthy is done.

I sometimes wish I believed in the god of religion, so I could wait for the whole corrupt decadent establishment to be swept away by the coming of god, but I believe in God and IMO God isn't concerned about the petty bickering of an insignificant species on an in significant planet. Whether our species survives or goes extinct is IMO up to Gaia. Perhaps covid is a taste of what is to come if we don't shape up and stop ruining the planet.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given there is IMO no actual documented "evidence" to be had about God, how would any do "investigations". As you know, I have faith in the creator, but it doesn't come from reading anything, but from a physical experience, a Damascus moment, if you will.

All there is IMO is religion, which I reject, faith, which I have, or disbelief, though many are sitting on the fence.

I don't think that most people who claim to believe in God, believe as a result of some unusual, mind-changing experience or epiphany. They believe because they have been brought up in a religious environment where it is accepted by their parents and teachers as incontrovertible that God exists, just as many children today seem to believe that the climate is changing for the worst as a result of our CO2 emissions, and that such changes will become catastrophic if we don't achieve net zero CO2 emissions in the near future.

 

My impression is that most people who have been brought up to believe in a particular religion, do not bother to investigate other religions because they assume that their own religion is the truest and best. Likewise, those who believe in the religion of 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming due to CO2 emissions', will tend not to shake their belief by investigating other interpretations of the data and reading other peer-reviewed studies which show, or at least imply, that there is nothing unusual or alarming about the changes in climate that have occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

However, what I do find alarming is the failure of governments to learn from the history of past weather events in their region, and take the appropriate action to reduce the dire effects on the population, of future, similar events which are almost certain to occur, regardless of our CO2 emissions.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

However, what I do find alarming is the failure of governments to learn from the history of past weather events in their region, and take the appropriate action to reduce the dire effects on the population, of future, similar events which are almost certain to occur, regardless of our CO2 emissions.

Western economies destroyed by lockdowns and you want the taxpayer to fund billions of $ of new infrastructure! Never going to happen IMO.

Can't change the weather- just have to pick up the pieces after, as usual.

 

Best thing they could do would be to start getting serious about reducing world population, which IMO is the driver of environmental destruction.

 

Personally I'm not worried, as it's all part of God's plan, though it probably won't be nice for people. We all have to die sometime and I doubt many of us will die of old age in our beds.

 

As I have faith, I know that this life is just one stage before I go on to the next great adventure.

 

For me, death isn't the end, but a gateway to the next.

 

Must be sad, thinking that death is the end of everything.

[Skeptic7]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Best thing they could do would be to start getting serious about reducing world population, which IMO is the driver of environmental destruction

For once we agree on something in this thread. I have agreed with you a few other times on other threads. However, could not give your full post a ???? because most of the remainder of said post, from which I quoted you, is drivel. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Personally I'm not worried, as it's all part of God's plan, though it probably won't be nice for people. We all have to die sometime and I doubt many of us will die of old age in our beds.

 

But you said god created us then left us alone but then you say our current state is god's plan.

You say God doesn't care about us and that whether we survive is up to Gaia. How does Gaia and God fit together. Does Gaia care. Does Gaia control us. 

If you believe we are doomed then it appears you believe that climate change is in fact the key issue.

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Western economies destroyed by lockdowns and you want the taxpayer to fund billions of $ of new infrastructure! Never going to happen IMO.

Well, it has happened, at least a few times in Australia, during the time that I've lived here. I was employed in Darwin, in the Northern Territory of Australia, when a Category 4 cyclone demolished almost the entire city on Christmas Day 1974. Fortunately, I was on holiday at the time, overseas.

 

The destruction was so extensive that many reports and assessments suggested that there would be no point in rebuilding the city because cyclones were a fairly frequent occurrence in the general area and another cyclone of equal or greater intensity could strike again, demolishing the reconstruction. Land prices plummeted, and I regret not buying, because someone in administration later had a brilliant idea. ????

 

Why not rebuild all the demolished houses in accordance with a new building code that would ensure the new houses could resist the force of a future category 4 cyclone? That's what was done, and Darwin has not suffered any significant cyclonic damage since.
https://www.enjoy-darwin.com/darwin-cyclones.html

 

The city of Darwin was named after Charles Darwin because the HMS Beagle reached the harbour in 1839. Religious fanatics marched the streets, after the Cyclone Tracy hit in 1974, displaying slogans that the destruction was due to God's vengeance for naming the city after that irreligious founder of the Theory of Evolution. ????

 

"For me, death isn't the end, but a gateway to the next.
"Must be sad, thinking that death is the end of everything."

 

Not necessarily. If you assume, or think it's reasonable that you have only one life, then that could motivate you to make the best of the one life you have, in the sense of enjoying nature and taking good care of your health so you'll live healthily and as long as possible. At least that's what I do. I'm currently 79 and on no medication. I hope I'll still be alive in 2050 to see if we've achieved 'net zero carbon emissions'. ????

 

I suspect, or predict, by then we'll be in another Little Ice Age with serious energy shortages for heating purposes, and there will be a huge number of reports trying to explain how so many scientists got it wrong. ????

[Elad]

On 10/24/2021 at 7:40 AM, VincentRJ said:

We have the technology and the energy supplies to do this, but it's not economically appealing. Who is going to become a Billionaire by building some large dams which prevent people's homes from being destroyed during the next La Nina event? ????

Every dam being built could be turned into a hydro power plant, using the Sun's energy and gravity to produce electricity. 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But you said god created us then left us alone but then you say our current state is god's plan.

You say God doesn't care about us and that whether we survive is up to Gaia. How does Gaia and God fit together. Does Gaia care. Does Gaia control us. 

If you believe we are doomed then it appears you believe that climate change is in fact the key issue.

Yes, God created the universe and made it so that planets would form, species would evolve, live and die. Sounds like a plan to me and no need to intervene to save insignificant species that have gone wrong.

Gaia, IMO is the living planet, and obviously part of the plan. IMO Gaia will get rid of any species that threatens the well being of the planet and humans have really worked hard to ruin planet earth as a nice place to live.

Of course Gaia doesn't care about or control us as individuals, but can conjure up a few earthquakes or volcanic eruptions to remind us that we are not in control- nature is.

 

I don't know if climate change is the solution to humanity or not, but it could be a part of it.

 

No need for humanity to die out. Stop overpopulating the planet, learn to live with nature instead of destroying it, respect other species that we share the planet with and stop exterminating them, stop polluting the oceans to death.

I'm not holding my breath on that though.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Elad said:

Every dam being built could be turned into a hydro power plant, using the Sun's energy and gravity to produce electricity. 

Dams are uneconomic if they don't have a continuous water inflow.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I suspect, or predict, by then we'll be in another Little Ice Age with serious energy shortages for heating purposes, and there will be a huge number of reports trying to explain how so many scientists got it wrong. 

IMO humans have always got it wrong, and scientists are no exception.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO humans have always got it wrong, and scientists are no exception.

That's probably true for the majority of people, but one can try to bring positive changes into the existence, at least on personal basis.

Criticizing alone is not enough. 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO humans have always got it wrong, and scientists are no exception.

I think it would be more correct to say, "Humans have often got it wrong". All living creatures get it wrong frequently. Sometimes getting it wrong can be fatal, for example, when a kangaroo is hit by a car as it tries to cross the road.

 

Creatures that get it wrong too often, tend to become extinct, which is part of the process of Evolution. However, the proliferation and increasing prosperity of mankind in recent times would suggest that we have, on the whole, got it right more often than we've got it wrong.
 

[Skeptic7]

15 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But you said god created us then left us alone but then you say our current state is god's plan.

You say God doesn't care about us and that whether we survive is up to Gaia. How does Gaia and God fit together. Does Gaia care. Does Gaia control us. 

If you believe we are doomed then it appears you believe that climate change is in fact the key issue.

Same guy who also says this god-thing is unknowable, unreachable, doesn't care about human life and totally BEYOND all human comprehension. Yet somehow he knows all about IT. Huh??? Double U-Tee- Eff?!?

[xylophone]

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Personally I'm not worried, as it's all part of God's plan

Ah, now which God would that be – – – Christian, Norse gods, Egyptian, Greek, native American Indian, Celtic and many thousands of others that exist in various cultures, and all believe that their God created them and the planet around them and had a plan.

 

Total nonsense, however nothing stopping you believing in fairytales is there.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I think it would be more correct to say, "Humans have often got it wrong". All living creatures get it wrong frequently. Sometimes getting it wrong can be fatal, for example, when a kangaroo is hit by a car as it tries to cross the road.

 

Creatures that get it wrong too often, tend to become extinct, which is part of the process of Evolution. However, the proliferation and increasing prosperity of mankind in recent times would suggest that we have, on the whole, got it right more often than we've got it wrong.
 

You think we are not polluting ourselves to extinction then?

I guess you are a glass half full guy, but I'm the opposite.

Every time I look at international news ( Al Jazira ) I despair for the human race.

[rott]

Not sure about much of the above but I know that Sister Celine's Polynomials are worth spending time on. Phew.!! Whooar.!! 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, rott said:

Not sure about much of the above but I know that Sister Celine's Polynomials are worth spending time on. Phew.!! Whooar.!! 

I think not many on the planet have the slightest clue what you're talking about. 

Are you American? ????

[rott]

15 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I think not many on the planet have the slightest clue what you're talking about. 

Are you American? ????

Up until a few hours ago I didn't have a clue either. I got it from some esoteric RC page that fb seem to think I am interested in. 

Just thought I'd give it an airing on here as it is vaguely relevant. 

If you know of it you probably have an impressive IQ. 

[zzaa09]

On 10/22/2021 at 12:18 AM, VincentRJ said:

I have no doubt that climate change is real. However, the 'myth' that has been created  is that the climate in its natural state is relatively benign and that our emissions of C02 will cause the climate to become, on average, catastrophic for mankind and other species, and that we can make the climate relatively benign again, as it's supposed to be, by reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

This myth relies upon the obscuring or under-reporting of the history of past climate changes and the history of extreme weather events. For example, in the science of Geology, it is well-established that sea levels around 20,000 years ago, during the last Glacial Maximum (often called the Ice Age) were on average around 120 metres lower than today.

 

Doing some basic maths, 120 metres is 120,000 mm. Divide that by 20,000 and you get 6 mm. In other words, the average rate of sea-level rise during the past 20,000 years has been 6 mm per year. However, the average rate of sea-level rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution is claimed (by the alarmists) to be around 1.9 to 2 mm per year, with some recent rises as high as 3 mm per year, which appears to be very worrying for those who subscribe to the new religion. ????
 

What is clearly not understood or comprehended is that natural cycles exist - good, bad, indifferent. 

All this expected Occidental fundamentalism is sheer fancy and nothing less than a grand distraction.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

What is clearly not understood or comprehended is that natural cycles exist - good, bad, indifferent. 

All this expected Occidental fundamentalism is sheer fancy and nothing less than a grand distraction.

Similar to religion I am wary of riddles or sweeping statements that go against the consensus.

Terms like Occidental fundamentalism don't mean much to me on their own.   What does mean something are scientists from the east and west who just work with evidence in the real world. Maybe you consider scientific methodology itself as being occidental and therefore flawed. 

Natural cycles likely exist but the consensus is that the last 100 years is not that. By all means fight science with better science, or weigh up the solutions on climate change to consider the impact to the economy and humans, or show us specifics about the distraction or conspiracy that you have identified. Interesting ideas are welcome if you can link it to god or the lack thereof. 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, rott said:

Up until a few hours ago I didn't have a clue either. I got it from some esoteric RC page that fb seem to think I am interested in. 

Just thought I'd give it an airing on here as it is vaguely relevant. 

If you know of it you probably have an impressive IQ. 

What about staying on topic, and tell with your words what you think about?

..if that's not too complicated,  of course. 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

What is clearly not understood or comprehended is that natural cycles exist - good, bad, indifferent. 

All this expected Occidental fundamentalism is sheer fancy and nothing less than a grand distraction.

Careful, some brainwashed individual may call you " conspiracy theorist ".

In fact, it just needs a freaky, unknown little volcano to wake up, and straight we go into another ice age, if not worse.