Do you believe in God and why

[rott]

22 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

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

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

OK strawberry mouth I am a Protestant and believe in the 5 Solas. Justification by Faith not works. 

[zzaa09]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

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. 

 

And these events have occurred in numerous instances within earth's historical cycles.....with or without the human's proposed influence. 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, zzaa09 said:

And these events have occurred in numerous instances within earth's historical cycles.....with or without the human's proposed influence. 

That's my point, we don't count that much, even if 7.7 billions fart at exactly the same time ????

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, rott said:

OK strawberry mouth I am a Protestant and believe in the 5 Solas. Justification by Faith not works. 

Very interesting, cannot say more ????

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/26/2021 at 2:14 PM, 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.
 

IMO polluting the entire planet, exterminating other species, and overpopulating ourselves would be significantly "wrong", and it seems to be what we do best, besides killing each other in conflicts.

We are really great at inventing better ways to kill more people, and not good at all in learning to live in peace, and in harmony with Nature.

[rott]

I am surprised that this thread gets so many posts given the general theological illiteracy today. 

 

How many understand articles 28, 29 and 31.?

[VincentRJ]

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

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. 

Religions are based upon a consensus and rely upon the continuation of the consensus, which is why there is a history of horrible punishment for those who expressed religious views that criticized and weakened the consensus.

 

The current 'Climate Change Alarmism' is often described as a form of religion because it relies upon a fictitious or exaggerated consensus which is promoted by the 'believers'. Those who question the consensus tend to be vilified, are called 'Climate Change Deniers', and can suffer career consequences as a result.

 

The 'methodology of science' is not based upon a consensus, although consensuses do exist for a while, after all attempts at falsification of a particular theory have failed. However, science is never 'settled', especially when the nature of the subject is complex, chaotic and non-linear, as 'climate change' is.

 

The problem is not necessarily a conspiracy, which by definition is 'a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful'. The problem is more correctly described as 'Confirmation Bias'. Most scientists in the modern era are employees in a business or Government organization. They need a continuation of their salary to support their family and pay off the house mortgage.

 

Many of the great scientists in the past, who contributed to significant scientific progress by challenging the current consensus, were self-funded because they were wealthy, or had another job not directly related to their research.

 

I can imagine quite well, if a person were in a career related to climate science, and enjoyed his job in an organization which was government-funded because of a perceived concern about the potential disasters of human CO2 emissions, that such a person would be reluctant to even attempt to publish research which implied that current CO2 rises had a negligible effect in changing the climate, or, for example, that such effects of rising CO2 levels were more beneficial than harmful because CO2 is a 'food' for plants and essential for all life.
 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Religions are based upon a consensus and rely upon the continuation of the consensus, which is why there is a history of horrible punishment for those who expressed religious views that criticized and weakened the consensus.

 

The current 'Climate Change Alarmism' is often described as a form of religion because it relies upon a fictitious or exaggerated consensus which is promoted by the 'believers'. Those who question the consensus tend to be vilified, are called 'Climate Change Deniers', and can suffer career consequences as a result.

 

The 'methodology of science' is not based upon a consensus, although consensuses do exist for a while, after all attempts at falsification of a particular theory have failed. However, science is never 'settled', especially when the nature of the subject is complex, chaotic and non-linear, as 'climate change' is.

 

The problem is not necessarily a conspiracy, which by definition is 'a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful'. The problem is more correctly described as 'Confirmation Bias'. Most scientists in the modern era are employees in a business or Government organization. They need a continuation of their salary to support their family and pay off the house mortgage.

 

Many of the great scientists in the past, who contributed to significant scientific progress by challenging the current consensus, were self-funded because they were wealthy, or had another job not directly related to their research.

 

I can imagine quite well, if a person were in a career related to climate science, and enjoyed his job in an organization which was government-funded because of a perceived concern about the potential disasters of human CO2 emissions, that such a person would be reluctant to even attempt to publish research which implied that current CO2 rises had a negligible effect in changing the climate, or, for example, that such effects of rising CO2 levels were more beneficial than harmful because CO2 is a 'food' for plants and essential for all life.
 

All that might have some truth to it. But to me you are always talking at the edges - reluctance, hesitation, and where there is some close calls this might be a factor in decision making. It's not looking at the facts - something that is probably best discussed in a different forum. 

The conspiracy some believe is that the 'powers that be' benefit from climate change when in fact the most powerful and rich often benefit from disproving climate change. Even Putin and the Pope acknowledge it even if they do little about it.  That's why I say don't just look at the possible weaknesses of human nature here and there - look at the evidence and accept that scientific findings are not perfect but look where the consensus of opinion lies. 

I use the term consensus not as a solid object but as many individual's acknowledging what scientific evidence is pointing too.

The fact is I don't care that much and do little about it truth be told. At least your arguments have a point. 

Others just make vague allusions to this or that or just seem to have a fatalist view that worse things could happen so just cop it.  

Edited November 4, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO polluting the entire planet, exterminating other species, and overpopulating ourselves would be significantly "wrong", and it seems to be what we do best, besides killing each other in conflicts.

We are really great at inventing better ways to kill more people, and not good at all in learning to live in peace, and in harmony with Nature.

Well, I am certainly good at living in peace and harmony with nature. ????  

However, I agree that pollution, wars, overpopulation and extreme poverty are major problems for humanity in many parts of the world, but fortunately not the entire planet.

 

As I've mentioned before, 'nature' or the 'natural environment', even without the existence of humans, is a continuous process of conflict at every level. Every creature, from bacteria to primates, survives and reproduces by eating other life-forms, and frequently kills other creatures, as well as members of their own species, when competing for resources and/or the female for reproduction purposes.

 

Whilst it's true that we humans, because of our greater brain power, have invented much more effective means of killing and more destructive pollution bi-products than any other animal, at least some of us also have a greater awareness of the damage we are doing, and try to address it.

 

In Australia, a person can be fined $200 just for throwing a cigarette butt out of the car window. ????

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

In Australia, a person can be fined $200 just for throwing a cigarette butt out of the car window. 

Should be $500. When in the forces we had to pick up rubbish outside the barracks and certain ignorant oafs used to throw their butts out the window. Having to pick up filthy, disgusting butts thrown out by morons gave me a life long hatred for smokers that throw their filth on the ground for others to pick up.

No sympathy if it was $1000.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Whilst it's true that we humans, because of our greater brain power, have invented much more effective means of killing and more destructive pollution bi-products than any other animal, at least some of us also have a greater awareness of the damage we are doing, and try to address it.

How's that going in Africa? I gather the DRC is just peachy at the moment, after the situation was "addressed". Hopefully they'll get around to "addressing" the situation in Ethiopia before they all starve to death. Poor Bob must be wondering why he bothered.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How's that going in Africa? I gather the DRC is just peachy at the moment, after the situation was "addressed". Hopefully they'll get around to "addressing" the situation in Ethiopia before they all starve to death. Poor Bob must be wondering why he bothered.

As I mentioned in my previous post, "I agree that pollution, wars, overpopulation and extreme poverty are major problems for humanity in many parts of the world, but fortunately not the entire planet."

 

There are certain areas where complete madness seems to prevail, and dealing with madness is very challenging. ????

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

As I mentioned in my previous post, "I agree that pollution, wars, overpopulation and extreme poverty are major problems for humanity in many parts of the world, but fortunately not the entire planet."

 

There are certain areas where complete madness seems to prevail, and dealing with madness is very challenging. ????

 

Hmmmm. Seems mad enough in the west for it to challenge your assumption that it's not the entire planet.

IMO our turn for another major war is overdue. Let's see how many atheists have a conversion as they have to face the enemy.

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. Seems mad enough in the west for it to challenge your assumption that it's not the entire planet.

IMO our turn for another major war is overdue. Let's see how many atheists have a conversion as they have to face the enemy.

I think you've been reading too much bad news. ????

 

Remember, the media specializes in bad news because it grabs our attention better than good news, and we are programmed to pay more attention to bad news, or threatening situations, in the interest of our survival, hence all the bad news about the effects of climate change.

 

There are nine countries that possess nuclear weapons; the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea.

 

The presence of these nuclear weapons, in areas across the globe, should prevent the start of any nuclear war because it's so bleeding obvious what massive and long-term destruction to the human race and the entire globe would result.

 

It would be far worse than CAGW. ????
 

[VincentRJ]

On 11/4/2021 at 11:01 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

..look at the evidence and accept that scientific findings are not perfect but look where the consensus of opinion lies. 

I use the term consensus not as a solid object but as many individual's acknowledging what scientific evidence is pointing too.

I hope my following response is not considered to be out of context in this thread. I consider a belief in God to be a belief without sufficient evidence, which is similar to a belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

I agree that one should look at the evidence. That's exactly what I do, or at least try to do. I check various sites for more precise and reliable information than is provided by the media. I check sites such as the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, NOAA, and the Working Group 1 section of the IPCC reports, as well as contrarian sites which are skeptical of the significance of AGW. It's important to consider both sides of the story if one wishes to be unbiased.

 

The Working Group 1 section of the IPCC reports deals with the scientific evidence rather than the political advice to policy makers, which is in another section. This WG1 section of the report provides (at least sometimes) a more balanced view of our current state of understanding of climate change. It uses terms such as 'Low Confidence', 'Medium Confidence', and 'High Confidence', relating to the frequency of extreme weather events, for example.

 

What I find in my enquiries is that there seems to be terrible confusion in the media and the general population about the difference between weather and climate. As a result of the widespread 'meme' that has been promoted by the media, that we are on a trajectory of increasingly disastrous changes of climate due to our CO2 emissions, every extreme weather event is seen as yet another example of a looming, world-wide catastrophe due to AGW, yet even the IPCC has clearly stated that one cannot attribute the cause of any particular extreme weather event to AGW.

 

Consider the recent flooding of the Ahr Valley in Germany this July. Angela Merkel immediately associated the event with climate change. "She said the force of the storms suggested that they had "something to do with climate change," adding, "We have to hurry, we have to get faster in the fight against climate change."

 

What you probably won't find mentioned in the media is the history of flooding in the Ahr Valley region. I had to do a lot of searching to find the following site which lists 75 major floods in this region that have occurred during the past 700 years or so, which is more than 7 floods per century, on average.
https://www.kreis-ahrweiler.de/kvar/VT/hjb1983/hjb1983.25.htm

 

Here are descriptions of just a couple of the floods mentioned.
"1590, May, Hemmessen: At the end of May, the Ahr swelled higher than in living memory due to a large storm with torrential rain."

 

"1601, 30 May, Antweiler: On this day, a thunderstorm with rain and hail suddenly arose in the afternoon, the sky darkened, the locks of the sky opened and unimaginable masses of water fell down, so that the horrified inhabitants believed in the end of the world." 

 

In Australia it's common for the media to report on every extreme weather event, such as a major flood, as unprecedented, or the worst in a century, or the worst on record. However, when I do my own research into the BOM records of past flooding events, I find these media reports are false, and that the flood, in terms of flood height, is only the 5th or 6th or 7th worst on record.

 

If you take the trouble to look where the consensus of opinion lies, as you suggest, you will find that the consensus varies depending on what aspect of climate change is addressed.

 

For example, I imagine there would be a very large consensus that we are currently in a slight warming phase, and that average, global temperatures have risen around 1 degree C during the past 150 years or so. However, when one starts being more specific, and asks questions such as: "Is a mere 1 degree warming over 150 year period bad for the environment? Is the current warming mostly due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or mostly natural? If we continue using fossil fuels, are computer projections of future temperature rises and catastrophic changes in climate, reliable?", then the consensus will change significantly.

 

I also suspect there would be a high consensus that the severity of heat waves has been increasing since the industrial revolution. This is to be expected because we are currently in a warming phase and have created many Urban Heat Islands, that is, cities, suburbs, roads and pavements which absorb a lot of heat when the sun shines, and have also created additional heat which is emitted from lots of vehicles and air-conditioners and other devices. The temperature in cities can often be as much as 3 degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside.

 

Of course the media will create bad news from rising temperatures and heat waves, because creating bad news is their business. The human mind is instinctively programmed to pay more attention to bad news than good news because of our instinct for survival, and the media capitalizes on this fact. They'll report on rising death rates due to heat waves but never mention falling death rates from extreme cold as the climate warms. The reality is that far more people, world-wide, die from extreme cold than extreme heat. As the temperature warms, and cold areas experience less extreme cold periods, the fewer number of deaths from extreme cold are far greater than the increased number of deaths from extreme heat.

 

I think I'd better stop here. ????

[seedy]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 Let's see how many atheists have a conversion as they have to face the enemy.

Soldiers in combat do what they do for the good of their unit.

Not King, not Country, not God - but for the others they are fighting with.

[Skeptic7]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. Seems mad enough in the west for it to challenge your assumption that it's not the entire planet.

IMO our turn for another major war is overdue. Let's see how many atheists have a conversion as they have to face the enemy.

Same old tired, false, non-argument. I presented you with links and evidence of atheists in foxholes and military non-believers from USA and UK almost 3 years ago. You choose to ignore facts and evidence and just continue to spew this nonsense, but the watchman is still here watching to keep it real. 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

consider a belief in God to be a belief without sufficient evidence, which is similar to a belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

It's important to consider both sides of the story if one wishes to be unbiased.

Methinks you are a bit biased then ????

..but I agree with your stance on climate warming alarmism. 

[ivor bigun]

Vincentrj

what a very good post ,i totally agree that nature just does what nature has always done . oh by the way it has been doing it far longer than when God was invented.

Edited November 5, 2021 by ivor bigun

[VincentRJ]

4 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Vincentrj

what a very good post ,i totally agree that nature just does what nature has always done . oh by the way it has been doing it far longer than when God was invented.

Indeed it has, and the complexities involved are staggering.

[VincentRJ]

51 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Methinks you are a bit biased then ????

Can you explain why you think that and refer to whatever I've written that suggests I'm biased, and why it suggests I'm a bit biased? ????

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Can you explain why you think that and refer to whatever I've written that suggests I'm biased, and why it suggests I'm a bit biased? ????

Yep, i would say that you would appear to be, in general, a quite unbiased observer, except for the "God question ", which is the main subject of this thread. 

 

Since the very beginning, you have not considered the possibility of the existence of some sort of intelligent design, whose rules govern the visible world, which some people call God; perhaps it's time, at least for those who have a truly scientific mind, to concede that this sort of attitude is unscientific. 

[zzaa09]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Same old tired, false, non-argument. I presented you with links and evidence of atheists in foxholes and military non-believers from USA and UK almost 3 years ago. You choose to ignore facts and evidence and just continue to spew this nonsense, but the watchman is still here watching to keep it real. 

Imagine a world where no such make believe/invented enemies existed.....

Paradoxical.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

OP Answer : NO, because zero scientific evidence AND all scientific evidence in fact points away from such belief, e.g. intelligent design. People “believe” all kinds of nonsense but can PROVE NOTHING.

 

“That which is presented without Evidence can be Dismissed without Evidence” (C. Hitchens).

Large Claims Require Large Evidence completely lacking from any religionist.

Separate Fact from Fiction and Science from Belief. Do Not Impose Beliefs. Permit Skepticism.

 

Irrational Beliefs eventually die out in civilized places due to weight of reason,logic & science. But people have to give up (or not adopt) such beliefs.They cannot and should not be forced to renounce.  For example the apostasy rate in UK for adults renouncing Islam ,after being unable to reconcile it  with Western Reason, is 10%- 15%. Imagine that rate if Death removed as the prescribed apostasy sanction……90%?

[Thunglom]

11 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I hope my following response is not considered to be out of context in this thread. I consider a belief in God to be a belief without sufficient evidence, which is similar to a belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

so very sad that you are unable to see the difference in these two premises.

[Thunglom]

8 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

at least for those who have a truly scientific mind, to concede that this sort of attitude is unscientific. 

It is not unscientific at all - science and skepticality is the OPPOSITE  of religious belief.  

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Thunglom said:

so very sad that you are unable to see the difference in these two premises.

Of course I'm able to see the difference. That's why I used the word 'similar'. Do you understand the difference between 'similar' and 'identical'? ????

[olfu]

....believe in God?

I used to believe in communism but one day it dissipated like morning fog.

Now I believe I will be dead rather sooner than later.

[seedy]

I believe in the Frisbee Faith

I believe when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

[mauGR1]

5 hours ago, Thunglom said:

It is not unscientific at all - science and skepticality is the OPPOSITE  of religious belief.  

Nope, skepticism, as opposed to blind faith, is a pillar of true science. 

So, now, while intelligent design seems to be unproven thus non existent, i think it's fair to be skeptical about that.

.. or do you really believe that humans are the greatest form of intelligence in the vast universe ?

 

As for religious belief, which is mindlessly vilified in these dark days, you might find out that, having got ridden of the superstition bit, it's just pure and simple common sense.

The 10 commandments,  for an easy example, it's just common sense for a peaceful cohabiting. 

So, the whole thing appears to be just a bit more complex that you appear to think ????

Edited November 6, 2021 by mauGR1