18th September 2011

“The aggressive attacks on science from many quarters of the faith community have left some people feeling great resentment toward faith. It could be that certain expressions of faith have made God too small to be embraced by those who experience the universe as vast and great.”

James L. Evans

26 Responses to “18th September 2011”

  1. R J Says:

    yeah yeah yeah.

    old god’s so darn small , he’s NOT EVEN THERE.

  2. Atheist MC Says:

    Let’s face it. God has to fit into some pretty tiny gaps these days.

  3. Defiantnonbeliever Says:

    I second that RJ. The new gods aren’t any bigger than nothing either according to evidence of them provided so far. Correct me if I’m mistaken with evidence anyone please.

  4. archaeopteryx Says:

    Richard Feynman said it well:

    “It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”

  5. The Heretic Says:

    Science is a great thing, but it can also be manipulated, or used to manipulated people – and some can be an outright fraud. Eugenics? Global Warming? Don’t have faith in science. Consensus is not science. When you hear than scientists have come to a so-called ‘consensus’, keep an eye on your pocketbook.

  6. Dan Says:

    The Heretic,
    We’ve been over the global warming thing. Just drop the denialism, would you?

  7. Dan Says:

    To clarify: Yes, in 1859 John Tyndall discovered that carbon dioxide (and other molecules) absorb infrared radiation (i.e., heat). That finding has been confirmed so many times by so many chemists over the last 160 years, that when combined with the knowledge that burning fossil fuels has CO2 gas as a chemical product, yes we are certain that fossil fuels can act as a radiative forcing in the atmosphere. This much is obvious to anyone who knows ANY science.

    Now understanding the implications of that knowledge… that’s a bit more debatable.

  8. n0m0l0s Says:

    The whole forum of this QOTD is about atheists fools agreeing with atheists fools. They did’nt dare to debate with theists.

  9. n0m0l0s Says:

    Let me use God’s most lame & outdated tools to prove that God exists. It’s the ‘science’ approach.
    We can’t see gravity.
    But everyone agrees gravity exists.
    We can’t see God.
    But wit the same principle God must exists.

  10. n0m0l0s Says:

    Sorry…..
    wit….should be with…

  11. archaeopteryx Says:

    I can’t see invisible pink axolotls.

  12. R j Says:

    ARCH…………..

    post at 900

    BEAUTIFUL Quote !!!!
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    post at 1637

    listen arch, i I can see em, YOU can see em !!!!

  13. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    OK I’ll say it: Solomon is really friggen retarded with his latest:

    >We can’t see gravity but we know it exists just drop something.
    >We can’t see sub-atomic particle but we have ways of proving they exist.
    >We can’t see the nothing in Solomon’s head but on the basis of the nutty things he says we can say with certainty it is empty.

    That things exist is obvious, that they don’t is too:
    >We can’t see god, hear god, or detect his presence in any way so this omnipotent, omnipresent all-being master of time space and dimension is either hiding really very well or he doesn’t exist. Look dude if there is a giant elephant in a Volkswagon you can’t miss him. If you do he isn’t there.

    Now as far as certainty, and to Heretic’s concern for scientific consensus, science is beautiful because even with the consensus around global warming in the scientific community every last scientist alive remains intellectually open to new information regarding what is affecting our climate. No absolutists like in religion.

    See:

    Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611000691

    And to see how alternative climate change info is mishandled:

    Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN
    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/206879/20110901/global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-al-gore-alarmists-cern-experiment-sun-cosmic-rays-chambor-cloud-c.htm

    Having said this though I can’t help but to sense a little Michael Crichton sitting on your shoulder whispering in you ear these skeptical notions regarding consensus and global warming? Be more careful in what you read.

    And not to leave Dan out “This much is obvious to anyone who knows ANY science.”

    Heretic you might take heed of Dan’s warning as if we aren’t scientists we aren’t in a position speak to to scientific claims and their validity. If it ain’t on your CV why should we listen?

    I take the objective layman’s position which recognizes and trusts the consensus on global warming while cautiously staying abreast of the research that draws other conclusions.

    Finally to Feynman’s “too big for the drama”. Doesn’t that really say it all? Thank you Arch!

    Great comments everyone: I’m left pondering Occam’s razor “when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.”

  14. R j Says:

    RE POST AT 1625
    ………………………….

    Wrong. there is NOT always consistent agreement

    among the contributors to this site. however, when

    there is dispute, MOST of these thinkers are willing

    to examine the point , present their case, and are

    WILLING TO LISTEN to other views……..and sometimes

    even REFORM their thinking if they feel the

    necessity.

    your friend DAN has invited debate over and over again,

    and your response has been to ignore him over and over

    again……………so, WHO wont dare to debate ?????

    ……………………………….
    RE POST AT 1632
    ……………………………….

    if i were a believer, i would be wary of calling ANY

    of god’s tools ” lame and outdated. ”

    your argument is simplistic and weak…….

    Gravity and Electricity and Magnetism and all

    invisible…..BUT they are proveable and measureable

    forces, and have obvious visible effects.

    can you say the same about a god ??? why dont

    you see if you can prove it to Dan ? i bet he’d

    be willing to get in the ring with you !!!!

  15. R j Says:

    okay !!!!!!

    c’mon guys !! how many of you know what Sinjin meant

    by ” CV ” ????????????????

    be honest, now !!!!! I KNOW….but does nomolos ????

  16. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Thanx R j! For solomon’s benefit alone I’ll include a definition: A curriculum vitae (CV) provides an overview of a person’s experience and other qualifications. A resume.

    I chose CV because I thought it was more striking than resume and I thought I needed that to bolster what I was saying about Dan’s remarks. I didn’t want his warning to Heretic to be missed, as in general I think speaking with authority on subjects we aren’t expert at, is far too common. It was a great point and firmly put Heretic on the spot.

  17. Dan Says:

    This is HILARIOUS: Solomon has invented a reality where no one has ever observed the effects of gravity!!!

    What a wonderful example of why we call believers delusional imbeciles!

    [Also: Nice responses Archaeopteryx & Sinjin!]

  18. Dan Says:

    Sinjin,
    Re: your post at 18:38, I understand what you’re saying about authority, etc. But I have to add that it’s not so much authority as a rational approach. And to that, Sir Karl Popper had something excellent to say:

    “When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another’s opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.”

  19. R j Says:

    DAN……. POST AT 1857
    ooooooooooooooooooooohh !!

    WHAT A WONDERFUL QUOTE !!!!!!!

    I WISH I COULD JUST ROLL AROUND ON IT !!!!

    BTW……have you noticed that there’s a certain

    someone around here who’s got the market

    CORNERED on Chaff ???????????

  20. Dan Says:

    RJ,
    haha… I’m not even sure he knows what chaff is! 🙂

  21. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Thanx Dan for the Popper quote. It is of course, something I’m in complete agreement with at least; so far as any definition of reason or rationality I’m aware of.

    Heretic’s concern with “scientific consensus” had just struck me the same way author Michael Crichton’s did. Knowledge enough to be dangerous?

    That was why I latched onto your “…obvious to anyone who knows ANY science.” quote.

    I think no-nothing-ness is far too common today and that the simple guard against it is to remain objective. Heretic should adopt the stance?

    I’m not an expert but at dinner parties, and often in the presence of attractive young ladies, I pretend to be…

  22. captainzero Says:

    Unfortunately, it isn’t merely the religious who can have an anti-science bias. The uneducated and mis-educated can also be a real problem as in the anti-vaccination hysteria where you have influential people, who know nothing about science, ‘proving’ causation where there isn’t even correlation. Uneducated people are easy prey for fear mongers, religious or not.

  23. n0m0l0s Says:

    God does’nt need measurable requirements for it to exists. He’s effects/ Well….there exists in abundance. One of it is his creations.I’am warning you all. You all are going to ((((HELL)))))

  24. R J Says:

    post at 038

    can you play ANY other tune ??

  25. Dan Says:

    RJ,
    No, he doesn’t appear to be. He’s just a coward with severe delusional malady.

  26. What The Experts Aren’t Saying About Global Map And How It Affects You | | GLOBAL MapGLOBAL Map Says:

    […] Atheist QOTD » Blog Archive » 18th September 2011 Global Warming? Don't have faith in science. Consensus is not science. When you hear than scientists have come to a so-called 'consensus', keep an eye on your pocketbook. Dan Says: September 18th, 2011 at 14:43. The Heretic, … See: Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change … I didn't want his warning to Heretic to be missed, as in general I think speaking with authority on subjects we aren't expert at, is far too common. It was a …http://atheistweb.org/qotd/163 .. […]