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
September 18th, 2011 at 3:55
yeah yeah yeah.
old god’s so darn small , he’s NOT EVEN THERE.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:30
Let’s face it. God has to fit into some pretty tiny gaps these days.
September 18th, 2011 at 8:34
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.
September 18th, 2011 at 9:00
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.”
September 18th, 2011 at 14:39
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.
September 18th, 2011 at 14:43
The Heretic,
We’ve been over the global warming thing. Just drop the denialism, would you?
September 18th, 2011 at 14:48
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.
September 18th, 2011 at 16:25
The whole forum of this QOTD is about atheists fools agreeing with atheists fools. They did’nt dare to debate with theists.
September 18th, 2011 at 16:32
Let me use God’s most lame & outdated tools to prove that God exists.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.
September 18th, 2011 at 16:33
Sorry…..
wit….should be with…
September 18th, 2011 at 16:37
I can’t see invisible pink axolotls.
September 18th, 2011 at 17:53
ARCH…………..
post at 900
BEAUTIFUL Quote !!!!
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
post at 1637
listen arch, i I can see em, YOU can see em !!!!
September 18th, 2011 at 18:00
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.”
September 18th, 2011 at 18:19
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 !!!!
September 18th, 2011 at 18:23
okay !!!!!!
c’mon guys !! how many of you know what Sinjin meant
by ” CV ” ????????????????
be honest, now !!!!! I KNOW….but does nomolos ????
September 18th, 2011 at 18:38
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.
September 18th, 2011 at 18:51
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!]
September 18th, 2011 at 18:57
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:
September 18th, 2011 at 19:12
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 ???????????
September 18th, 2011 at 19:16
RJ,
haha… I’m not even sure he knows what chaff is! 🙂
September 18th, 2011 at 19:49
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…
September 18th, 2011 at 20:17
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.
September 19th, 2011 at 0:38
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)))))
September 19th, 2011 at 2:44
post at 038
can you play ANY other tune ??
September 19th, 2011 at 6:22
RJ,
No, he doesn’t appear to be. He’s just a coward with severe delusional malady.
September 26th, 2011 at 20:30
[…] 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 .. […]