Printable View
I didn't ask for the wikipedia info. I ask who is god. I understand about the male led beginnings of humankind, yet as i understand christians beleive god was/is male. The father in heaven and all that.
If science must support it's own beleifs with facts, then so should religion.
I love how Douglas Adams spoofs religion with the Jatravartids of Viltvodle VI, who believe the entire universe was sneezed from the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure.
They live in perpetual fear of "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief".
Wtf
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
Religion is not science. The same rules don't apply.
If Religions claim to know the answers to the most meaningful questions in life i think they should at least be able to prove what they are saying, or have some sort of evidence rather than faith and old writings. People are ofcourse free to beleive what they want, but claiming to know what happens after death is pretty major. I think evidence would be 'handy'.
You can't even prove that you aren't a brain sitting in a vat being controlled by electrical signals.
It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of faith.
Lol yes but i don't live my life claiming that i am in fact not a brain sitting in a vat being controlled by electrical signals.
Very well though, touche.
And yes science does have to prove itself by defenition whilst religion does not, rather it allows people to follow blindly and read ancient books as if they were 'life manuals'.
I have far more faith in science than any religion, yet i am spiritual.
I used to ask my parents, if god created everything, who created god. Yeah... I used to get beat for questioning it. Damned Jehovah's Witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
Palem, you're the only one I have faith in. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Science allows people to follow blindly. A good majority of people will tell you that Global warming is an issue, yet maybe 20% of those people can tell you what exactly global warming is and how it functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
D'awww <3 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by flutterby
I don't see how if they are truly learning it. I can only mention what i have learnt from the late Carl Sagan on the issue of global warming, yet even then i am only repeating what he has put into his books.
Science doesn't promote blind faith however, it provides evidence and facts - which are there to be learned and studied by those with an interest.
People can blindly follow anything.
You are good at arguing.
Global warming - one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on a global scale.
This planet has gone through countless cycles of heating and cooling LONG before mankind showed up, and several times since. Not saying that we haven't contributed to the cycle, but far less so than commonly attributed.
Seems like 'Green' is the latest in a long line of religions.
Global warming/depletion of the ozone layer and it's effects is/are real.
How is 'green' a religion. By green do you mean the political party? Or hippies?
Religion doesn't promote blind faith either. They promote exploring your beliefs and building your relationship with god. Real religious figures aren't big fans of Sunday-only worshipers.Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio86
Eh, topics like these are interesting to me so I'm pretty well informed on the topic. I'm not so hot as debating things where I've only got my own opinions (like Politics)Quote:
You are good at arguing.
This begun as a political conversation about whether or not evolution or creationism should be taught in schools. It has shifted that is for sure.
I guess that is a matter of opinion. Religions promote building a relationship with god when god isn't proven. With no evidence of his/her/it's/christian god's/aboriginal god's/norse god's etc existence they ask people to beleive. Beleif in something with no proof is blind faith.
The natural cycles of heating (and cooling) are a direct response to the (natural) release of more carbon into our atmosphere. We are dumping loads of carbon back into the atmosphere and it's causing/contributing to the current warming trend of the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twyla
The link below shows a direct correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average temp of the planet. The data was taken off ice core samples from Antarctica and used in a Nature paper so it's legitimacy shouldn't be in question.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/
Given the understanding of the correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temp of the planet, I present the Keeling curve showing the most accurate study available of the present day CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
So where's the hoax?