a simple question about faith and science

[Colin Norris]

It's silly to attribute stewardship of the planet because it was gifted to us by God. There is No God and never has been other than in your mind. The planet for billions of years ago like the trillion and God had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Nothing.
There has never been anything written in bibles etc to justify your position. It is a poor justification really.

Anyone who dismisses science with the knowledge we have today is a fool.

 

[Colin Norris]

FWIW there is a quote by einstein

“science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”

to illustrate why why one w/ out the other is recipe for disaster, lets first consider the unscientific test(s) used in salem witch trials of colonial massachusetts

http://listverse.com/2012/07/27/10-tests-for-guilt-used-at-the-salem-witch-trials/

as I see things, if the people of faith (back in colonial massachusetts) had a good basic understanding of science, then forced confession by dunking, pressing AND bound submersion (i.e. tests-for-guilt) would be viewed as idiocracy

now lets consider the various nazi medical experiments

http://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/medical-experiments

as I see things, if the nazi “scientists” had a solid faith based moral compass such as the 10 commandments,... then the various subjects used in concentration camp medical experiments would be viewed as human beings (AND I would hope god fearing nazi “scientists” would realize “thou shalt not kill”)

...so still think taking into account a religious POV is crap???

Absolute rubbish.
You can quote Einstein forever but those who knew him and thrre were plenty, will tell you he was a devout atheist without doubt. He often quoted religion as a benchmark by which to justify many findings. He had as much religion in him as my dog.

None of the scenarios above proves there was a god or devil. They are not related to anything. I require irrefutable evidence of your God and so does the world for 2000 years but you cannot provide it be abuse it doesn't exist. The scenarios above cannot be blamed on atheism. That's absurd. How could religion have stopped the Nazis? So don't give me that pathetic justification.

So yes, I'm convinced you religious POV is based on lies and myths for which you have no evidence.
But since you tried to be smart, try this.
Explain to us how the immaculate conception took place in light if pathenogenisis is impossible in mammals.

Now do you think I'm dumb? Try Again.

 

[NWRatCon]

It's silly to attribute stewardship of the planet because it was gifted to us by God. There is No God and never has been other than in your mind. The planet for billions of years ago like the trillion and God had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Nothing.
There has never been anything written in bibles etc to justify your position. It is a poor justification really.

Anyone who dismisses science with the knowledge

Wow, that represents an extensive, excessive and thorough missing of the entire point. This is not about me (or you), which should be obvious to anyone who read the first sentence of my post. It does not matter, for purposes of this discussion, how or why the universe, and this planet, came into existence, or what you believe. Capisce? This is about how to reach the billions of people who are people of faith. You are entitled to your views, but you don't matter to the discussion, and can be excused.

Moreover, you speak from a profound ignorance of the subject. "There has never been anything written in bibles etc to justify your position." Oh really? And how did you become such an expert on the Bible, and "etc.", to reach such a conclusion? Instead, what you represent is exactly the problem: a closed mind. You have your worldview and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Again, you don't matter to the discussion.

The discussion, as I perceive it, is how to reach people who have a biblical worldview, and persuade them of the need and, more, the responsibility, to be environmentalists because it is an obligation of their faith. One way of doing so is tapping into the conception of the devil and evil, and showing how a faithful person would resist that influence by being a good steward of God's creation. A fundamental tenet for many is that God gave to man (through Adam) "dominion" over the earth. The point is, that with dominion comes the responsibility for good care. It's a fiduciary obligation, that's the whole point of being a "good" steward. Is it your contention, then, that we should not be good stewards of the planet no matter our status in faith? That seems to be the gravamen of your assertions.

Rather than "dismissing science with knowledge" - wherever that incomplete sentence was intended to go - it is bringing the knowledge of science into their biblical worldview: to give them an additional tool to express their faith for the betterment of humanity. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

here is a simple question about faith and science,... w/ no real simple answer

ever consider,... denial of man made climate change is actually the work of the devil

and the reason,... the devil is sowing mistrust of scientific warnings of man made climate change because, he wants mankind to destroy creation

https://ibb.co/WytJnWh

The "devil" eh? Seriously?

 

[Germinator]

The "devil" eh? Seriously?

the "devil" seriously!!!

even though belief in a supreme being (good or bad) is falling (in the united states),... looking at the data seems the majority of people are believes

since I have a basic understanding of the catholic faith (or at least I think I do), AND because I find "climate change" fascinating (as Spock would say),... figure why not look at the issue from a religious (e.g. "catholic") stand point

FWIW as I see things (from a religious stand point) the biggest problem is too many follow a false interpretation of the bible

(as I see things) basically the root cause of the problem is,... the prosperity gospel (i.e. god wants you to be rich)

just sayin seems too many are selectively reading passages and not looking or understanding the bigger picture and pondering real world knock-on effects

 

[Germinator]

Absolute rubbish.
You can quote Einstein forever but those who knew him and thrre were plenty, will tell you he was a devout atheist without doubt. He often quoted religion as a benchmark by which to justify many findings. He had as much religion in him as my dog.

None of the scenarios above proves there was a god or devil. They are not related to anything. I require irrefutable evidence of your God and so does the world for 2000 years but you cannot provide it be abuse it doesn't exist. The scenarios above cannot be blamed on atheism. That's absurd. How could religion have stopped the Nazis? So don't give me that pathetic justification.

So yes, I'm convinced you religious POV is based on lies and myths for which you have no evidence.
But since you tried to be smart, try this.
Explain to us how the immaculate conception took place in light if pathenogenisis is impossible in mammals.

Now do you think I'm dumb? Try Again.

there are some beliefs that can't be scientifically proven,... that is why religions are called "faith"

PS I'm guessing your dog sticks around because it has "three hots and a cot" (i.e. your dog believes it has a safe "home")

 

[Colin Norris]

there are some beliefs that can't be scientifically proven,... that is why religions are called "faith"

PS I'm guessing your dog sticks around because it has "three hots and a cot" (i.e. your dog believes it has a safe "home")

I'll clarify that for you. Faith cannot and had never been solved by science. It's irrelevant to svience which is why they have never spent a minute searching for you silly God etc.
Faith is described as believing something without evidence. That's my point entirely.
Godbotherers have nothing but faith.
As for your dog reference, it's very childish. How does your God feel about a Christian
Making accusations like that or do you get special dispensation to ridicule atheists?

See how smart you are now.

 

[Colin Norris]

Wow, that represents an extensive, excessive and thorough missing of the entire point. This is not about me (or you), which should be obvious to anyone who read the first sentence of my post. It does not matter, for purposes of this discussion, how or why the universe, and this planet, came into existence, or what you believe. Capisce? This is about how to reach the billions of people who are people of faith. You are entitled to your views, but you don't matter to the discussion, and can be excused.

Moreover, you speak from a profound ignorance of the subject. "There has never been anything written in bibles etc to justify your position." Oh really? And how did you become such an expert on the Bible, and "etc.", to reach such a conclusion? Instead, what you represent is exactly the problem: a closed mind. You have your worldview and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Again, you don't matter to the discussion.

The discussion, as I perceive it, is how to reach people who have a biblical worldview, and persuade them of the need and, more, the responsibility, to be environmentalists because it is an obligation of their faith. One way of doing so is tapping into the conception of the devil and evil, and showing how a faithful person would resist that influence by being a good steward of God's creation. A fundamental tenet for many is that God gave to man (through Adam) "dominion" over the earth. The point is, that with dominion comes the responsibility for good care. It's a fiduciary obligation, that's the whole point of being a "good" steward. Is it your contention, then, that we should not be good stewards of the planet no matter our status in faith? That seems to be the gravamen of your assertions.

Rather than "dismissing science with knowledge" - wherever that incomplete sentence was intended to go - it is bringing the knowledge of science into their biblical worldview: to give them an additional tool to express their faith for the betterment of humanity. Isn't that a good thing?

You written a lot of rubbish.
You're not attempting to reach billions. You are purely advertising you are a godbotberer and deserve more respect than an atheist. The environment crap is a conduit to justify it.

The only thing correct and believable and with evidence in your silly bible is the page numbers.
Would you like to write another essay explaining some more religious claptrap?

 

[NWRatCon]

You written a lot of rubbish.
You're not attempting to reach billions. You are purely advertising you are a godbotberer and deserve more respect than an atheist. The environment crap is a conduit to justify it.

The only thing correct and believable and with evidence in your silly bible is the page numbers.
Would you like to write another essay explaining some more religious claptrap?

You really do try hard to miss the point, don't you? And be insulting. And fail to read. (Or write actual sentences.)

Be well, and be gone. Go be irrelevant elsewhere.

 

[Germinator]

I'll clarify that for you. Faith cannot and had never been solved by science. It's irrelevant to svience which is why they have never spent a minute searching for you silly God etc.
Faith is described as believing something without evidence. That's my point entirely.
Godbotherers have nothing but faith.
As for your dog reference, it's very childish. How does your God feel about a Christian
Making accusations like that or do you get special dispensation to ridicule atheists?

See how smart you are now.

huh,... clarify?!

seems I specifically pointed out "religions are called faiths" AND that "some beliefs can't be proven by science" before hand,... so what needs to be clarified???

as for being "smart" well like Einstein I do have a physics degree (from a well known university),... AND was introduced to the topic of "climate change" from pioneers in the field,... so I guess that might indicate that I'm not a total knucklehead

as for also pointing out that because your dog has "three hots and a cot" (i.e. your dog believes it has a safe "home") which to your dog might be its religion,... is just an observation I made given the facts,... since you said (and I'll quote)

You can quote Einstein forever but those who knew him and thrre were plenty, will tell you he was a devout atheist without doubt. He often quoted religion as a benchmark by which to justify many findings. He had as much religion in him as my dog.

BTW as a child was kinda into anagram's and long ago realized "god" is "dog" backwards,... personally don't think its a sign from on high,... BUT in this case (for this discussion) it might be?!

as for (and I'll quote),... Godbotherers have nothing but faith

one nice thing about belonging to a organized religion (in my case the catholic church) is,... when on holiday in other counties I can (if I so choose to get up early),... go to mass AND feel like I belong to a community of people who more or less have the same belief system (which IMHO isn't a bad thing)

 

[Colin Norris]

huh,... clarify?!

seems I specifically pointed out "religions are called faiths" AND that "some beliefs can't be proven by science" before hand,... so what needs to be clarified???

as for being "smart" well like Einstein I do have a physics degree (from a well known university),... AND was introduced to the topic of "climate change" from pioneers in the field,... so I guess that might indicate that I'm not a total knucklehead

as for also pointing out that because your dog has "three hots and a cot" (i.e. your dog believes it has a safe "home") which to your dog might be its religion,... is just an observation I made given the facts,... since you said (and I'll quote)



BTW as a child was kinda into anagram's and long ago realized "god" is "dog" backwards,... personally don't think its a sign from on high,... BUT in this case (for this discussion) it might be?!

as for (and I'll quote),... Godbotherers have nothing but faith

one nice thing about belonging to a organized religion (in my case the catholic church) is,... when on holiday in other counties I can (if I so choose to get up early),... go to mass AND feel like I belong to a community of people who more or less have the same belief system (which IMHO isn't a bad thing)

The only degree you would have is a degree of lunacy.
You're just another delusional godbotherer attempting to justify you belief in ghosts, myths and lies.
You're degree is wasted if it was for that.

 

[NWRatCon]

sadly WRT the issue of climate change there is too much political bull$hit AND not enough understanding of basic science

It gets frustrating, my friend, when people are more into attacking the post/poster than actually reading the post they are replying to, or even the OP of the thread, or taking even a moment to try to understand the topic. Hang in there.

 

[NWRatCon]

You written a lot of rubbish.

I'll try one more time to get you back to the topic: Do you believe in man made climate change?

 

[Colin Norris]

You really do try hard to miss the point, don't you? And be insulting. And fail to read. (Or write actual sentences.)

Be well, and be gone. Go be irrelevant elsewhere.

If I do go anywhere it will not be under your instructions so don't bully me. You sanctamonious godbotherers get offended when challenged but it's permissible to ridicule atheists all day. Not this one comrade.
I haven't missed one point. You have avoided answering them because I have questioned your religion and you don't like that. Well, if you debate me, you will get used to it or don't reply. Its your choice.

I find it insulting when you arrogant Jesus junkies belch your tripe like it is legislated.
It's the only time you ever felt like me.
What gives you the right to dismiss everything others believe when you have no proof of your silly ghost either?
Have another go.

 

[Colin Norris]

I'll try one more time to get you back to the topic: Do you believe in man made climate change?

Yes, do you.

 

[NWRatCon]

Yes, do you.

Of course I do, which, by the way, happens to be the subject of this thread, or did you miss that part? You've gone off half-cocked on your little tirades about "faith" and "godbotherers" without ever addressing the topic of the thread. You know what that's called, right?

 

[NWRatCon]

Now that we've established that posters here, in general, believe in man-made climate change, can everyone get off of their high horses and address the question - or not - of the thread? How does one convince a climate change denier of the error of their ways if that error is based upon a misapplication of the tenets of their faith?

 

[NWRatCon]

If I do go anywhere it will not be under your instructions so don't bully me. You sanctamonious godbotherers get offended when challenged but it's permissible to ridicule atheists all day. Not this one comrade.
I haven't missed one point. You have avoided answering them because I have questioned your religion and you don't like that. Well, if you debate me, you will get used to it or don't reply. Its your choice.

I find it insulting when you arrogant Jesus junkies belch your tripe like it is legislated.
It's the only time you ever felt like me.
What gives you the right to dismiss everything others believe when you have no proof of your silly ghost either?
Have another go.

Again with the off-topic tirades... Have you, ONCE, bothered to read ANY of the posts in this thread? That doesn't appear to be the case, because you apparently haven't a clue what the discussion is. It's about science, you see. And man-made climate change. Get it yet?

 

[Colin Norris]

Again with the off-topic tirades... Have you, ONCE, bothered to read ANY of the posts in this thread? That doesn't appear to be the case, because you apparently haven't a clue what the discussion is. It's about science, you see. And man-made climate change. Get it yet?

Don't give me instructions again.
You're problem is you can't get over me and I keep high lighting where your mistakes are and you dont like being challenged.

I've read enough to know that most of what you say is effluent. Just pure myths and u truths. If there something else you need clarifying, let me know. I'm going no where.

 

[Colin Norris]

Now that we've established that posters here, in general, believe in man-made climate change, can everyone get off of their high horses and address the question - or not - of the thread? How does one convince a climate change denier of the error of their ways if that error is based upon a misapplication of the tenets of their faith?

My point is not the devil or any religious figure is responsible for climate change.
Read the OP. Why is any religion been bought into the subject?
The godbotherers can't help themselves but inject a bit of religion as if It is fact or appropriate. It's total rubbish.

 

[NWRatCon]

Don't give me instructions again.
You're problem is you can't get over me and I keep high lighting where your mistakes are and you dont like being challenged.

I've read enough to know that most of what you say is effluent. Just pure myths and u truths. If there something else you need clarifying, let me know. I'm going no where.

You're getting nowhere because you don't bother to read. You are not addressing the topic, and you haven't a clue who You're talking to. To give you a clue: read my first post, "Although I am not a "believer" ...." or my second, "One of the reasons I moved away from the church (there were many)... " dawning yet? One can discuss "theological conundrums" without a) being an adherent, and b) being an ass. Try it sometime.

 

[NWRatCon]

My point is not the devil or any religious figure is responsible for climate change.
Read the OP. Why is any religion been bought into the subject?
The godbotherers can't help themselves but inject a bit of religion as if It is fact or appropriate. It's total rubbish.

Why are you posting in the religion forum? Why are you not posting on the topic? Why are you not reading the posts?

 

[Germinator]

Why are you posting in the religion forum? Why are you not posting on the topic? Why are you not reading the posts?

it's not worth the time or effort to engage an internet troll because things will devolve

speaking of other posts (that have not devolved) that discuss religion and the issue of climate change, noticed this,...

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...’t-believe-in”-manmade-climate-change.457364/

perhaps my OP about the devil being behind the denial of man made climate change is a "mustard seed" that will get uninformed evangelicals aware of the science of climate change

 

[NWRatCon]

it's not worth the time or effort to engage an internet troll because things will devolve

speaking of other posts (that have not devolved) that discuss religion and the issue of climate change, noticed this,...

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...’t-believe-in”-manmade-climate-change.457364/

perhaps my OP about the devil being behind the denial of man made climate change is a "mustard seed" that will get uninformed evangelicals aware of the science of climate change

You are correct, of course, that the effort is futile. But, I feel the occasional obligation to turn aside from derision to attempt it. As you have no doubt surmised, I approach the question as an academic, not as an adherent. I do not deride one's belief system or feel the need to ejaculate insults. I am, "officially" (in that I hold an ordination to provide marriage services) a "Spiritual Humanist", but philosophically, simply a Humanist. I was raised as United Methodist, and still have family in that church (and others). I even briefly considered ministry, not because I was particularly devout (I never was), but because of the counseling part of being a pastor. I, instead, went into the law, a different form of counsel. Some of my best military friends, as I earlier noted, were the Chaplains and our missions frequently overlapped.

Humanists and "religionists", for want of a better term, need not be in conflict, so long as their "missions" coincide - and that is for the betterment of humanity. (I concede, however, when anyone seeks to impose their beliefs on others I more than bristle. I'll have none of that, thankyouverymuch.) Indeed, Humanism does not necessarily reject religion as a path to that purpose, which is why I felt it appropriate to participate in the thread. I applaud your mission, frankly, to reconcile spiritual beliefs with scientific understanding. I've never thought them as mutually exclusive, and, historically, some of our greatest scientific minds approached their tasks with spiritual purpose. One can see scientific understanding as a spiritual undertaking, a la Robert Boyle ("Boyles Law"), Galileo, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, and even Charles Darwin. Modernly there are even self-described "spiritual scientists" - it is a tradition that goes back to the beginning of science itself.

So I do get offended by knee-jerk and uninformed put-downs, even when I am not the object of them (and amused when I am). I am a believer, though, in the maxim "first, understand." It applies to politics as well.

 

[Overitall]

Now that we've established that posters here, in general, believe in man-made climate change, can everyone get off of their high horses and address the question - or not - of the thread? How does one convince a climate change denier of the error of their ways if that error is based upon a misapplication of the tenets of their faith?

Good question. At first I'm tempted to say: It's a waste of time trying. Given that the "march" towards efforts to address the dangers is advancing it seems like the goal will be achieved without the help of climate change deniers. Nevertheless, from a biblical pov one approach might be to focus on how the earth will be destroyed in the "end times" (I think the fos is through "fire") and tie it into climate change.