Do you believe in God?

[Spinns]

Re: Do you believe in God?

There are so many rules and duties in religions. You're not alowed to drink, have sex or anything. Religions are just **** imo!

I can drink, have sex and do lots of things

 

[BoldBrian]

Re: Do you believe in God?

One thing. God may be a lie. People just THINK they belive in him

 

[Findux]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Exactly. People need easy explanations to everything, so they create a god. That's at least what I believe.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Not sure about God

I believe in people http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Whos this Quote from - it's a song.

"People -- what have you done --
Locked him in his golden cage.
Made him bend to your religion --
Him resurrected from the grave.
He is the God of nothing --
If thats all that you can see.
You are the God of everything --
Hes inside you and me.
So lean upon him gently
And dont call on him to save you
From your social graces
And the sins you used to waive.
The bloody church of england --
In chains of history --
Requests your earthly presence at
The vicarage for tea.
And the graven image you-know-who --
With his plastic crucifix --
Hes got him fixed --
Confuses me as to who and where and why --
As to how he gets his kicks.
Confessing to the endless sin --
The endless whining sounds.
Youll be praying till next thursday to
All the gods that you can count."

Heavy breathing is involved

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei :

That's ridiculous, a society that you find morally disappointing is a hell of a lot better off than one that's fried to death with UV radiation.

So you define a society with little justice, rampant lawlessness and corruption, and a lack of trust among its members and, more importantly, a lack of trust between the citizenry and its government, as "morally disappointing"? Interesting. And, yes, I'm a lot more concerned about things that have happened in the past then in something that is only predicted by computer models that attempt to accurately define parameters for a system that is so unpredictable that it was the source of the study of chaos theory.

(And, not to nitpick, I have never heard any global warming fanatic predict excessive UV radiation. Isn't that a leftover prediction from the time when we were concerned about the breakdown in the ozone layer?)

I meant the one about societies collapsing because of moral turpitude.

Define what you mean by moral turpitude. There's no use in having any discussion on this unless we can agree on the meaning of terminology.

- - -

PFSS:

So wait - you're saying that for every case I cite of the Religious using the state to promote their religion that you will refute my point by citing three further examples of the Religious using the state to promote their religion?

Ah, now we're getting to the crux of the matter. I believe our differences lies in what exactly is defined as "promoting religion". Promoting religion used to be defined as promoting a specific religious sect (ex: Baptists). It then evolved into something closer to promoting a specific religion (ex: Christianity). Now it seems to be evolving into the mere mention of God anywhere in anything that has some connection with the Government.

Many people seem to forget that while the Constitution, dealing with religion, has a anti-establishment clause, it also has a free practice clause. I just believe that the pendulum has swung to a position that is no where near a balance. The fear of the establishment of religion by the government has led to laws and practices that have drastically hindered the free practice of religion.

There are posters on this forum who actually believe that a politician who votes against abortion laws because of his religious beliefs is in violation of the "separation of church and state" principle of the Constitution. There are others, using the same bogus argument, who condemn any religious group who threatens to "punish" any of its members in government who votes for a law that violates one of that group's principals. Both of those situations deal with the free practice of religion; not with the establishment of religion.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: Do you believe in God?

(And, not to nitpick, I have never heard any global warming fanatic predict excessive UV radiation. Isn't that a leftover prediction from the time when we were concerned about the breakdown in the ozone layer?)

Yes, it's a different phenomenon.

No, you shouldn't stop worrying about it unless you live on the equator. Up where I live people are dropping of melanoma like flies.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei :

So you define a society with little justice, rampant lawlessness and corruption, and a lack of trust among its members and, more importantly, a lack of trust between the citizenry and its government, as "morally disappointing"? Interesting. And, yes, I'm a lot more concerned about things that have happened in the past then in something that is only predicted by computer models that attempt to accurately define parameters for a system that is so unpredictable that it was the source of the study of chaos theory.

Seems significantly different from being dead. And you're confusing climate change with weather. Please do yourself a favour and educate yourself on the topic before you go on your little ideological parade. Regurgitating what you read in Libertarian Monthly doesn't cut it.

Define what you mean by moral turpitude. There's no use in having any discussion on this unless we can agree on the meaning of terminology.

Why don't you? You're the one who brought it up. I believe the terms you used were "not adhering to its belief systems" and "breakdown of its moral code". How you went from that to "invasion, corruption, or rampant lawlessness" in the following post is beyond me. Probably just another evasive equivocation (a very unconvincing one).

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

Seems significantly different from being dead.

I tend to live in the real world; not some hypothetical world. Risk is a combination of the degree of harm AND the probability of the harmful event happening. I'm not that concerned about a potential disaster if the chances of that disaster happening approaches zero.

And you're confusing climate change with weather. Please do yourself a favour and educate yourself on the topic before you go on your little ideological parade.

This from the man that brings up the concern about excessive UV radiation in a discussion about Global Warming.

Isn't climate nothing more than an accumulation of weather over time? Not one of the so-called climate models predicted the downswing in temperature in the last decade, yet I'm supposed to believe that they are accurate in determining temperatures a 100 years and more into the future?

Why don't you? You're the one who brought it up. I believe the terms you used were "not adhering to its belief systems" and "breakdown of its moral code". How you went from that to "invasion, corruption, or rampant lawlessness" in the following post is beyond me.

Well, let's look at how your term "moral turpitude" is defined. According to Wiki, it's

a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals".

It includes such actions as "crimes against property", "crimes against governmental authority", and "crimes against person". (It's a lot more than just actions dealing with 'bumping uglies'.)

Let’s agree to use Wiki’s meaning of the term that you first used.

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unless, contrary to your belief, he is exactly as one group says he is.

But which very small group?

And don 't give me "there x number of group A". All the major religions are very split. So only a minority of them could be exactly right.

 

[Galabab]

Re: Do you believe in God?

There is no god.
Sadly.

 

[Rashiminos]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Nope. Jaded societies collapse physically as a result of the collapse of their internal code of ethics. Dying is dying. A country ruined by climate change is no worse off that a country ruined by invasion, corruption, or rampant lawlessness.

There were other baser reasons for those societies to physically collapse that may have brought about the ethical collapse as well. In addition, climate change may render an area uninhabitable as opposed to merely inhospitable.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

I tend to live in the real world; not some hypothetical world. Risk is a combination of the degree of harm AND the probability of the harmful event happening. I'm not that concerned about a potential disaster if the chances of that disaster happening approaches zero.

You're dodging the issue again. Legislating for social morality and legislating for social survival are vastly different.

This from the man that brings up the concern about excessive UV radiation in a discussion about Global Warming.

Mine was hyperbole.

Isn't climate nothing more than an accumulation of weather over time? Not one of the so-called climate models predicted the downswing in temperature in the last decade, yet I'm supposed to believe that they are accurate in determining temperatures a 100 years and more into the future?

Seriously, if you're going to take up the torch for your ideology on this front then at least research the issue enough to realize what a fool you're making of yourself in the above paragraph.

Short lesson (answers to Q1 and Q2):

1) No.
2) It is easier to make predictions on a highly variable system over a long time frame than over a short one, not harder.

Well, let's look at how your term "moral turpitude" is defined. According to Wiki, it's It includes such actions as "crimes against property", "crimes against governmental authority", and "crimes against person". (It's a lot more than just actions dealing with 'bumping uglies'.)

Let’s agree to use Wiki’s meaning of the term that you first used.

At first I couldn't see what you were getting at there, but then I got it - I complained about your lacklustre attempt at equivocation and so you gave me a much better attempt at equivocation. Bravo.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

You're dodging the issue again. Legislating for social morality and legislating for social survival are vastly different.

No, you're missing the point and showing your bias. Both groups believe that certain actions currently permitted in Society could lead to its destruction. Both groups believe that that potential threat to Society allows them to pass laws and regulations that force other people who believe differently to take certain actions or to refrain from certain actions. Both groups believe that these laws and regulations are necessary for 'social survival'. The fact is that you believe that one group is wrong and the other group is right. Of course, there are others who believe exactly the opposite. The fact that you believe as you do is no more evidence for your position then the beliefs of the other people are for their position. The only thing that could possibly 'win' the argument for either side is presenting concrete evidence that both parties agree is accurate. Since you rarely, if ever, actually provide support for your positions, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support this one.

(Note: Calling people names, or saying "No, it's not", or demanding others supply support for their positions so you can take potshots while refusing to provide evidence of your own, does NOT constitute support for your position.)

Mine was hyperbole.

No, your mentioning excessive UV rays as an outcome of Global Warming is an out-and-out mistake. You just screwed up. Now, the fact that you showed your lack of knowledge about Global Warming in a paragraph where you were accusing me of ignorance on that subject must have been particularly embarrassing, so you resorted to using another term that it appears you do not understand.

Hyperbole deals with exaggeration. Hyperbole: I'm so hungry I can eat a cow. Mistake: I was bitten by a bee. Hyperbole: Pretty soon there will be no snow at all because of Global Warming. Mistake: Global Warming will lead to excessive UV radiation.

Seriously, if you're going to take up the torch for your ideology on this front then at least research the issue enough to realize what a fool you're making of yourself in the above paragraph.

Short lesson (answers to Q1 and Q2):

1) No.
2) It is easier to make predictions on a highly variable system over a long time frame than over a short one, not harder.

Can you explain why my not believing in Global warming is indicative of me taking 'up the torch' for my ideology? How is arguing that the science isn't there to support the concerns about Global Warming a libertarian argument?

As to your 'No' answer to my question about whether or not climate is just a accumulation of weather over time, do you really believe that I am just going to take your word for it? For a change, why don't you get off your intellectual behind and actually support one of your positions?

As to your answer to question 2, it's always easy to make predictions, but it's damned difficult to make accurate predictions; especially when you have a zero track record of being right and there is literally no empirical evidence to support your claims.

At first I couldn't see what you were getting at there, but then I got it - I complained about your lacklustre attempt at equivocation and so you gave me a much better attempt at equivocation. Bravo.

No, this is just another case where you made a mistake and are now trying to do anything to not have to admit it.

I was using 'morality' in broad terms while you decided to use it very narrowly. When I explained what I was referring to when I mentioned a breakdown in morality, YOU came up with the term 'moral turpitude' to describe my position. Obviously, you misunderstood the meaning of that term, because it supports my usage of 'morality' rather than yours. Now, as always, rather than admit that you made a mistake, you're re-writing history.

 

[Amra]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Short lesson (answers to Q1 and Q2):

1) No.

I think Killer is correct. From m-w:

1:a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

2 b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>

3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period :

2) It is easier to make predictions on a highly variable system over a long time frame than over a short one, not harder.

Regarding weather, I think that is up in the air lol2. They never seem to get it right but I'll check back in 100 years.

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

No, you're missing the point and showing your bias. Both groups believe that certain actions currently permitted in Society could lead to its destruction. Both groups believe that that potential threat to Society allows them to pass laws and regulations that force other people who believe differently to take certain actions or to refrain from certain actions. Both groups believe that these laws and regulations are necessary for 'social survival'. The fact is that you believe that one group is wrong and the other group is right. Of course, there are others who believe exactly the opposite. The fact that you believe as you do is no more evidence for your position then the beliefs of the other people are for their position. The only thing that could possibly 'win' the argument for either side is presenting concrete evidence that both parties agree is accurate. Since you rarely, if ever, actually provide support for your positions, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support this one..

The difference is one side is based on an absentee third party. And is supported by people who claim that people are too stupid or ignorant to figure out on our own that killing each other is not a good thing and should be prevented as much as possible. And they haven't come up with a compelling explanations for various anomalies. (at least I don't buy that "free will" argument.)

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

No, you're missing the point and showing your bias. Both groups believe that certain actions currently permitted in Society could lead to its destruction. Both groups believe that that potential threat to Society allows them to pass laws and regulations that force other people who believe differently to take certain actions or to refrain from certain actions. Both groups believe that these laws and regulations are necessary for 'social survival'. The fact is that you believe that one group is wrong and the other group is right. Of course, there are others who believe exactly the opposite. The fact that you believe as you do is no more evidence for your position then the beliefs of the other people are for their position. The only thing that could possibly 'win' the argument for either side is presenting concrete evidence that both parties agree is accurate. Since you rarely, if ever, actually provide support for your positions, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support this one.

No, you're the one who can't see past the question of which side is right and which isn't, that's immaterial. You're using equivocation when you say they are both trying to prevent "destruction". One is talking about the breakdown of a moral code and the other is talking about physical survival. Not the same. It's perfectly legitimate to argue that you do not have the right to pass laws in defense of a moral code but you do have the right to pass laws in defense of people's lives. That is completely independent to which side is right and which is wrong.

No, your mentioning excessive UV rays as an outcome of Global Warming is an out-and-out mistake. You just screwed up. Now, the fact that you showed your lack of knowledge about Global Warming in a paragraph where you were accusing me of ignorance on that subject must have been particularly embarrassing, so you resorted to using another term that it appears you do not understand.

Hyperbole deals with exaggeration. Hyperbole: I'm so hungry I can eat a cow. Mistake: I was bitten by a bee. Hyperbole: Pretty soon there will be no snow at all because of Global Warming. Mistake: Global Warming will lead to excessive UV radiation.

Very good, you know the definition of hyperbole. So you can see how what I said was hyperbole.

Can you explain why my not believing in Global warming is indicative of me taking 'up the torch' for my ideology? How is arguing that the science isn't there to support the concerns about Global Warming a libertarian argument?

As to your 'No' answer to my question about whether or not climate is just a accumulation of weather over time, do you really believe that I am just going to take your word for it? For a change, why don't you get off your intellectual behind and actually support one of your positions?

No, you ****ing moron, don't take my word for it, do some basic research into the topic you're so determined to express a laughably uninformed opinion on. You are embarrassing yourself.

As to your answer to question 2, it's always easy to make predictions, but it's damned difficult to make accurate predictions; especially when you have a zero track record of being right and there is literally no empirical evidence to support your claims.

Stop trying to divert into tangents every time you get called on a specific point.

No, this is just another case where you made a mistake and are now trying to do anything to not have to admit it.

I was using 'morality' in broad terms while you decided to use it very narrowly. When I explained what I was referring to when I mentioned a breakdown in morality, YOU came up with the term 'moral turpitude' to describe my position. Obviously, you misunderstood the meaning of that term, because it supports my usage of 'morality' rather than yours. Now, as always, rather than admit that you made a mistake, you're re-writing history.

That's a great argument. At least, it would be if you used the term "morality", and hadn't said "not adhering to their belief systems". The amazing part is the bit where you try to re-write history yourself, despite the fact your original post is right here in this thread, and quoted on this very page, and then accuse me of doing the same.

Here is your original post, it even has a link in it since you're obviously too lazy to go back and check the careless things you say even when you're commenting on them:

Something tells me that both sides believe that Society won’t survive if people do not adhere to their belief systems. And, in my opinion, there is a lot more historical evidence that shows a society going into decline because of a breakdown in its moral code then there is that shows a society being harmed due to its impact on the climate.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

I think Killer is correct. From m-w:

1:a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

2 b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>

3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period :



Regarding weather, I think that is up in the air lol2. They never seem to get it right but I'll check back in 100 years.

Weather is a small-scale, localised phenomenon (in both time and space), global warming is a completely different one: it is large-scale (in both time and space) and aggregate. Although obviously the latter will affect the former.

Using the difficulty of predicting weather to cast doubt on the theory of global warming is like saying scientists can't possibly predict the motion of an iron pendulum because they can't even predict the path of an electron in an iron atom. Or maybe a better example would be that the difficulty of predicting Brownian motion means that science can't possibly know when the tides are due to come in. Shows a fundamental ignorance of the entire topic.

 

[Rashiminos]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Hello Killer-Aim:wave:

Societies collapsing due to a moral breakdown?

Get Busy.

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Hello Killer-Aim:wave:

Societies collapsing due to a moral breakdown?

Get Busy.

Yeah there are women showing their faces in public and others who have adulterated and haven't been stoned yet.
I mean if there is only God then there can only be one moral code, right?
And if there are false Gods then how can we know we are not following one of them?

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

No, you're the one who can't see past the question of which side is right and which isn't, that's immaterial. You're using equivocation when you say they are both trying to prevent "destruction". One is talking about the breakdown of a moral code and the other is talking about physical survival.

No, one group is talking about a breakdown in a moral code that will eventually lead to an increase in moral turpitude which will eventually lead to internal and external conflicts which will eventually lead to the destruction of a Civilization. The other group is talking about gradual climatic changes that will eventually lead to intolerable living conditions in certain areas of the World the will eventually lead to internal and external conflicts that will eventually lead to the destruction of a Civilization.

Not the same. It's perfectly legitimate to argue that you do not have the right to pass laws in defense of a moral code but you do have the right to pass laws in defense of people's lives. That is completely independent to which side is right and which is wrong.

Really? Let’s look at some of the examples of actions listed under moral turpitude.

• Arson
• Blackmail
• Burglary
• Embezzlement
• Extortion
• Forgery
• Fraud
• Robbery
• Theft
• Perjury
• Kidnapping
• Murder
• Assault
• Manslaughter
• Rape

Can anyone rationally argue that there shouldn’t be laws against those actions?

Very good, you know the definition of hyperbole. So you can see how what I said was hyperbole.

What I see is that you have come up with another excuse to never have to admit you made a mistake.
A statement that “Australia’s is located in the Northern hemisphereâ€, or that “3 + 3 = 5â€, or that “the human beings are not mammalsâ€? Not mistakes; just the use of hyperbole. Yea, right!!:whistling:

No, you ****ing moron, don't take my word for it, do some basic research into the topic you're so determined to express a laughably uninformed opinion on. You are embarrassing yourself.

Ah, another name calling response. Do you really believe that calling people names in a place where you know you’ll never have to fear any retaliation makes you sound tough? If my opinion is so off-base than it should be real easy for you to do the basic research that you talk about and prove me wrong. Why haven’t you done so?

Stop trying to divert into tangents every time you get called on a specific point.

It’s true that there can be short term variations in measurements that are predicted accurately over the long term, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence that supports the long-term predictions. So what you have is a theory that is based on the results of computer model predictions, not empirical testing. Each of these eight or nine programs attempt to mathematically measure the impact of all the variables that affect climate; a task so complicated that climate prediction was the primary example used to explain the concept behind chaos theory. On top of this, not one of the programs has accurately predicted future climate since they were first used.

So all your comment about “short term variability in a long term predictable event†does is to say that it is possible that these programs area accurate. I’ll agree with that statement; one decade of poor predictions doesn’t necessarily mean that the programs will be wrong in the long term. BUT, your comment is NOT an argument that, in any way, lends credence to the program predictions.

That's a great argument. At least, it would be if you used the term "morality", and hadn't said "not adhering to their belief systems". The amazing part is the bit where you try to re-write history yourself, despite the fact your original post is right here in this thread, and quoted on this very page, and then accuse me of doing the same.

Originally Posted by KillerAim
Something tells me that both sides believe that Society won’t survive if people do not adhere to their belief systems. And, in my opinion, there is a lot more historical evidence that shows a society going into decline because of a breakdown in its moral code then there is that shows a society being harmed due to its impact on the climate.

??? Do you ever read what you post? In what you cited, I used the term “moral code†to describe the same thing that one sentence earlier I described as “belief systemsâ€. The reason I used “belief systems†in the first sentence was due to the fact that I was referring to both groups; religious fanatics AND Global Warming fanatics. The second sentence ONLY referred to the religious fanatics; therefore, I felt safe in describing their belief system as a moral code. I used the term “belief system†as a neutral term to show that I think that the majority of people in both groups came to their conclusions based on their beliefs in the accuracy of the evidence used in support of their positions.

Weather is a small-scale, localised phenomenon (in both time and space), global warming is a completely different one: it is large-scale (in both time and space) and aggregate. Although obviously the latter will affect the former.

Nice try. The comparison was weather to climate, NOT weather to global warming. And, even in THAT case, global warming is nothing more than a belief that the changes in climate over time for all local climates will end up with higher temperatures (mostly at night) on average for the world. This is still nothing more than the accumulation of weather predictions over space and time.