|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 22, 2020 12:55:55 GMT
In the interests of disclosure I am a very cautious person who depends on science and religion for various things. Please make your choice based on what you believe "most" people from your perspective are if you can. I follow the emergency guidelines on the pandemic from the authorities because it really doesn't matter whether the pandemic is a hoax or not. If it is not a hoax I obviously need to be cautious. If it is a hoax then a bunch of very disturbed people are conspiring to make it appear I need to be cautious. Guess what? That works. If there are a bunch of disturbed people running things I am all the more inclined to be cautious. My impression from various media news outlets is that many people consider the religious people far less cautious and thus the problem today and science is the solution. That is the reason I made this poll. I want to know to what extent that it true. I am fairly certain it is not true from my perspective. I have mentioned many times here how the "war" between science and religion is really between people who understand neither science nor religion. They are upset about the news that neither of them can control the intelligent designer and determined not to face it. I have some comments on modern society lately here. Please read them before making your choice or consider adjusting your choice after you read them. I have to congratulate scientists and their friends and followers for trying to make science more cautious than it was. In the early days of the space program and the early flurry of advances against cancer people had become extraordinarily confident in science, perhaps more so than they should. I hope to see what you think in this poll and your comments here. I cannot however recommend exaggerating any problems. It is obvious to religious people who understand science that fossil fuels are not being replaced and our current lifestyles that depend so much on them are not sustainable into the distant future. However I suspect several of the complaints of "climate change" exaggerate the urgency of that problem and result in spastic responses to it. One the the most serious and tragic mistakes some people who believe in science often make is associating Trump followers with religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is rather a "straw man" for them to debate and easily defeat. "Defeating" religion will not be as easy.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 22, 2020 14:04:46 GMT
In the interests of disclosure I am a very cautious person who depends on science and religion for various things. ... Blah, blah, blah. You're a troll who uses assertions without substantiation. When I call you on it, all you make is snide remarks.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 22, 2020 15:07:02 GMT
In the interests of disclosure I am a very cautious person who depends on science and religion for various things. ... Blah, blah, blah. You're a troll who uses assertions without substantiation. When I call you on it, all you make is snide remarks. The purpose of a poll is to dig up substantiation. Were there any arguments you wish to make yourself?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 22, 2020 17:30:16 GMT
"It is obvious to religious people who understand science that fossil fuels are not being replaced" It's gonna eventually run out, so it's going to eventually have to be replaced. "our current lifestyles that depend so much on them are not sustainable into the distant future" People were probably saying the same thing about asbestos and lead paint "However I suspect several of the complaints of "climate change" exaggerate the urgency of that problem and result in spastic responses to it." link"One the the most serious and tragic mistakes some people who believe in science often make is associating Trump followers with religion." He got overwhelming support evangelicals, his VP is a Creationist, and this was made: Trump Prophecy "It is rather a "straw man" for them to debate and easily defeat." I don't think you know what Strawman means "Defeating" religion will not be as easy." "Defeating" religion will require investing more in education and science, but don't worry we'll get there.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 22, 2020 17:56:36 GMT
I can't read minds, so I don't know who is cautious deep inside.
In a nutshell, if one doesn't want to read the rest, I pretty much concur with Arlon. Especially on the 2020 events. Now, I will expound on the entire general outlook of Science and Religion in terms of caution.
Ideally, Science would teach caution. And the original definition of "Science", which is no longer adhered to, certainly not in this century, would be totally for caution, because the original "Science" was meant to not jump to conclusions, but just to observe, record, amass information.
So, that's no longer the case. So called scientists have actually admitted they meant to prove theories, so any "caution" went out the window. No objectivity. No caution. Just blatant cherry picking of whatever one wanted to believe. There's no credibility in anything these alleged scientists record. If they're brushing away debris from a bone, they're going to scrape off whatever they want to scrape off to fit their preconceived hopes and desires. They admit this when they claim they are out to prove a theory.
So, they are "cautious" to prove their point, and probably subconsciously, so the question is a loaded question.
And the same goes for Religion. Obviously, those who claim "faith" to be the source of their religion, don't use caution. But for most people over 30 or 40 or 50, or whenever one gets the experience, religion is instead the supernatural explanation for what isn't natural.
And many things aren't natural.
A good metaphor for this would be the movie scene with 007 speaking with the scientist Q, and explaining that Q would be surprised what happens to that valuable, perfect equipment in the field.
"In the field" there are variables that modern Science refuses to recognize. Too many modern scientists believe they are in a vacuum, and that the world is whatever MacGyver and the professor on Gilligan's Island can conjure up, in a magical way.
Science isn't supposed to be like that, but it's been turned into that.
That's the first problem.
The second problem with just relying on Science is that it only accepts the natural laws of Physics and Anatomy. When something goes awry, then "oops, lets change the law to fit this" for any distortion, notably for mutations in Biology. It's a situation where they have absolutely no caution at all, and just use their pattern as a religion until they have to change it.
For example, each time an archaeologist discovers a new "oldest" civilization, they decide to change the "diet" of the first living humans to fit what is in that archaeological find. I've seen this over and over. There is no "caution" before the discovery is made. It's a simple "religion" based on blind adherence to rules. However, "religion" allows one to step outside the box. A scientist never steps outside the box. At least not a modern scientist.
So, it depends on whether the Science or Religion is faith based or experience based. In any event, both are needed. One for the natural know world, and the other for the supernatural or unnatural events.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 22, 2020 18:39:18 GMT
"It is obvious to religious people who understand science that fossil fuels are not being replaced" It's gonna eventually run out, so it's going to eventually have to be replaced. "our current lifestyles that depend so much on them are not sustainable into the distant future" People were probably saying the same thing about asbestos and lead paint "However I suspect several of the complaints of "climate change" exaggerate the urgency of that problem and result in spastic responses to it." link"One the the most serious and tragic mistakes some people who believe in science often make is associating Trump followers with religion." He got overwhelming support evangelicals, his VP is a Creationist, and this was made: Trump Prophecy "It is rather a "straw man" for them to debate and easily defeat." I don't think you know what Strawman means "Defeating" religion will not be as easy." "Defeating" religion will require investing more in education and science, but don't worry we'll get there. You should consider leaving science to scientists, not politicians or the UN. You are obviously too lazy to make any rational arguments. Do you not understand that is why you almost lost the election? If not for the pandemic you would have depended on that UN nonsense and Trump would have beaten you to hell and gone.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 22, 2020 20:03:21 GMT
I can't read minds, so I don't know who is cautious deep inside. In a nutshell, if one doesn't want to read the rest, I pretty much concur with Arlon. Especially on the 2020 events. Now, I will expound on the entire general outlook of Science and Religion in terms of caution. Ideally, Science would teach caution. And the original definition of "Science", which is no longer adhered to, certainly not in this century, would be totally for caution, because the original "Science" was meant to not jump to conclusions, but just to observe, record, amass information. So, that's no longer the case. So called scientists have actually admitted they meant to prove theories, so any "caution" went out the window. No objectivity. No caution. Just blatant cherry picking of whatever one wanted to believe. There's no credibility in anything these alleged scientists record. If they're brushing away debris from a bone, they're going to scrape off whatever they want to scrape off to fit their preconceived hopes and desires. They admit this when they claim they are out to prove a theory. So, they are "cautious" to prove their point, and probably subconsciously, so the question is a loaded question. And the same goes for Religion. Obviously, those who claim "faith" to be the source of their religion, don't use caution. But for most people over 30 or 40 or 50, or whenever one gets the experience, religion is instead the supernatural explanation for what isn't natural. And many things aren't natural. A good metaphor for this would be the movie scene with 007 speaking with the scientist Q, and explaining that Q would be surprised what happens to that valuable, perfect equipment in the field. "In the field" there are variables that modern Science refuses to recognize. Too many modern scientists believe they are in a vacuum, and that the world is whatever MacGyver and the professor on Gilligan's Island can conjure up, in a magical way. Science isn't supposed to be like that, but it's been turned into that. That's the first problem. The second problem with just relying on Science is that it only accepts the natural laws of Physics and Anatomy. When something goes awry, then "oops, lets change the law to fit this" for any distortion, notably for mutations in Biology. It's a situation where they have absolutely no caution at all, and just use their pattern as a religion until they have to change it. For example, each time an archaeologist discovers a new "oldest" civilization, they decide to change the "diet" of the first living humans to fit what is in that archaeological find. I've seen this over and over. There is no "caution" before the discovery is made. It's a simple "religion" based on blind adherence to rules. However, "religion" allows one to step outside the box. A scientist never steps outside the box. At least not a modern scientist. So, it depends on whether the Science or Religion is faith based or experience based. In any event, both are needed. One for the natural know world, and the other for the supernatural or unnatural events. Actually science must be at least a little bit less cautious because it pushes the frontiers of knowledge. You know bunches of people died in the space program, right? There really is no way to "test" a vaccine that isn't risky. The one vote in the poll that science is more cautious is either playing words games with us or totally without any science (like most atheists on this board).
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 23, 2020 2:01:06 GMT
"It is obvious to religious people who understand science that fossil fuels are not being replaced" It's gonna eventually run out, so it's going to eventually have to be replaced. "our current lifestyles that depend so much on them are not sustainable into the distant future" People were probably saying the same thing about asbestos and lead paint "However I suspect several of the complaints of "climate change" exaggerate the urgency of that problem and result in spastic responses to it." link"One the the most serious and tragic mistakes some people who believe in science often make is associating Trump followers with religion." He got overwhelming support evangelicals, his VP is a Creationist, and this was made: Trump Prophecy "It is rather a "straw man" for them to debate and easily defeat." I don't think you know what Strawman means "Defeating" religion will not be as easy." "Defeating" religion will require investing more in education and science, but don't worry we'll get there. You should consider leaving science to scientists, not politicians or the UN. You are obviously too lazy to make any rational arguments. Do you not understand that is why you almost lost the election? If not for the pandemic you would have depended on that UN nonsense and Trump would have beaten you to hell and gone. Petty insults don't count as an argument. At your predictably stupid, I'll give you that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 23, 2020 11:13:38 GMT
You should consider leaving science to scientists, not politicians or the UN. You are obviously too lazy to make any rational arguments. Do you not understand that is why you almost lost the election? If not for the pandemic you would have depended on that UN nonsense and Trump would have beaten you to hell and gone. Petty insults don't count as an argument. At your predictably stupid, I'll give you that. I keep telling myself it's for your own good. Maybe you should think it is, and benefit. It has been a very long time coming and the resistance has been increasingly adamant, but it keeps coming more certainly every day. The dam won't hold. The truth will eventually get out. Life assembling from lifeless matter is not a "natural" thing. I have tried to explain several times that the opponents of intelligent design have freakish notions of "natural." The funny thing about this poll is that people hadn't thought "caution" was very important. They are far too concerned about being the authority that orders others to be cautious. When the pandemic emergency passes, the caution it promoted will eventually wear off because neither fundamentalists nor atheist "scientists" are as cautious as they need to be. It is only the truly religious who think "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." There's an old expression "babe in the woods." I don't want the wolves to get you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 23, 2020 11:35:09 GMT
Wow, that's bizarre, thinking "science" is more cautious. Of course it might be true in some areas. I don't know where, Mississippi? West Virginia? TV land? The attitude is not very respectful of the people who died for science.
And of course you must realize that five responses (as of this moment) is far too small a sample to mean anything. And there are no such things as "scientists" on this board (unless you count the faithful).
I do see on TV, though not very often, things apparently from people who are so oblivious they believe the politicians have the full story. They don't. Republicans can be far more intelligently religious than the desperate people clinging to Trump. The Democrats are so very wrong about so many things religious and scientific their "belief" in science isn't helping science at all.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 23, 2020 12:09:12 GMT
Petty insults don't count as an argument. At your predictably stupid, I'll give you that. I keep telling myself it's for your own good. Maybe you should think it is, and benefit. It has been a very long time coming and the resistance has been increasingly adamant, but it keeps coming more certainly every day. The dam won't hold. The truth will eventually get out. Life assembling from lifeless matter is not a "natural" thing. I have tried to explain several times that the opponents of intelligent design have freakish notions of "natural." The funny thing about this poll is that people hadn't thought "caution" was very important. They are far too concerned about being the authority that orders others to be cautious. When the pandemic emergency passes, the caution it promoted will eventually wear off because neither fundamentalists nor atheist "scientists" are as cautious as they need to be. It is only the truly religious who think "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." There's an old expression "babe in the woods." I don't want the wolves to get you. This has nothing to do with anything I actually said. Predictable.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 23, 2020 23:15:31 GMT
I keep telling myself it's for your own good. Maybe you should think it is, and benefit. It has been a very long time coming and the resistance has been increasingly adamant, but it keeps coming more certainly every day. The dam won't hold. The truth will eventually get out. Life assembling from lifeless matter is not a "natural" thing. I have tried to explain several times that the opponents of intelligent design have freakish notions of "natural." The funny thing about this poll is that people hadn't thought "caution" was very important. They are far too concerned about being the authority that orders others to be cautious. When the pandemic emergency passes, the caution it promoted will eventually wear off because neither fundamentalists nor atheist "scientists" are as cautious as they need to be. It is only the truly religious who think "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." There's an old expression "babe in the woods." I don't want the wolves to get you. This has nothing to do with anything I actually said. Predictable. First of all you didn't anything, you just linked articles you believe address anything here. Secondly, even if you did say anything, that doesn't mean I have to let you drive the topic.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 23, 2020 23:21:45 GMT
This has nothing to do with anything I actually said. Predictable. First of all you didn't anything, you just linked articles you believe address anything here. Secondly, even if you did say anything, that doesn't mean I have to let you drive the topic. Still not addressing anything I've actually posted. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 23, 2020 23:27:19 GMT
I have no way to make any proper judgment about which side is more cautious, especially considering there are many people who trust science and are religious.
I think the better question would be, who is more cautious, atheists or theists and that would still be biased speculation on my part.
I know for a fact that every Trump supporter isn't religious and I have no agenda to "defeat" religion.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 23, 2020 23:30:30 GMT
First of all you didn't anything, you just linked articles you believe address anything here. Secondly, even if you did say anything, that doesn't mean I have to let you drive the topic. Still not addressing anything I've actually posted. Evasion noted. You haven't said anything worth addressing. You believe without any numbers that doom is imminent in twelve years. That's your problem not mine. You believe Trump represents any religion. Only very stupid people think he does, using stupid people's definition of religion. Again that's your problem, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 23, 2020 23:42:45 GMT
Still not addressing anything I've actually posted. Evasion noted. You haven't said anything worth addressing. You believe without any numbers that doom is imminent in twelve years. That's your problem not mine. You believe Trump represents any religion. Only very stupid people think he does, using stupid people's definition of religion. Again that's your problem, not mine. "You haven't said anything worth addressing." Translation: "I'm a fucking coward, watch me do my best to try to avoid addressing arguments" "You believe without any numbers that doom is imminent in twelve years." I never said "doom", you're strawmanning me. And did you actually read the article, it gave numbers fuckwit: The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people" "You believe Trump represents any religion." More idiotic strawmans "Only very stupid people think he does, using stupid people's definition of religion." More ad homs and No True Scottsman, not actually addressing what I actually said. I'm starting to think I could get more intellectual honesty from a flat earther. At least they probably won't go on weird tangents about idiotic libertarian arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 23, 2020 23:43:00 GMT
I have no way to make any proper judgment about which side is more cautious, especially considering there are many people who trust science and are religious. I think the better question would be, who is more cautious, atheists or theists and that would still be biased speculation on my part. I know for a fact that every Trump supporter isn't religious and I have no agenda to "defeat" religion. I'm not seeing any problem with what you said here. In 2016 some people voted "for" Trump in the hope that he would promote their ideals. By 2020 they knew better. He didn't and won't. In 2020 they did not vote "for" Trump. Rather they did vote "against" the Democratic Party and what they believe are its ideals in opposition to theirs. There is a search for leadership all over. The Democrats were also not really voting "for" their own, rather they were voting "against" Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 23, 2020 23:47:39 GMT
You haven't said anything worth addressing. You believe without any numbers that doom is imminent in twelve years. That's your problem not mine. You believe Trump represents any religion. Only very stupid people think he does, using stupid people's definition of religion. Again that's your problem, not mine. "You haven't said anything worth addressing." Translation: "I'm a fucking coward, watch me do my best to try to avoid addressing arguments" "You believe without any numbers that doom is imminent in twelve years." I never said "doom", you're strawmanning me. And did you actually read the article, it gave numbers fuckwit: The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people" "You believe Trump represents any religion." More idiotic strawmans "Only very stupid people think he does, using stupid people's definition of religion." More ad homs, not actually addressing what I actually said. I'm starting to think I could get more intellectual honesty from a flat earther. At least they probably won't go on weird tangents about idiotic libertarian arguments. You wouldn't know science if you fell in a pit of it. You wouldn't know who is a "scientist" if they could fly. There is a long chain of if-this-then-that's from 1.5°C to 12 years that you didn't show.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 23, 2020 23:53:51 GMT
"You haven't said anything worth addressing." Translation: "I'm a fucking coward, watch me do my best to try to avoid addressing arguments" "You believe without any numbers that doom is imminent in twelve years." I never said "doom", you're strawmanning me. And did you actually read the article, it gave numbers fuckwit: The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people" "You believe Trump represents any religion." More idiotic strawmans "Only very stupid people think he does, using stupid people's definition of religion." More ad homs, not actually addressing what I actually said. I'm starting to think I could get more intellectual honesty from a flat earther. At least they probably won't go on weird tangents about idiotic libertarian arguments. You wouldn't know science if you fell in a pit of it. You wouldn't know who is a "scientist" if they could fly. There is a long chain of if-this-then-that's from 1.5°C to 12 years that you didn't show. "You wouldn't know science if you fell in a pit of it. You wouldn't know who is a "scientist" if they could fly. " You mean science from actual scientists and not people with shitty right wing blogs nobody reads? "There is a long chain of if-this-then-that's from 1.5°C to 12 years that you didn't show." climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/#:~:text=At%201.5%20degrees%20Celsius%20warming%2C%20about%2014%20percent,will%20become%20widespread%20at%201.5%20degrees%20Celsius%20warming. www.ecowatch.com/1-5-degrees-celsius-2024-study-2647536374.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/why-15-degrees-danger-line-global-warmingIs this the part where you lie and pretend to be more qualified on science than NASA?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 23, 2020 23:53:52 GMT
I have no way to make any proper judgment about which side is more cautious, especially considering there are many people who trust science and are religious. I think the better question would be, who is more cautious, atheists or theists and that would still be biased speculation on my part. I know for a fact that every Trump supporter isn't religious and I have no agenda to "defeat" religion. I'm not seeing any problem with what you said here. In 2016 some people voted "for" Trump in the hope that he would promote their ideals. By 2020 they knew better. He didn't and won't. In 2020 they did not vote "for" Trump. Rather they did vote "against" the Democratic Party and what they believe are its ideals in opposition to theirs. There is a search for leadership all over. The Democrats were also not really voting "for" their own, rather they were voting "against" Trump. I agree with you here more than I don't.
|
|