'America’s New Religions'

[BULLDOG]

Big difference between trust and complete belief. You don't get that?

The difference is the degree of trust. Faith has a higher degree of belief than trust does. Faith, by definition is complete trust. Trust, by definition, is a firm belief.

You have placed complete trust in what you have been told by others. I know this by your actions. I presented factual evidence that you could have investigated on your own, but instead of doing that you dismissed it because you had complete trust in what you were told by others. If you had only had a firm belief in what you were told, you would have investigated it for yourself.

I'm not arrogant enough to think reading a couple of articles will give me the years of knowledge needed to credibly evaluate all the data, as you seem to be, and like you, I don't intend to invest the years needed to do that. Believe what you want, but you aren't qualified to comment on the reasons or strength of my beliefs. You aren't god.

But you haven't done anything at all. You even dismissed actual scientific evidence without investigating it at all. You take what others told you on faith.

I have spent a decade studying it.

Did you even read my previous posts? I am not qualified to critique results found by real scientists, and I don't care to invest the years required to be qualified to do so. Specialization has been a way of life for centuries. Would you argue with GM about the best torque for a 350 head gasket? No. You accept their credibility on that. Main stream climate scientists say man caused global climate change is real, and they have earned the credibility to be believed. Those that disagree with main stream climate scientists are the same people who claimed Jade Helm would use Walmart tunnels to put Texans in FEMA Prisons, the birth certificate was fake, chemtrails are a real thing, and a long list of other conspiracy theories. If you lay down with conspiracy theory dogs, you wake up with fleas and a lack of credibility.

Yes, I did read it. Are you arguing that you aren't qualified to investigate things for yourself so you shouldn't even try? How do you believe people become qualified for anything? They make an effort to learn and understand it. You are literally making an argument that everyone should accept knowledge blindly.

I am a big believer in accepting knowledge on authority of others. I am not a big believer in blindly accepting knowledge on authority of others.

I accept knowledge on the authorities of others when what they are saying makes sense. Which means I have an obligation to at least make an effort to understand and corroborate what they are telling me.

I have served as a professional witness in hearings. I can tell you that there was always a professional witness opposing my testimony. That's why the evidence has to be weighed.

I have done that. You have not. You take it on faith. I didn't.

You are still dismissing my evidence without investigation. Why? Because you take it on faith that what you have been told cannot be wrong.

Of course I realize my beliefs could be wrong. I just have much less reason to believe your beliefs might be right.

 

[ding]

The difference is the degree of trust. Faith has a higher degree of belief than trust does. Faith, by definition is complete trust. Trust, by definition, is a firm belief.

You have placed complete trust in what you have been told by others. I know this by your actions. I presented factual evidence that you could have investigated on your own, but instead of doing that you dismissed it because you had complete trust in what you were told by others. If you had only had a firm belief in what you were told, you would have investigated it for yourself.

I'm not arrogant enough to think reading a couple of articles will give me the years of knowledge needed to credibly evaluate all the data, as you seem to be, and like you, I don't intend to invest the years needed to do that. Believe what you want, but you aren't qualified to comment on the reasons or strength of my beliefs. You aren't god.

But you haven't done anything at all. You even dismissed actual scientific evidence without investigating it at all. You take what others told you on faith.

I have spent a decade studying it.

Did you even read my previous posts? I am not qualified to critique results found by real scientists, and I don't care to invest the years required to be qualified to do so. Specialization has been a way of life for centuries. Would you argue with GM about the best torque for a 350 head gasket? No. You accept their credibility on that. Main stream climate scientists say man caused global climate change is real, and they have earned the credibility to be believed. Those that disagree with main stream climate scientists are the same people who claimed Jade Helm would use Walmart tunnels to put Texans in FEMA Prisons, the birth certificate was fake, chemtrails are a real thing, and a long list of other conspiracy theories. If you lay down with conspiracy theory dogs, you wake up with fleas and a lack of credibility.

Yes, I did read it. Are you arguing that you aren't qualified to investigate things for yourself so you shouldn't even try? How do you believe people become qualified for anything? They make an effort to learn and understand it. You are literally making an argument that everyone should accept knowledge blindly.

I am a big believer in accepting knowledge on authority of others. I am not a big believer in blindly accepting knowledge on authority of others.

I accept knowledge on the authorities of others when what they are saying makes sense. Which means I have an obligation to at least make an effort to understand and corroborate what they are telling me.

I have served as a professional witness in hearings. I can tell you that there was always a professional witness opposing my testimony. That's why the evidence has to be weighed.

I have done that. You have not. You take it on faith. I didn't.

You are still dismissing my evidence without investigation. Why? Because you take it on faith that what you have been told cannot be wrong.

Of course I realize my beliefs could be wrong. I just have much less reason to believe your beliefs might be right.

My point wasn't about being right or wrong. My point is that you are taking it on faith. Faith that the people you believe aren't wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not arrogant enough to think reading a couple of articles will give me the years of knowledge needed to credibly evaluate all the data, as you seem to be, and like you, I don't intend to invest the years needed to do that. Believe what you want, but you aren't qualified to comment on the reasons or strength of my beliefs. You aren't god.

But you haven't done anything at all. You even dismissed actual scientific evidence without investigating it at all. You take what others told you on faith.

I have spent a decade studying it.

Did you even read my previous posts? I am not qualified to critique results found by real scientists, and I don't care to invest the years required to be qualified to do so. Specialization has been a way of life for centuries. Would you argue with GM about the best torque for a 350 head gasket? No. You accept their credibility on that. Main stream climate scientists say man caused global climate change is real, and they have earned the credibility to be believed. Those that disagree with main stream climate scientists are the same people who claimed Jade Helm would use Walmart tunnels to put Texans in FEMA Prisons, the birth certificate was fake, chemtrails are a real thing, and a long list of other conspiracy theories. If you lay down with conspiracy theory dogs, you wake up with fleas and a lack of credibility.

Yes, I did read it. Are you arguing that you aren't qualified to investigate things for yourself so you shouldn't even try? How do you believe people become qualified for anything? They make an effort to learn and understand it. You are literally making an argument that everyone should accept knowledge blindly.

I am a big believer in accepting knowledge on authority of others. I am not a big believer in blindly accepting knowledge on authority of others.

I accept knowledge on the authorities of others when what they are saying makes sense. Which means I have an obligation to at least make an effort to understand and corroborate what they are telling me.

I have served as a professional witness in hearings. I can tell you that there was always a professional witness opposing my testimony. That's why the evidence has to be weighed.

I have done that. You have not. You take it on faith. I didn't.

You are still dismissing my evidence without investigation. Why? Because you take it on faith that what you have been told cannot be wrong.

Of course I realize my beliefs could be wrong. I just have much less reason to believe your beliefs might be right.

My point wasn't about being right or wrong. My point is that you are taking it on faith. Faith that the people you believe aren't wrong.

I never once said my beliefs couldn't be wrong. I just don't have any reason to believe your beliefs are right.

 

[ding]

But you haven't done anything at all. You even dismissed actual scientific evidence without investigating it at all. You take what others told you on faith.

I have spent a decade studying it.

Did you even read my previous posts? I am not qualified to critique results found by real scientists, and I don't care to invest the years required to be qualified to do so. Specialization has been a way of life for centuries. Would you argue with GM about the best torque for a 350 head gasket? No. You accept their credibility on that. Main stream climate scientists say man caused global climate change is real, and they have earned the credibility to be believed. Those that disagree with main stream climate scientists are the same people who claimed Jade Helm would use Walmart tunnels to put Texans in FEMA Prisons, the birth certificate was fake, chemtrails are a real thing, and a long list of other conspiracy theories. If you lay down with conspiracy theory dogs, you wake up with fleas and a lack of credibility.

Yes, I did read it. Are you arguing that you aren't qualified to investigate things for yourself so you shouldn't even try? How do you believe people become qualified for anything? They make an effort to learn and understand it. You are literally making an argument that everyone should accept knowledge blindly.

I am a big believer in accepting knowledge on authority of others. I am not a big believer in blindly accepting knowledge on authority of others.

I accept knowledge on the authorities of others when what they are saying makes sense. Which means I have an obligation to at least make an effort to understand and corroborate what they are telling me.

I have served as a professional witness in hearings. I can tell you that there was always a professional witness opposing my testimony. That's why the evidence has to be weighed.

I have done that. You have not. You take it on faith. I didn't.

You are still dismissing my evidence without investigation. Why? Because you take it on faith that what you have been told cannot be wrong.

Of course I realize my beliefs could be wrong. I just have much less reason to believe your beliefs might be right.

My point wasn't about being right or wrong. My point is that you are taking it on faith. Faith that the people you believe aren't wrong.

I never once said my beliefs couldn't be wrong. I just don't have any reason to believe your beliefs are right.

What beliefs?

The glacial interglacial cycles of the past 400,000 years?

The transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world?

The polar regions being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm which led to the transition from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world?

Proxies for CO2 and temperature which show that CO2 lags temperature change by 800 years through out the geologic record?

CO2 sequestration by the ocean when temperatures fall and CO2 releases by the ocean when temperatures rise which explains why CO2 lags temperature by 800 years?

That we are currently in an interglacial cycle and our present temperatures are below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles?

That the earth has been warming for the past 22,000 years?

Feel free to use google and verify them at your leisure.