Where do religious folk who are climate deniers reconcile this?

[daveman]

So you insist other people believe them...because you take their pronouncements on faith.

Apples and oranges.

Not really. Your priests say things you don't really understand. You insist everyone else must believe them, and must change their way of life to fit your dogma.

It's an absolutely direct correlation.

 

[daveman]

Indeed. However, I have met quite a number of atheists who are respectful of others' faith, and who ask questions out of genuine curiosity. I was one of them, when I didn't believe.

However, those are in short supply, especially in this thread.

I agree again. In my personal experience there are a lot more a-hole atheists than the other sort but I admit that may be due to meeting most of them online, which as you know, magnifies the a-hole factor almost as a rule.

I had a friend in the Navy who was an atheist and we had many, way too many, respectful conversations about our positions.

Religion and politics...rarely does anyone change their basic views on the matter I congratulate you on changing your your views. It's the sign of an open mind.

Thank you.

 

[daveman]

You understand nothing of the nature of faith.

I totally understand faith. Just don't tell me your faith is fact.

If you ask people to provide proof of the things they have faith in, no, you don't understand faith at all.

I have no problem with faith at all. I have an issue with those passing off faith as fact. Two different things....look up in your local Websters. Nowhere in any thesaurus or dictionary do I see the word faith as a synonym for fact or vice versa. Words have meanings.

I'm well acquainted with the meanings. I wonder if you are. You keep demanding proof of God.

Faith precludes proof. Proof of God would render faith meaningless, and utterly negate Man's free will.

Let's have a thought experiment. In this experiment, God created the universe 10 minutes ago, in its current state as of 10 minutes ago, with all the "evidence" it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this?

 

[daveman]

It was created by God. I don't know how, or how long it took Him, or in what manner He chose to arrange for the transition from non-existence to existence.

I'll ask Him when I see Him.

Fair enough

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And yet that was quoted in 1930, 25 years before he died. People change it seems.

Wow! That was lame.

If there was a later Einstein statement (Hey everybody. You know what I said about God and Spinoza and all? Well....guess what? I changed my mind!) it would be a massive atheist's talking point I would have had shoved in my face over and over again endlessly.

Look, Einstein, Newton, Kaku, Erwin Schrodinger, etc. There are lots of very bright scientists who somehow don't find the idea of God absurd. Just accept it.

And his definition is god is a lot different from the majority of Christians or other religious folk on these boards.

So is mine. I firmly believe in God anyway but don't pretend to know anything about him.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not really. Your priests say things you don't really understand. You insist everyone else must believe them, and must change their way of life to fit your dogma.

It's an absolutely direct correlation.

There is actual evidence of evolution, climate change (whether you believe it manmade or not). There is tangible proof of things. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of a god. None. Just faith. Again, that is fine. I have nothing against that. As long as it is not legislated into law or harms others, you can believe whatever you want.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm well acquainted with the meanings. I wonder if you are. You keep demanding proof of God.

Faith precludes proof. Proof of God would render faith meaningless, and utterly negate Man's free will.

Let's have a thought experiment. In this experiment, God created the universe 10 minutes ago, in its current state as of 10 minutes ago, with all the "evidence" it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this?

It's not up to me to prove or disprove if it is your contention. Science is being proven all the time, whether it be Isaac Newton and gravity, or the aerodynamics of an aeroplane.

Again, you can believe whatever you want to believe. I've always seen the "you have to have faith, you don't need proof of a god" as a cop out. What does man's free will matter anyway? There is no free will under god. There are strings attached.

 

[Dr Grump]

[.

If there was a later Einstein statement (Hey everybody. You know what I said about God and Spinoza and all? Well....guess what? I changed my mind!) it would be a massive atheist's talking point I would have had shoved in my face over and over again endlessly.

Look, Einstein, Newton, Kaku, Erwin Schrodinger, etc. There are lots of very bright scientists who somehow don't find the idea of God absurd. Just accept it.
]So is mine. I firmly believe in God anyway but don't pretend to know anything about him.

Um, if you read his later thoughts on the matter (which I even bolded for you), he seems to have rethought his idea(s). Whether they were that far from his original thoughts, I don't know.
Oh, I agree that they don't find the idea of a god absurd. Doesn't mean I don't though.

 

[daveman]

Not really. Your priests say things you don't really understand. You insist everyone else must believe them, and must change their way of life to fit your dogma.

It's an absolutely direct correlation.

There is actual evidence of evolution, climate change (whether you believe it manmade or not). There is tangible proof of things. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of a god. None. Just faith. Again, that is fine. I have nothing against that as long as it is not legislated into law or harm others, you can believe whatever you want.

AOC's Green New Deal would certainly harm people.

 

[daveman]

I'm well acquainted with the meanings. I wonder if you are. You keep demanding proof of God.

Faith precludes proof. Proof of God would render faith meaningless, and utterly negate Man's free will.

Let's have a thought experiment. In this experiment, God created the universe 10 minutes ago, in its current state as of 10 minutes ago, with all the "evidence" it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this?

It's not up to me to prove or disprove if it is your contention. Science is being proven all the time, whether it be Isaac Newton and gravity, or the aerodynamics of an aeroplane.

Again, you can believe whatever you want to believe. I've always seen the "you have to have faith, you don't need proof of a god" as a cop out. What does man's free will matter anyway? There is no free will under god. There are strings attached.

I'm not making that contention; it's a thought experiment. You need to think.

Looks like you're not interested, though. Too heavily emotionally invested in your atheism, looks like.

You claim to understand faith, but you keep proving you know nothing about it.

Of course there is free will under God. You choose to believe in Him, or you don't. He's made very clear the consequences of either choice. It's completely up to you.

If a mugger holds a knife to your throat and demands you wallet, do you feel generous for giving it to him? No. You had no choice Free will was removed from the equation.

If you drop a handful of cash in a busker's guitar case on the street, do you feel generous for giving it to her? You should. You exercised free will to be charitable; you gave something you had to someone who didn't. You didn't have to, and unless she gives you an IRS form, you won't get any tangible benefit from the gift.

Get it?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Um, if you read his later thoughts on the matter (which I even bolded for you), he seems to have rethought his idea(s). Whether they were that far from his original thoughts, I don't know.
Oh, I agree that they don't find the idea of a god absurd. Doesn't mean I don't though.

You should take another swing at the T-ball. You have yet to mention anything about Albert Einstein's religious views
that I haven't already mentioned myself.
He doesn't believe in a personal God (check). He doesn't believe in standard Christian dogma (check).
He doesn't believe in religious denominations (check)

I haven't seen anywhere Einstein modified his religious views.

 

[IM2]

Many of us don't. Only a few doubt.

But many of us believe the issue of global warming has been politicized and greatly exaggerated in order to
extract control over people and governments and achieve a massive redistribution of wealth between the developed and un- developed third world.

I don't agree with that assessment. Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I don't notice a thing here.

Before?

Before what?

After?

Climate change?

Pollution?

Other factors?

 

[satrebil]

Let's play a game, Grump.

What is this?

View attachment 283354

No idea. Please enlighten me Oh Wise One...

Just take a guess.

 

[22lcidw]

Many of us don't. Only a few doubt.

But many of us believe the issue of global warming has been politicized and greatly exaggerated in order to
extract control over people and governments and achieve a massive redistribution of wealth between the developed and un- developed third world.

I don't agree with that assessment. Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.

Then by that logic as we are blended into world government and Prog socialism it will be necessary for the people to be equal with each other two ways economically. To take from the privileged employment domestically to give to others and that includes those who are the poorest of the poor in our nation. And to take the wealth of the United States and give to the poorer nations of the world to up their living standards. Now get that by the fiefdoms first. Law Enforcement/corrections/judicial fiefdom is just one who needs to have their salaries, benefits, pensions lowered and entertainment/media/ political fiefdom as another who needs to have their wealth taken and redistributed. There are other fiefdoms but all Americans need a lower standard of living. You must attack those fiefdoms and others outside your realm and that includes your own background. That is what war is!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't agree with that assessment. Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.

An overly simplistic view not supported by history and facts. Look at India. Are they worse off due to colonialism.
Or better off?

 

[IM2]

I don't agree with that assessment. Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.

An overly simplistic view not supported by history and facts. Look at India. Are they worse off due to colonialism.
Or better off?

No. It's the correct conclusion based on 30 plus years of study. Yes, India is worse off due to colonization. India was a wealthy nation before the Raj and they have had to rebuild themselves as a result of that occupation.

 

[IM2]

Many of us don't. Only a few doubt.

But many of us believe the issue of global warming has been politicized and greatly exaggerated in order to
extract control over people and governments and achieve a massive redistribution of wealth between the developed and un- developed third world.

I don't agree with that assessment. Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.

Then by that logic as we are blended into world government and Prog socialism it will be necessary for the people to be equal with each other two ways economically. To take from the privileged employment domestically to give to others and that includes those who are the poorest of the poor in our nation. And to take the wealth of the United States and give to the poorer nations of the world to up their living standards. Now get that by the fiefdoms first. Law Enforcement/corrections/judicial fiefdom is just one who needs to have their salaries, benefits, pensions lowered and entertainment/media/ political fiefdom as another who needs to have their wealth taken and redistributed. There are other fiefdoms but all Americans need a lower standard of living. You must attack those fiefdoms and others outside your realm and that includes your own background. That is what war is!

You are ignorant to how US wealth has been made.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No. It's the correct conclusion based on 30 plus years of study. Yes, India is worse off due to colonization. India was a wealthy nation before the Raj and they have had to rebuild themselves as a result of that occupation.

Got any supporting documentation?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You are ignorant to how US wealth has been made.

It's been made in many ways. You think because you allege something it becomes fact?