Well okay then!

Somehow I got the impression from some of your vehement comments that you wanted folks to stop believing.

Certainly we both wish theists to stay out of the laws and the science classrooms. But that is different than wanting them to stop believing.

So after all this -- looks like we agree on all points.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

I am making this public. Mea culpa.




In reply to this comment by budzos:
No.

First: I don't care what people think or believe so long as it doesn't affect me negatively.

Second: If they sincerely think it's true, more power to them. Sometimes I wish there was a god. I just don't believe there is. You can't choose what you believe.

Third: Belief in god, true or not, has many usefeul benefits to individuals and society. I feel that most people who should believe in god do believe in god. I feel religious belief is a product of evolution, and has probably served its purpose in giving rise to stable civilization.

>> ^bareboards2:

Step One down.
Next question -- do you wish that theists would stop believing in God?

In reply to this comment by budzos:
We can agree that I am neither fish, nor theist.

>> ^coolhund:
This topic is just too much about politics and money to be taken seriously at the current state, but its already too late. Once again the poor would suffer from our self-righteousness the most and thats why most of the poor countries oppose our "solutions". Also nothing learned from history.


You're partially right in that climate change is about politics and money, but just not in the way you think.

Let's look at the two sides:

On one hand you have the majority of the worlds climate scientists. Now I don't know if you've ever met a climate scientist, but I can assure you they are not living on private islands and driving Ferraris. There really isn't any kind of profit motive for them to say that climate change is real. Other than the "grant money" which the right keeps harping on about. Are you kidding? In real terms, it's fuck all, and certainly nothing compared to what they could be getting if they were to shill for the anti-agw crowd.

Now on the other, you have the oil industry, various large manufacturers and so on. There is an enormous profit motive for them to deny climate change, but they know they can't fight the science, so they manufacture doubt. Hell they even set up a team to analyse all the data and it still came back in favour of climate change.

No-one wants AGW to be real. It is a massive pain in the ass for the entire world. Unfortunately, it is real, it sucks and now we have to deal with it.

It was a sincere question. The serious answer is that the theory of gravity is not simple and is not easy to prove.

Yet you accept it without question.

Likewise, maybe climate science, which is also not simple and not easy to prove, may have more to offer than you think. There is alot more known about clouds, to use your example, than you seem to appreciate. >> ^coolhund:

>> ^longde:
General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.

Trying to be a smartass now, huh? That only helps my cause.
You know exactly what I meant.
Well, I see, ignorance as usual.

>> ^longde:

General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.


Trying to be a smartass now, huh? That only helps my cause.
You know exactly what I meant.
Well, I see, ignorance as usual. Im just waiting for you to get out the drawers.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^criticalthud:
what really bugs me is his stance on global warming. i think the facts are in.
and religion is clear - the planet is our domain, and we can do with it what we wish. enormously stupid.
if he can reconcile this, i think there are many progressives that would leave the obama camp, especially after the National Defense Authorization Act.

Thats what makes him even more objective for me. Because the facts are not in. It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.

yes a theory of course. theories are based on probability, and probability clearly says we are warming the planet by burning millions of years worth of jurassic carbon deposits in a little more than a couple hundred years. how's that for objective?
(edit)
in other words, far more probable than not.
it doesn't matter what you believe. it's not about belief, it's about probability.


3.22% more than there would normally be there from something that anyway only has a percentage of 0.039%.
Yeah, very probable.
Read about Svensmark theory and how it was already proven to an extend at CERN, and is still being investigated more because it is highly probable. A few years ago people like you shrugged that theory off with ignorance too, yet you still havent learned.
This topic is just too much about politics and money to be taken seriously at the current state, but its already too late. Once again the poor would suffer from our self-righteousness the most and thats why most of the poor countries oppose our "solutions". Also nothing learned from history.

General Relativity is simple?
>> ^coolhund:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Gravity is a theory too, STFU.
kthanksbai.
>> ^coolhund:
It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.



Yeah, a theory thats easily proven because its very simple. This one isnt, not even single climatologists know everything about the climate. Even if they could, they still wouldnt because, for example, we dont even know exactly how a huge factor of climate, clouds, form.

I wont say STFU, because things like that are there to debate about until they are straightened out. You can go hump Al Gores leg though, who said something like STFU to all the critics ("The debate is over"), proving he doesnt even know the slightest about democracy and freedom.

Oh and its spelled "kkthxbai"

kkthxbai.

Gravity is a theory too, STFU.

kthanksbai.

>> ^coolhund:

It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^criticalthud:
what really bugs me is his stance on global warming. i think the facts are in.
and religion is clear - the planet is our domain, and we can do with it what we wish. enormously stupid.
if he can reconcile this, i think there are many progressives that would leave the obama camp, especially after the National Defense Authorization Act.

Thats what makes him even more objective for me. Because the facts are not in. It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


Actually that's bullshit. It does not make him objective. RP is not a climate scientist, so by definition he is not an expert on this. Now does he adhere to established scientific consensus? No, because it against his own subjective ideology, he ignores it.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^criticalthud:
what really bugs me is his stance on global warming. i think the facts are in.
and religion is clear - the planet is our domain, and we can do with it what we wish. enormously stupid.
if he can reconcile this, i think there are many progressives that would leave the obama camp, especially after the National Defense Authorization Act.

Thats what makes him even more objective for me. Because the facts are not in. It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.


yes a theory of course. theories are based on probability, and probability clearly says we are warming the planet by burning millions of years worth of jurassic carbon deposits in a little more than a couple hundred years. how's that for objective?

(edit)
in other words, far more probable than not.
it doesn't matter what you believe. it's not about belief, it's about probability.

>> ^criticalthud:

what really bugs me is his stance on global warming. i think the facts are in.
and religion is clear - the planet is our domain, and we can do with it what we wish. enormously stupid.
if he can reconcile this, i think there are many progressives that would leave the obama camp, especially after the National Defense Authorization Act.


Thats what makes him even more objective for me. Because the facts are not in. It is NOWHERE near being a fact. Its a fucking theory and one that is very wobbly at that if you actually open your eyes objectively.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^:

I think the most important question of the next election will be who do YOU want at the controls when the Space Nazis From the Dark Side of the Moon attack!?!?!!???!!


for sure michelle bachman, dressed as a nun

>> ^criticalthud:

what really bugs me is his stance on global warming. i think the facts are in.
and religion is clear - the planet is our domain, and we can do with it what we wish. enormously stupid.
if he can reconcile this, i think there are many progressives that would leave the obama camp, especially after the National Defense Authorization Act.


I think the most important question of the next election will be who do YOU want at the controls when the Space Nazis From the Dark Side of the Moon attack!?!?!!???!!

Ah. I see.

I'm not telling religious folks that their religion is wrong. They can do what they want within their homes and their churches.

But when their personal religious beliefs are foisted onto the general public, THAT I have a problem with. Stay out of the law of the land. Do what you want within your church walls. (Well, no human sacrifice, but you know what I mean. And it can prove difficult -- where do you draw the line at being outraged? The Mormon Church has abhorrent views towards homosexuality, as far as I am concerned. Do I have the right to legislate them out of existence? I say there are other ways.)

I also have a concern people, especially children, who don't share the divine gene and are stuck in a household where they are surrounded by dogma and crazy beliefs. If they secretly think that the religion thing is bunk, it has to be crazy-making for them. Lies are being told to them and they can't say anything. They aren't even sure they are lies, they just think something is wrong and they are isolated in the silence around the topic. And that is where the billboards put up by atheists come in. In a public place, these trapped people can get the message that they are not alone. That there is a different way to think. Gay Mormons are a great example -- they are getting plenty of information lately that the Mormon Church is totally wrong in its stance towards homosexuals.

Does that make sense? Or is it still logically inconsistent to you?

Maybe the real issue is that I understand that the world isn't perfect and never will be perfect. We can only strive towards a better world. I can live with stupid things happening in the world because I understand that there is nothing I can do about it. Except to the extent that I CAN figure out something, however small. Like billboards. Like making it clear to religious folks the difference between their beliefs and their right to foist those beliefs on others.

It's slow and painful and I know that there will always be enclaves of uber-conservatives who will never ever change. I can live with that. I have no choice in the matter.

there's a big difference between believing in some religious myth, and quite another to reject reality and scientific FACTS because you are part of a certain religious belief system.

edit: what I mean is, it's fine to be religious and teach science, it wouldn't be fine on the other hand, if you taught science, and wedged in your ignorance in the middle of your teaching, by saying evolution doesn't exit, and creationism is somehow a valid point.

This point doesn't really have anything to do with the newsletter ordeal. I just think the man is an idiot.