hate...

That's a what you call it?
oxymoron. I don't use big words like that.
But anyways, I started watching a tv special on CNN : "Unwelcome: the Muslims Next Door".
I got to go to sleep. But in conclusion, maybe that's why I'm not religious at all.
Most unbelievers I know don't hate. But maybe most believers don't hate either.
Maybe it's the people you want to know and deal with. Whatever

now an entertainment musical moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS0mQ25ezq4&feature=related

and about the "Sky is not falling" message earlier. The sky has been falling forever... We've been in an ever falling spiral...
and hopefully it will fall once and for all, because...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bZzM4s0Hgs&feature=related

actually

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8STvXRggyaw

Wasn't that funny.

Peace

The thought of an omnipotent being such as "God" having to remind us of anything is ludicrous to say the least, but it makes for a good bumper sticker.

or, at least some of those reading his post may do so.

The difference between the belief in global warming and the belief in a deity, is that there is some evidence that global warming exists.

Atheists have been around for a long time. They've been rather tolerant for a long time too, that is until Christian fundies starting waging a war to shove their delusions down the throats of every American.

I was thinking ... what is one of the identifying aspects of religion? Well, one that came to mind is that you can blame practically ANYTHING on it.

The innocent kid next door dies, and it was God's will. A drought comes, and it is God testing us. A flood comes, and it is because we were sinful, etc. Practically nothing is beyond the province of religious explanation; and almost always it is tied to our own insufficiencies.

It struck me the other day that global warming is a lot like God.

If it rains too much, it can be blamed on global warming. If we have a drought, it can be blamed on global warming. If it is too hot, too cold, there is a mosquito problem or a plague -- it can all be blamed on global warming. AND, to boot, we are all taught that Global Warming is a result of our sinful nature -- our resource consumption, etc.

Just as Newton's belief in God was riddled throughout his writing as a scientist and completely unquestioned; the belief in Global Warming is accepted as a given. Just as Newton questioning God would have made him a pariah; anyone today questioning Global Warming is seen as a kook.

Global Warming is a religion -- another angry God that needs to be propitiated with sacrifice. And like all other religions, just another means of exercising social control.

And when the idol of Global Warming is cast down; those who used it for social control will have replaced it with another.

And meanwhile, far too many atheists are more intolerant than the people against whom they rail; calling those who don't believe as they do ignorant, stupid, haters and worse. Yet, they fail to see that they are manifesting all of those same characteristics in the name of their no-god religion.

Why do atheists get a hair across their ass and try to intimidate people of other religions into curtailing their own expression? They are just as bad as the people who want to keep gays out of the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Atheists overall seem a rather intolerant bunch and are guilty of all the same crap they project onto other religions.

Interesting how scientific beliefs are turned into religious doctrine by the religious.  The Theory of Evolution, Evidence of Global Warming and the like are now religions....interesting and failed argument by the the ignorant and the conservative right.  Religion has no basis in scientific fact. You cannot objectively test, scientifically, if there is a higher being because the belief is intrinsically faith based.  People that believe in (God, Allah, or whatever deity of choice) or believe that the Bible is the literal word of God do so because of their faith.  They choose not to reconcile the fact that the the world could not have been possibly formed in 6 days, or that the bible consists of several gospels written by man over several generations....not to mention the fact that the gospels have been manipulated by the Church, not to mention King James.  How can an objective and rational person believe that the words contained within the bible are the literal word of God.  The same argument can be applied to the Koran.

Evolution and things like Global warming are based upon observable and measurable scientific evidence. Are the existence of either proven to the point of law...no, but overwhelming evidence indicates that evolution and global warming do exist.  These issues in particular have been so politicized by those on the far right that somehow belief in science and scientific doctrine is considered a religion....What fallacy.

Agreed.  I just thought my version was rich in irony.

The atheist stands for nothing. And they can back it up with proven scientific fact. Once that is disproven, they move on to the next "fact."

Atheism is one half religion and one half politics. Kind like science itself these days.

The question is what's causing it, human activity or a natural variation that self-corrects.  I'll vote for the former, but recognize the jury is out.

... I am very conscious of the multiple failures of science throughout history due to its adherence to beliefs and its twisting of facts to meet theories.

Ulcers were cured in the 1950's with antibiotics; yet the dogmatic medical profession continued to essentially let people die and do all sorts of invasive surgeries until the 1990's. For four decades people suffered unnecessarily.

How do you feel about the radiation experiments done by scientists on subjects who were unaware they were being used as guinea pigs? How about their use of LSD on unwitting victims as part of mind control experiments?

As a scientist, I am here to tell you that the announcements of scientists should not be treated as if they were the infallible and inspired word of a deity.

When it comes to Global Warming, because many scientists DO dissent from the prevailing view, it is interesting to note that those favoring the human-caused global warming hypothesis fall back on a very strange notion -- the notion that consensus makes fact. Well, scientific consensus has said LOTS of things that weren't true.

I am not religious, and I am not "right" -- I am independently minded and make decisions on issues based on factors other than party.

What I am telling you is just as politics made use of religious leaders as mouthpieces, they also make use of scientists as mouthpieces. In the modern era you can essentially buy a scientist or a doctor who will put forward any point of view you'd like. Because of the admixture of politics with science that has resulted from public funding of science; science can no longer be trusted; so think for yourself and question everything.

Yes, I believe in evolution. No, I do not believe in man-caused-Global-Warming.

So, does my failure to believe in something that you believe make me a cretin?  I find it interesting that you assumed that I am a far right religious type.

In some areas I am right -- in some left. I find those designations useless as they only serve to create false limitations to choice.

For example, Newton interpreted the regularity of the laws of gravitation he was able to derive as proof of the existence of a deity.

Any factoid can likewise be twisted to fit the human-caused global warming hypothesis.

My own hypothesis is that most heat that reaches earth comes from the Sun. LOL

The biggest real difference is those that believe in a religion admit to being "believers."  

-- Modified on 3/28/2011 3:20:42 PM

First of all I'm going to refer to the global warming thing as climate change.  
The reason for this is that even though the overall temp of the planet my be going up, the effects of that are going to vary by region depending on weather patterns in different areas.  
For example, adding too much fresh water to the Atlantic could change the currents in the ocean, there by lowering the temp in North America, making it's weather closer to Siberia, while the over all temp of the planet would be higher.

Now the main issue that is brought up by Climate Change is energy policy.
Should we keep using fossil fuels or look to more renewable resources, solar, wind, hydro electric ect; that need more development and research.

If you believe in climate change, regardless of the cause, the later choice seems to make more sense to me.
The reason is that in the event of climate change there is one thing that we can be certain of, major problems with our agricultural system.
If the temp goes up or down, we have drought or massive flooding doesn't matter.
The final result will be the same, we will not be able to produce the same amount of food we do now; while our population is growing.

There is no way that we can expand our use of fossil fuels without damaging agricultural resources, whether its deep sea drilling screwing up our fishing industry or fractal drilling for natural gas destroying northern farm lands.  There is no amount of preparation that's going to allow us to access these resources without damaging the enviorment that we need to produce food.
Coal is a possibility with proper filtering, but the infrastructure needed to move the amounts that we need would be immense

One key factor that has not been mentioned in the middle east explosion recently, the cost of food has skyrocketed over the last few months in the region due to the loss of the Russian crops lats summer.  
Nothing will topple a society faster then people losing the ability to feed their families.  We are not immune to this.

Now if you don't believe in climate change, guess what...  the same thing applies.
The growing population of the planet is getting us to the point that we (the human race) will not be able to produce enough food for our population.  Famine will not be caused by local land management issues, the fact is we won't be able to grow enough to feed everyone.  This will cause global instability, the price of fuel (actually all products) will skyrocket as countries that can produce will raise prices to buy more food for their populations.  
We'll be seeing this soon from exports from China.... soon as within the next year.

We have to find a way to produce the energy we need, while at the same time increasing our agricultural output over the long term.
We cannot due this with our current methods of farming fossil fuels.

I forget where I read it, but someone once said, "Physics has the last word." You can pretend to ignore it if you wish but you do so at your peril. If you're right, great for you and everyone else, but if you're wrong, it sucks to be you and your future. I'm old enough that I may see the beginning of the end but I don't really care. I won't be around long enough to matter.

What's your field?