A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist

[airkooledchris]

It's junk science BP. The supposed believers don't want to admit it.

it's junk faith turk, and the supposed believers don't want to admit it?

What about the Creation vs. Evolution? Certainly science and religion has conflicts there. I think that I do agree with you though, for instance what happened before the beginning of time and the Big Bang? Do we know? If not, how can we have anything but faith?

I think you can have something other than faith when you don't know an answer to a question...

Wonder
Interest
curiosity
intrigue

[turk]

It's junk science BP. The supposed believers don't want to admit it.

it's junk faith turk, and the supposed believers don't want to admit it?


If that's a question, I guess the answer would be yes, it's faith. Claims of science behind it are junk if you wanna say the climate change is man-made. Billions of years of climate change and a hundred years of man just starting to observe it. My faith is Mother Nature throws us a curve ball. Call it junk faith.

[BellePlaine]

What about the Creation vs. Evolution? Certainly science and religion has conflicts there. I think that I do agree with you though, for instance what happened before the beginning of time and the Big Bang? Do we know? If not, how can we have anything but faith?

I think you can have something other than faith when you don't know an answer to a question...

Wonder
Interest
curiosity
intrigue

True. I guess faith is what you have when you have anwser to an unanswerable question (at this moment in time).

[ruckman101]

"May the Baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind."
— Captain Beefheart.


neal

[glasseye]

I guess faith is what you have when you have anwser to an unanswerable question (at this moment in time).

As far as I can see, "faith" in the religious sense (which is what we're discussing here) means "unquestioning belief" It's the "unquestioning" part that I have trouble with.

Questioning is what human beings are all about.
Questioning is just a hair's breadth away from curiosity.

[MeyerII]

Oh my gosh, this is deja vu. Just replace the word "God" with "anthropogenic global warming".

But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

Faith in "God" is to "Faith" in scientific method as apples are to oranges. The fact that you actually try to make that comparison (above) tells me that you may not have a very good understanding of empirical logic.


 

[turk]

Oh my gosh, this is deja vu. Just replace the word "God" with "anthropogenic global warming".

But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.”

Faith in "God" is to "Faith" in scientific method as apples are to oranges. The fact that you actually try to make that comparison (above) tells me that you may not have a very good understanding of empirical logic.


 

You just contradicted your own comparison with the term "empirical logic". Two different things in one term, just as in Faith in "God" as to "Faith" in scientific method. Empiricism and logic are apple and oranges. Forget it though. You wouldn't understand.
Addendum:
A simple assessment of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory shows it doesn't follow the scientific method, which is why academicians had to invent "Post-Normal Science". Look it up if you have a curious mind. BP didn't compare the scientific method to Faith in God. He compared Antropogenic Global Warming to it. DOH!

[Velokid1]

Finally! A global warming thread.

[ruckman101]

Empirical evidence is useless when it's ignored.


neal

[turk]

We've seen what you consider empirical evidence. We've seen what Amskeptic considers empirical evidence. I've shown all of it, in each and every case, to be circumstantial at best, with other possible causes. Such as the heat wave in Russia being a high pressure block, quite normal in that region- the peat fires being exacerbated by draining the peat bogs over the past 100 years; and the flooding in Pakistan, a regular event going back 3,000 years documented by artifacts of the Ancient Harrapan Civilization in the Indus River Valley. Bring it on. I will likely shoot down all of the "empirical evidence" you provide, because experience has shown it to be gleaned from the pages of "grey literature", like the IPCC has its bad habit of doing.

[twinfalls]

God, who you are in thy skies, just stay there.

[airkooledchris]

Finally! A global warming thread.

an equally pointless topic apparently.

[BellePlaine]

Finally! A global warming thread.

I'm not trying to start contentious fight, but I do find it interesting not what we believe but why we believe it. I think that it's not redundant to compare global warming a belief in God. Chris, I'm sorry if I've taken your thread in a direction that you do not want to go, but I think that the comparison is relevant as they both based on faith or a lack thereof.

Let's talk about death. We don't know what happens after life so we have faith to help us feel better. I don't know why I'm afraid of death, I can't control it. If folks of faith are comfortable about the concept of death because they believe they deserve some Heavenly Reward and atheists are comfortable about the concept of death because death just is, then what the fuck? Which perspective seems more plausible to you: the easy way/feel good angels strumming harps on floating clouds or maggots? The article talks about liberating honesty and that's what worries me, getting comfortable with the maggots.

[ruckman101]

Death is merely the end of linear time. All time is now. I've also heard death is but a myth, we die because we've been brainwashed into believing that's the only option.

My sense of climate change is based on my faith in the world's scientists and their conclusions based on observable evidence. I don't consider it "faith" in the same way faith is used in regards to religions.


neal

[turk]

Unfortunately perhaps, we don't have a bunch of earths to test and observe what the effects of variable CO2 levels actually does to climate. We only have the paleo-data, which is inconclusive, other than showing a 600-1,000 year lag in temp rise correlated to CO2 level. The temp then decreases even after the CO2 still rises, SO, there are other factors involved apparently. Similarly, with death, we don't have conclusive evidence of what happens, only reports of the white light and tunnel and so forth. So, both have to be labeled inconclusive. That's science.
I don't wanna piss anyone off who believes in AGW. I want to make clear the difference between unproven theories and testable hypotheses. There seems to be a disconnect. Some things have to be taken on faith. I guess that's why Post-Normal Science was invented. I don't attribute AGW theory to science, being what can be observed, tested, and proven. Since it cannot, I look at what can be proven, take the rest as faith and understand it how it works on that term.