Are you an atheist? (4 Viewers)

[Rabbie]

Was no atlantic at that time, all continents were together. Europe was inhabited by H. Sapians about 43,000 years ago.


Have a nice day :>)


Bladerunner

A quick google search suggests the North Atlantic is about 200 to 180 Million years old. The South Atlantic is a bit younger. So there was a considerable sized Atlantic Ocean 43,000 years ago
.

 

[Dick7Access]

A quick google search suggests the North Atlantic is about 200 to 180 Million years old. The South Atlantic is a bit younger. So there was a considerable sized Atlantic Ocean 43,000 years ago
.

Very interesting, as some claim the earth is millions of years old. My side the Bible Bangers claim it's only 8 to 10 thousand years old. I am not convinced of either side. That being said, however, if the continents where one, than it probable would take million of years to separate. The reason I mention this, is that some times we believe something because that is what we have always heard. I have always accepted without question that the American Indians probable came over on the ice bridge. I guess a possibility is they floated over.

 

[Bladerunner]

A quick google search suggests the North Atlantic is about 200 to 180 Million years old. The South Atlantic is a bit younger. So there was a considerable sized Atlantic Ocean 43,000 years ago
.

Yes, your right. The continents were together as recent as some 200 millions years ago.

 

[Galaxiom]

Was no atlantic at that time, all continents were together. Europe was inhabited by H. Sapians about 43,000 years ago.

Exactly. How else would Lucy's descendants have walked from Africa to North America.

A remarkable lack of scientific general knowledge. It fails even the most basic sense of credibility. If the Atlantic had opened up in 40K years the shores would be moving apart at over a metre per day and be accompanied by continuous earthquakes.

Yet AccessBlaster eschews the theory of Climate Change, presuming that he knows better than scientists who work fulltime on it.

No real surprise from BladeRunner though. His devotion to Biblical mythology already demonstrates a complete lack of any scientific sensibility.

 

[nanscombe]

How and When Did People First Come to North America?

Geography during the last Ice Age limited possible migration routes available to the first humans to colonize the Americas. The preponderance of linguistic and biological evidence indicates that Native Americans most likely originated somewhere in northeastern Asia. Two possible routes have been identified for the first humans to enter the Americas from Northeast Asia: by watercraft along the Northwest Coast, or by a pedestrian terrestrial route across the Bering Land Bridge and then south through central-western Canada. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the mostplausible route for the initial colonization of the Americas may have been along the Northwest Coast, beginning possibly as early as 14,000 radiocarbon years ago (16,300 calendar years BP).
...

 

[youyiyang]

@youyiyang
I like your intervention here. Thank you for that.
And I like more peoples like you to share with us things from their culture.

We know, more or less, about the religion in our area (based on God and His sun, Jesus) but about nothing about Buddha or Kuran.

Thank you again and I am waiting for more from you.

hi, Mihail,
Thank you for your interesting in Buddha.
Buddhism was originated from India and introduced to China at about 67 AD due to the communication from monks in both countries. Nowadays most Chinese people have no relief in fact, but the Buddhism is admired by most Chinese because it was selected by the governors in ancient time as an official belief. And it is still very popular by common Chinese people.
The Buddhism as I understand is about "coincidence" and "cause". With cause then you have the consequence. And your consequence is originated by your cause. If you plant good cause at first then you have good consequence at last and vise verse. And also Buddhism tells the people that everything is emptiness or nothing. For example, you may be attracted by a pretty girl, but the appearance of a pretty girl is seen as emptiness or nothing in a eye of a Buddha. Even the mountain and sea, these great natural materials are also emptiness or nothing in a eye of a Buddha while your spirit is the only real thing. If a people believe in Buddhism, the relationship between this people and the Buddha is not as son to father or servant to lord but student to teacher. So, everybody can be a Buddha. Even the inferior creatures can be a Buddha because they also have wise minds. When a people dies, then all of what he does in this life make him what he will be in the afterlife. For example, if he committed crime then he will be in a Hell and he may be an inferior animal in his afterlife. But if he did lots of good deeds in his life then he will be in a superior position in his afterlife, which forms a life circle.
As a people do things with his own abilities, like what he knows because of his own capacities of understanding so in the end there is no God in the sky but himself. So, Buddha is atheist.

 

[Galaxiom]

I'm surprise you call it a theory "Climate Change" it's more like a religion isn’t it?

No. It is supported by a massive body of scientific work. The faith based position is the one that denies that humans are causing climate change. It is the position you support without a shred of evidence, much less intelligent analysis.

Why did the scientist change the very popular Global Warming moniker to the less flashy "Climate Change"?

Climate Change more fully describes the effect. It isn't just about warming the temperature. Whatever the name it is still the same thing.

Do I believe the global temperature has risen of course I do.

Many who previously denied the change was happening at all have now moved to accepting it. So much evidence became too hard to deny. So they move on to the "its a natural cycle" mantra. As that defence collapses some have moved to "warmer is better".

Has it risen in the past? The answer must be yes. Thousands of years before man’s industrial revolution, glaciers expanded and retracted. The ice age came and went, sea levels rise and retracted.

Yes it has changed before but never at the current rate. The major drivers and the cyclic climate mechanisms are fairly well understood and none of them can explain the observed change other than the huge increase in atmospheric CO2.

It used to be a scientific fact that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth.

Rubbish. These were religious doctrines.

In the 50’s they thought it was possible a detonation of a nuclear device in atmosphere would cause our atmosphere to catch fire and kill everybody on the planet.

Who is "they"? Certainly not genuine scientists. Probably similar to the fools that recently argued the LHC would create a miniature black hole and swallow the Earth.

In the 70’s my mother would read books on “The Coming Ice Age”.

That was what was understood at the time. Indeed, until the massive release of CO2 the planet had been cooling slowly but steadily. We are at a time in the cycles of glaciation at the end of an interglacial period. We should heading back to glaciers. This is one aspect that makes a complete mockery of the claim that we are just experiencing a natural cycle. Temperatures are going entirely the wrong way compared to the history of the cycles.

Global warming is a global tax a way to take dollars from one hypocrite’s pocket and put it in another’s.

In my experience debating with deniers it invariably becomes clear that for most, the main motivation for doing nothing is plain greed. Some people wouldn't sacrifice a cent to do something about a problem they see as belonging to our grandchildren even though we are the ones creating it.

Quite pathetic really.

Something I always ask deniers. What is the safe level of CO2 that would not cause climate change? I have never received an answer.

 

[nanscombe]

Something I always ask deniers. What is the safe level of CO2 that would not cause climate change? I have never received an answer.

History of climate change science

The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate, but the calculations were disputed.

From that you could extrapolate that levels should be at pre-industrial levels (say 1850).

All we've got to do to achieve this goal is:
Get rid of technology that is run by fossil fuel based power.
Plant a load of trees that we've destroyed to make room for housing and farming.
Reduce the World's population from 7,000,000,000 to about 1,250,000,000

Achieve this and we'd be laughing.

Any ideas how we can cull 5,750,000,000 of our fellow human beings?

World War 1 casualties:
10,000,000 military deaths
7,000,000 civilian deaths

World War 2 casualties:
50,000,000 - 80,000,000

Epidemics / Pandemics:
Black Death (bubonic plague), Europe & Asia (1338–1351) - 100,000,000
Influenza, Worldwide (1918–1920) - 75,000,000

Since we're rather attached to peace and pretty good at controlling disease these days the above reductions in the World's population are probably not going to repeat any time soon.

 

[Mihail]

@youyiyang
Thank you very much for this.
No. I am not interested especially in Buddhism. I am interested into knowledge. So, if you append something to my knowledge I am very gratefully. And I am very interested in the Chines culture (as well as in a Japan's culture).
For example, I never explained for myself the kamikazes or seppuku practice. Are this motivated by religion or by society ? Fore sure we can find in our culture/religion some crazy people that think that will be in the sky, near to our Lord if they kill himself. But, as I said, they are crazy peoples. In your culture, as far as I know, is a matter of honor.

From what you say, I like Buddha.
Not because he was (or seems to was) an atheist. But because he teach everyone to be a good people. More, because he teach everyone that his own actions will be the cause of the future results.

In any of the Christians religion you can "buy", somehow, the God's love.
That seems to be impossible in a Buddhism way.

Is me who should ask you to forgive my luck of English.
I can develop a subject related to the computers, but is very hard for me to talk about anything else.
So, if something sound as an offense for you (or for your culture), please to be sure that wasn't my intention.

 

[Bladerunner]

I'm surprise you call it a theory "Climate Change" it's more like a religion isn’t it? Al Gore as the Pope, Mother Earth as the Deity. Why did the scientist change the very popular Global Warming moniker to the less flashy "Climate Change"? One reason, it’s more palatable for the global masses. Another reason it’s a larger catch all, a way to explain other anomalies.

Do I believe the global temperature has risen of course I do. Has it risen in the past? The answer must be yes. Thousands of years before man’s industrial revolution, glaciers expanded and retracted. The ice age came and went, sea levels rise and retracted.

It used to be a scientific fact that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth. In the 50’s they thought it was possible a detonation of a nuclear device in atmosphere would cause our atmosphere to catch fire and kill everybody on the planet. Of course they did it anyway. In the 70’s my mother would read books on “The Coming Ice Age”.

Global warming is a global tax a way to take dollars from one hypocrite’s pocket and put it in another’s.

Amen



have a great day :<)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

No. It is supported by a massive body of scientific work. The faith based position is the one that denies that humans are causing climate change. It is the position you support without a shred of evidence, much less intelligent analysis.



Climate Change more fully describes the effect. It isn't just about warming the temperature. Whatever the name it is still the same thing.



Many who previously denied the change was happening at all have now moved to accepting it. So much evidence became too hard to deny. So they move on to the "its a natural cycle" mantra. As that defence collapses some have moved to "warmer is better".



Yes it has changed before but never at the current rate. The major drivers and the cyclic climate mechanisms are fairly well understood and none of them can explain the observed change other than the huge increase in atmospheric CO2.



Rubbish. These were religious doctrines.



Who is "they"? Certainly not genuine scientists. Probably similar to the fools that recently argued the LHC would create a miniature black hole and swallow the Earth.



That was what was understood at the time. Indeed, until the massive release of CO2 the planet had been cooling slowly but steadily. We are at a time in the cycles of glaciation at the end of an interglacial period. We should heading back to glaciers. This is one aspect that makes a complete mockery of the claim that we are just experiencing a natural cycle. Temperatures are going entirely the wrong way compared to the history of the cycles.



In my experience debating with deniers it invariably becomes clear that for most, the main motivation for doing nothing is plain greed. Some people wouldn't sacrifice a cent to do something about a problem they see as belonging to our grandchildren even though we are the ones creating it.

Quite pathetic really.

Something I always ask deniers. What is the safe level of CO2 that would not cause climate change? I have never received an answer.

Classic Liberalism

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

Hate to change the subject but need a little help with replies to the thread. How to you place a Quote in the lite-blue box(s). I have missed it somewhere. Guess I am not scientific enough but this is the way it is?

Thanks

Have a great day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

hi, Mihail,
Thank you for your interesting in Buddha.
Buddhism was originated from India and introduced to China at about 67 AD due to the communication from monks in both countries. Nowadays most Chinese people have no relief in fact, but the Buddhism is admired by most Chinese because it was selected by the governors in ancient time as an official belief. And it is still very popular by common Chinese people.
The Buddhism as I understand is about "coincidence" and "cause". With cause then you have the consequence. And your consequence is originated by your cause. If you plant good cause at first then you have good consequence at last and vise verse. And also Buddhism tells the people that everything is emptiness or nothing. For example, you may be attracted by a pretty girl, but the appearance of a pretty girl is seen as emptiness or nothing in a eye of a Buddha. Even the mountain and sea, these great natural materials are also emptiness or nothing in a eye of a Buddha while your spirit is the only real thing. If a people believe in Buddhism, the relationship between this people and the Buddha is not as son to father or servant to lord but student to teacher. So, everybody can be a Buddha. Even the inferior creatures can be a Buddha because they also have wise minds. When a people dies, then all of what he does in this life make him what he will be in the afterlife. For example, if he committed crime then he will be in a Hell and he may be an inferior animal in his afterlife. But if he did lots of good deeds in his life then he will be in a superior position in his afterlife, which forms a life circle.
As a people do things with his own abilities, like what he knows because of his own capacities of understanding so in the end there is no God in the sky but himself. So, Buddha is atheist.

Mihail: to sum up Hinduism and Buddhism is Transcendentalism:
–
"Often thought of as pantheism but its more than that
–
Hinduism, Buddhism are all chain of being because god is IN nature - it’s all one.
a)
Like evolution, which says the all reality flows from one ultimate reality that is either mass or energy, transcendentalists it is the “spirit” that pervades everything that makes “one.”
b)
Like Yoda, the “force” is in everything and around everything. The difference is just the direction in which we are going. We are going (moving) vertically , as it were, to a higher level of existence - eventually god lies within us.
c)
Our final destination, so to speak, is to become one with this spiritual essence. "

p.s. atheism is in the naturalism worldview where every thing is nature and explained easily by scientific methods.

" Naturalism:
nature in the form of mass or energy is ultimate reality.
a)
Naturalism denies there is any spiritual element in reality.
b)
The essence of all things is material.

Lets take this thread to a whole new level of understanding by examining which worldview each of us is living in. With that in mind, I challenge Galaxiom to dispute that he is NOT living a Naturalism worldview. Of course all the 'atheist' on this thread fall into this category as well..


Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

oops! press the wrong button: My last sentence was that all 'atheist' were living and seeing the world as 'Naturalism'. Of course, Transcendentalism recognizes no God except themselves and everything around them.

Have a nice Day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Mihail]

@Bladerunner
After your definitions (regarding your definitions; in line with your definitions) I am, indeed, a naturalist.
The "spiritual" will die with every man who die. "End of game" to quote the DocMan,
Of course, the humanity spirituality will propagate generations after generations. But even this spirituality will die when the humanity will end up.

From one movie: "We are travelers between two eternities".

 

[Old Man Devin]

I look to repeating patterns. An example of a repeating pattern might be a near miss from a large asteroid. Will that asteroid continue its repeating pattern? Or will it deviate based on it's last near miss?

My concerns are on the now, not what might happen if the global temps rise 3° in the next 50 years.

You may want to divert a fraction of your immense brain power to the more immediate dangers humanity faces.

This sounds like you know of another serious threat to the planet that will definitely occur on a shorter timescale than 50 years. Is there an asteroid scheduled to hit us?

From a scientific background I can confidently say that the chance of mis-predicting the path of an asteroid by a dangerous amount is much lower than the chance of climate change not being dangerous. The problems of the future are being created now, so yes we need to focus on what's happening now, but we can't ignore consequences!

 

[Bladerunner]

Was this scheduled? About 1,100 injured as meteorite hits Russia with force of atomic bomb February 15, 2013

Infact it went undetected.

The meteor -- estimated to be about 10 tons and 49 feet wide -- entered the Earth's atmosphere at a hypersonic speed of at least 33,000 mph and shattered into pieces about 18-32 miles above the ground, the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a statement. But even small asteroids pack a tremendous punch, explained Andrew Cheng of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory.
"It doesn’t take a very large object. A 10-meter size object already packs the same energy as a nuclear bomb," Cheng, who led a 2000-2001 mission for NASA to orbit and land on an asteroid....

I believe Russia had another bout with an asteroid that destroyed a lot of Siberia forest in the past. No body lived there at the time so human loss was zero. They say, it exploded in the atmosphere? They are out there just waiting.


Have a nice Day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Bladerunner]

@Bladerunner
After your definitions (regarding your definitions; in line with your definitions) I am, indeed, a naturalist.
The "spiritual" will die with every man who die. "End of game" to quote the DocMan,
Of course, the humanity spirituality will propagate generations after generations. But even this spirituality will die when the humanity will end up.

From one movie: "We are travelers between two eternities".

most people don't know what worldview they live their lives under. From the time you get up till you go to bed, all the decisions, everything you do is based upon your worldview!

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner

 

[Old Man Devin]

@AccessBlaster:
Still a relatively small impact I'd say. Larger asteroids stand a larger chance of detection too. I guess my point is that disasters like crop failure or water shortage, and related societal instability, can kill far more.

It is probably a conservative estimate to say that millions of lives are at risk. And we have 'detected' that current shifts in climate are going to generally increase the risks of these events, and future projections suggest the risk will just keep increasing.

What's more, the analysis finds there is an extremely high chance that the changes are being driven by human activity, making it something we can control. Therefore, isn't is reasonable to try and act on these issues, rather than act speculatively in the case of relatively uncontrollable random events like small asteroid impacts?

 

[Old Man Devin]

The asteroid that hit the Arizona was relatively small also. 50 meters (55 yards) across, it can be seen from outer space. Most impacts are in the oceans therefore not leaving evidence, the truth be known the earth would resemble the moon if not for oceans and vegetation and of course man development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater

I don't see your point here. Yes there have been asteroid impacts in the past, the vast majority of which have no effect or only local effects. The climate changes that have happened so far are estimated to be causing 150,000 deaths per year (World Health Organization estimate). I don't know the stats for impacts, but I can be almost certain they will be significantly lower.