Which is more irrational? :)

[revelarts]

the point about Atheism being a religion is an interesting one. but it's not really.... However...
At the very least it's a belief system. a world view. that holds the place that religion proper holds for others.
the supreme court has ruled as much in a case or 2.

the atheist club you mention V4R is an example of their philosophic world view.
the humanist manifestos version 1 and 2 are similar.
Atheist humanist do outline their beliefs in various ways. with as much doctrine as any church or cult.

Many don't like to call it a religion though. And that's technically correct.
But in practically terms the tenets of humanism and various atheist philosophers thinly serve the same functions.

"The world is basically like this. That's what i believe based on the evidence i accept. You should too. And look so does this cool smart group i hang out with."

[Missileman]

Really?

well... Atheism certainly has many core values and beliefs/Disbelief's as the basis of it's existence...

1. Lets start with the Definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

(snip)

You're posting about some fringe organization that accounts for a miniscule fraction of atheists. Their principles and goals aren't what defines an atheist any more than Phelps' principles and goals define what a Christian is.

Here's the facebook page from the convention you linked above.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/World-...00603369971700

Go to the photos section and check out the throngs[/sarc] in attendance. I've seen larger bowling leagues.

you got any reasons for the Golden rule you say was around all over the world

History says it was around all over the world. History also says it was around a long time before it was attributed to Christ.

The reason it is a far-spread concept is because it's brilliantly simple and requires no divine intervention to apply or live by.

[Robert A Whit]

History says it was around all over the world. History also says it was around a long time before it was attributed to Christ.

The reason it is a far-spread concept is because it's brilliantly simple and requires no divine intervention to apply or live by.

It would be nice if the forum practiced the golden rule.

[revelarts]

History says it was around all over the world. History also says it was around a long time before it was attributed to Christ.

The reason it is a far-spread concept is because it's brilliantly simple and requires no divine intervention to apply or live by.

a reason please

[logroller]

Why should we answer your question?
But Log you keep talking about benefits and good etc.
WHILE you've asserted that you don't need God for good or anything really. and ALL YOU NEED is REASON to come to SAME good and beneficial conclusions. I keep pointing out there's no reason why anyone SHOULD BE good. And Plenty of People who are not or don't seem aware enough to even let others live, let alone to worry about the climate change your so concerned about.
But now you ask why it matters? I'd like to see reason for everyone to be good or act for the benefit of society please.
WHY are you and Missile dodging the question?

Because there are synergistic effects of people working together. Two people working together can do more than what two can do apart. Superficially, synergy appears irrelevant of whether it is good or bad, but the sum of experience shows that that goodness creates a harmony more congenial with synergy. If you still find yourself asking why, then I refer you back to my previous statement regarding the use of God as a placeholder of certainty in lieu of knowledge; an appeal to authority where 'because I said so' is deemed insufficient. But why should one quit pulling their sister's hair? Because father said so, or because the Father did? Doesn't matter to me, just knock it off.

[Robert A Whit]

Because there are synergistic effects of people working together. Two people working together can do more than what two can do apart. Superficially, synergy appears irrelevant of whether it is good or bad, but the sum of experience shows that that goodness creates a harmony more congenial with synergy. If you still find yourself asking why, then I refer you back to my previous statement regarding the use of God as a placeholder of certainty in lieu of knowledge; an appeal to authority where 'because I said so' is deemed insufficient. But why should one quit pulling their sister's hair? Because father said so, or because the Father did? Doesn't matter to me, just knock it off.

There is a book I once read. Made a lot of sense. Called the Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.

From a review at Amazon.com (see Amazon for the entire review)

Thinking outside the box,-- a seminal effort worth a read, <nobr>April 27, 2004</nobr>
By A Customer

This review is from: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (Paperback)
As a scientist in an ongoing search for truth, I have been disappointed by ham-handed efforts of the creation crowd to cling to extreme minority viewpoints of credentialed scientists from diverse fields of science that would collectively be required to support a *literal* interpretation of Genesis. Similarly, I have been mystified by scientists who reflexively dismiss the idea of some kind of intelligent design outright by way of circular reasoning, arguing that since intelligent design can never be disproven, it is not scientific and thus could not be truth, since only science can properly assess truth.It is hard to understate, then, the moxie of Schroeder's innovative attempt to reconcile with Genesis scientifically DOMINANT paradigms (i.e. universe many billions of years old, terrestrial life hundreds of millions of years old, species variation to extensive degree by alteration or differential expression of genes). Schroeder introduces his intent thus: "In the following chapters, I attempt to avoid the subjective tendency of bending Bible to match science or science to match Bible." (softcover p.19) Whether he was successful or not is in the eye of the reader, but the explicit intent is refreshing.
This book, then, would be of particular interest to two groups:
1) Scientists who wonder how their mainstream conclusions could possibly be reconciled with ancient accounts of creation from the Hebrew Torah.
2) Jews and Christians who are discomforted by the apparent incompatability between the text of their faith versus the observed truth about our planet and universe as collected and interpreted by the VAST MAJORITY of professional scientists.
The prime example of this reconciliation is Schroeder's attempt to fit a 15-billion year old universe with the six-day account of Genesis by arguing that: 1) from a collective, "Creation-wide" perspective, time advanced differently in the primordial hot universe (time dilation), and 2) that "days" in the ancient hebrew text only adopted the terrestrial perception (instead of universal perception) of time passage upon the creation of man late in the "creation" process.
Later chapters address other issues, such as the likelihood that genetic variation by mutation at rates observed in today's laboratories (or even much greater rates) were sufficient to generate the speciation evidenced in the fossil record within the abbreviated time-frame indicated by the fossil record itself.

[logroller]

^ Not likely to make it to the top of my reading list robert. It'd be right there next to books on the lost atlantian society building the pyramids. Intellectual exercise devoid of benefit. Only so much time in the day, gotta put my efforts where I maximize benefit.

[revelarts]

Because there are synergistic effects of people working together. Two people working together can do more than what two can do apart.

yes and to 2 thieves or a gang can get more done than 1. utility is a reason for unity but not necessarily goodness.

Superficially, synergy appears irrelevant of whether it is good or bad, but the sum of experience shows that that goodness creates a harmony more congenial with synergy.

Log this is what? Experience shows you , that you get more synergy with good relations. ok, syngery is the goal then?

If you still find yourself asking why, then I refer you back to my previous statement regarding the use of God as a placeholder of certainty in lieu of knowledge;

I'm not asking myself why, I'm asking you.
You say REASON will fill the gap to get us to GOOD and RIGHT and WRONG without God.
Are you saying there is no certainty of goodness or right and wrong

an appeal to authority where 'because I said so' is deemed insufficient. But why should one quit pulling their sister's hair? Because father said so, or because the Father did? Doesn't matter to me, just knock it off.

WHY? why should he knock it off Log? to get more synergy? Authority is not a reason you accept, good examples is not a reason you accept. And finally it doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter why, then your saying there's no real good reason correct?
But somehow YOU KNOW. you have some inner knowledge. You have some undefined, unreasoned certainty that it's better, good and morally right.

You really don't need a reason you just know it. You don't care where the moral motive comes from. That's what i'm getting here.

and that's my point.
Without God you have no logical reason for the fact of morality or to be morally good instead of selfish.
BUT You/we do have an inner wittiness of conscious that's completely unexplained by naturalistic causes. You say you don't care where it came from. Aren't you a little curious? An intelligent guy like yourself. Frankly i don't think you should let yourself be comfortable with that HOLE in your knowledge of human nature. The certainty you find in your soul did not come from an empty void.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

You might want to explore beyond your comfort zone Log.

[Robert A Whit]

^ Not likely to make it to the top of my reading list robert. It'd be right there next to books on the lost atlantian society building the pyramids. Intellectual exercise devoid of benefit. Only so much time in the day, gotta put my efforts where I maximize benefit.

i understand what you say.

Better to be judgmental about things you have not studied than to study and see what you missed.

[logroller]

yes and to 2 thieves or a gang can get more done than 1. utility is a reason for unity but not necessarily goodness.


Log this is what? Experience shows you , that you get more synergy with good relations. ok, syngery is the goal then?


I'm not asking myself why, I'm asking you.
You say REASON will fill the gap to get us to GOOD and RIGHT and WRONG without God.
Are you saying there is no certainty of goodness or right and wrong


WHY? why should he knock it off Log? to get more synergy? Authority is not a reason you accept, good examples is not a reason you accept. And finally it doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter why, then your saying there's no real good reason correct?
But somehow YOU KNOW. you have some inner knowledge. You have some undefined, unreasoned certainty that it's better, good and morally right.

You really don't need a reason you just know it. You don't care where the moral motive comes from. That's what i'm getting here.

and that's my point.
Without God you have no logical reason for the fact of morality or to be morally good instead of selfish.
BUT You/we do have an inner wittiness of conscious that's completely unexplained by naturalistic causes. You say you don't care where it came from. Aren't you a little curious? An intelligent guy like yourself. Frankly i don't think you should let yourself be comfortable with that HOLE in your knowledge of human nature. The certainty you find in your soul did not come from an empty void.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

You might want to explore beyond your comfort zone Log.

I Sense the conversation is coming to an end. But I answered your question; you just don't like it; now you answer it -- why should i be good for God?

i understand what you say.

Better to be judgmental about things you have not studied than to study and see what you missed.

I read over a thousand pages of text per week, not including web. I'm pretty knowledgable brother. Most of it centers on policy and compliance. Yet when I ask you simple questions abou climate change policies you have poblems with, sothat i can etter understand what issues you have you don't even bother to respond. Just tell me I need to read more. Nice dodge. So save me the drama about my passing judgement on not reading hundreds of pages of something when you fail to respond to a simple request that would take all of five minutes.

[tailfins]

Have to laugh a little here. Some years back, I was still living by myself and noticed a man and woman canvassing the area, knocking on doors and leaving small pamphlets at doors where they got no answer. Got to be witnesses I think. So I go to my altar and get my besom (small ceremonial broom) and check to see where my cat was. I hung my biggest pentacle on my neck and as they knocked I picked up cat and broom and opened the door. They paused in the act of holding out a pamphlet and stumbled over a question about talking to me about Jesus. I smiled and said I would be delighted if they would share Circle with me first. Yes I know I was being a little bad but they DID KNOCK FIRST. They couldn't leave fast enough and I am convinced to this day that they put some kind of invisible mark on my door because nobody from that sect ever came back there. Believe what you like, live your life as a human with principles based on your faith. That is the best advertising you can do for the religion you follow - show it as a living concept.

If my in-laws had that happen they might have a "prayer-and-cleansing" before knocking, but they would have been back. They are however Pentecostals, not jay-dubyas. I'm not sure what my church would have done. We are taught to stay far away from horoscopes, fortune telling, Ouija boards, or anything remotely resembling anything that looks like the occult. The JWs also go away if you put on your best southern drawl and say "Hey y'all we got jay-dubyas around". Maybe Tyr can tell us why that works, but it does.

My in-laws draw the ire and jealousy of other pastors in their community. Their "secret sauce" is to be the place were people are welcome when they are welcome nowhere else: All the so-called dregs of society as it were. One of his best sources of new members come from visiting jails.

[logroller]

If my in-laws had that happen they might have a "prayer-and-cleansing" before knocking, but they would have been back. They are however Pentecostals, not jay-dubyas. I'm not sure what my church would have done. We are taught to stay far away from horoscopes, fortune telling, Ouija boards, or anything remotely resembling anything that looks like the occult. The JWs also go away if you put on your best southern drawl and say "Hey y'all we got jay-dubyas around". Maybe Tyr can tell us why that works, but it does.

My in-laws draw the ire and jealousy of other pastors in their community. Their "secret sauce" is to be the place were people are welcome when they are welcome nowhere else: All the so-called dregs of society as it were. One of his best sources of new members come from visiting jails.

What about fortune cookies?
to me, it all centers on how much credence you afford such things. It one is inspired or instructed to strap bombs to oneself, it matters not to me whether it was in a horoscope or a Hadith.

[revelarts]

I Sense the conversation is coming to an end. But I answered your question; you just don't like it;...

Well the answer didn't align with your 1st assertions. That reason could get you to motives for good and good itself. But finally you said it doesn't matter where it came from , or how we get to it, but it -morality- is real you believe, and we should -for no real reason- live it.

now you answer it -- why should i be good for God?

Short answer, because it's what your made for. We're all created for love and for good.
We're not just naturalistic accidents boucning through the cosmic void until we die.

[tailfins]

What about fortune cookies?
to me, it all centers on how much credence you afford such things. It one is inspired or instructed to strap bombs to oneself, it matters not to me whether it was in a horoscope or a Hadith.

I don't read them. My kids said, look they're just generic messages that could apply to anybody such as "If you work hard, you'll be happy".

[Robert A Whit]

I read over a thousand pages of text per week, not including web. I'm pretty knowledgable brother. Most of it centers on policy and compliance. Yet when I ask you simple questions abou climate change policies you have poblems with, sothat i can etter understand what issues you have you don't even bother to respond. Just tell me I need to read more. Nice dodge. So save me the drama about my passing judgement on not reading hundreds of pages of something when you fail to respond to a simple request that would take all of five minutes.

Oh, we are back to climate change. I apologize if you believe I ruffed your feathers. I did not intend to. Didn't I report to you that Dr. Richard Lindzen whom I have e mailed to and got mail back said the best way to understand this is to read his many papers on Climate Change?

I bluntly asked him if he blames man. He was very kind to even mail me back. I read some of his papers. I find nothing in them to put the blame on humans. I thought I also mentioned how easy it was to e mail Dr. Lindzen.

He is the expert with the answers.

Did he totally acquit man? I can't say he did. But if you really want an actual expert, seek his counsel. Maybe I can post one of his papers.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->http://www.examiner.com/article/carb...-mit-scientist<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->


In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO₂ in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.
The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
Graph A

Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
Graph B


As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO₂ which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO₂ cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
Graph C

Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:

The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).

For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.
Graph D

The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any “global warming” not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.

All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.
What this data does tell us is if CO₂ concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.
The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.
The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.
There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.
Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.
Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!
For more info: Science and Public Policy Institute,Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. Climate change? Not so fast say Scientists, Have it your way - Global warming is baloney, Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 2), Oregon legislature plays Cap-n-Trade shell game, Democrats say Cap and Trade is a big tax, Taxing Carbon designed to fail
Updated to clarify sourcing. All information in this article is directly from SPPI June Report. as is stated in the beginning of article. 8-18-2009 2:02pm Pacific