patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

The vast majority of CO2 comes from non-human sources. The biggest being probably the dynamic release and absorption at the ocean's surfaces.

...which explains the spike since the 50's?

I mean, we know how much coal, oil and gas is burnt every year, right?

Rising temperature causes oceanic dissolved CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. The AGW crowd has the causality between temperature and CO2 backwards.

bgamall4 says

No, actually that was part of the falling away period. Once the early church passed on, there was a falling away and fusion of church and state is a false religion.

Christianity replacing the old Roman religion managed to extend the life span of East Roman Empire by about a thousand years! The Western wastelands were simply ungovernable before the Germanic tribes were converted to Christianity. After the conversion, the various "Christendoms" came into being in Western Europe. I'm not advocating the fusion of state and religion per se (as that would create too much concentration of power, corrupting both). However, religion does provide the cognitive background in a society for converting one-time prisoner's delima into repeating games, where one can afford to be less prone to double-cross each other at the first chance.

Reality says

The AGW crowd has the causality between temperature and CO2 backwards.

And, let me guess, it's just a huge coincidence that temperatures happen to rise exactly at the point in history where we burn record amounts of coal, gas and oil?

And really we can't calculate how much we KNOW we DO release (i.e. how much we burn), and compare it to how much CO2 presence we MEASURE?

Reality says

Without a religion promising the reward and punishment in afterlife, and give people a sense to police oneself and feel good about it, human societies fall apart rather quickly.

I'm speechless.
You do know there are entire societies on this planet who have been around for very long and don't have a notion of punishment in afterlife. How about Japan Shintoism?

Reality says

The Western wastelands were simply ungovernable before the Germanic tribes were converted to Christianity.

You do know that Clovis converted to Christianity in 496 and what followed was 1000yrs of dark ages, right?

Reality says

Notice, you avoided the critically important "Anthropogenic" part.

That "anyone who denies . . . is an idiot" attitude is precisely what the cartoon illustrates

Actually, I did not.

Anyone who looks at the above graph and thinks humans aren't responsible is the scientific equivalent of a holocaust denier and deserves as much respect.

Those who don't acknowledge the reality and gravity of man-made climate change don't get a vote in the policies passed to mitigate and deal with climate change.

Climate change isn't man-made, my ass.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/gIUN5ziSfNc

Society may have put up with the lying about climate change back in the 1980s, but such lies are no longer tolerable. Too many lives are at stake. Anyone who bullshits about climate change deserves ridicule. Willful ignorance is despicable.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The AGW crowd has the causality between temperature and CO2 backwards.

And, let me guess, it's just a huge coincidence that temperatures happen to rise exactly at the point in history where we burn record amounts of coal, gas and oil?

Temperature rose and fall both before and after the 1950's. Don't tell me the burning of coal, gas and oil has been declining since 1998, from which time to now the global temperature has been declining.

And really we can't calculate how much we KNOW we DO release (i.e. how much we burn), and compare it to how much CO2 presence we MEASURE?

Two problems with your focus here:

1. The dynamic balance in oceanic surface absorption and release is carried out at far greater CO2 volume than human emission.

2. The minute percentage of CO2 in atmosphere doesn't have significant effect on temperature.

Reality says

The vast majority of CO2 comes from non-human sources. The biggest being probably the dynamic release and absorption at the ocean's surfaces.

Utter bullshit. Irrational adherence to myths, whether religious or political, is dangerous and can cost millions, even billions, of lives. This is exactly why society must no longer tolerate lies, whether about climate change or the afterlife.

Wise decision making requires accurate knowledge and truthful reporting of reality. The consequences, as this thread has shown, are literally life and death.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm speechless.

You do know there are entire societies on this planet who have been around for very long and don't have a notion of punishment in afterlife. How about Japan Shintoism?

Shintoism is a religion. It promises honors and (worse than death) humiliation in after-life. In any case, the dominant religion in Japan was/is Budhism, which promises re-incarnation in after-life. Shintoism is Japanese politicians' attempt at merging religion with state (Emperor worship).

bgamall4 says

Dan, the Old Testament kingdom was a physical kingdom and had a place in history for a time. But the Zionists, the founding Israel president being atheist, are wanting to extend that kingdom and do unauthorized things to the Arabs that have no sanction by God.

There's some batshit that even I'm not willing to touch.

Dan8267 says

Show me one agnostic who thinks that Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and orgies, plausibly exists.

Yep, for practical purposes agnostics are pussy atheists, or secret believers that can't apply reason to something they came to believe in for non-smart reasons.

As you say, I never met an agnostic that defended Polytheistic Deities, or the idea that every rock and tree is a spirit. Only the approved Real Religions(tm) of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Norse Troth, Greek Gods, Aztec Feathered Serpents, none are taken seriously for a moment by so-called Agnostics.

Reality says

Without a religion promising the reward and punishment in afterlife, and give people a sense to police oneself and feel good about it, human societies fall apart rather quickly. The cost of bureaucrats catching every criminal and potential criminal is just too high to be ever feasible.

Translation: We all know that the afterlife is a lie, but I think it's a useful one.

The problem is that the truly evil people don't fall for the lie, but can use the lie to get otherwise good people to do really evil things like fly planes into buildings, blow up children schools with suicide bombers, "honor" kill rape victims, enslave entire races, commit genocide, etc.

Using lies to get people to behave is not as effective as using an honest, transparent court system, something we should be striving for instead of promoting Bronze Age lies.

Dan8267 says

Notice, you avoided the critically important "Anthropogenic" part.

That "anyone who denies . . . is an idiot" attitude is precisely what the cartoon illustrates

Actually, I did not.

No you did not. You never managed to link Anthropogenic and rising temperature together. Both charts claimed a link between Anthropogenic and CO2 level, which is not the same as temperature rising.

Both charts are actually rather silly for anyone with an clue about scientific charting. The spike at the very right side of the chart consists of a single bar representing 50 - 100 years, which a far smaller a time period than the granuality of 500,000yr old core sample from anywhere.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

The vast majority of CO2 comes from non-human sources. The biggest being probably the dynamic release and absorption at the ocean's surfaces.

Utter bullshit. Irrational adherence to myths, whether religious or political, is dangerous and can cost millions, even billions, of lives. This is exactly why society must no longer tolerate lies, whether about climate change or the afterlife.

Wise decision making requires accurate knowledge and truthful reporting of reality. The consequences, as this thread has shown, are literally life and death.

That's how religious indoctrination gets started. The Old Testament did not include so many horrific death scenarios for nothing.

Reality says

Temperature rose and fall both before and after the 1950's. Don't tell me the burning of coal, gas and oil has been declining since 1998, from which time to now the global temperature has been declining.

Now we were talking of CO2. Don't bring temperatures. There is a huge spike in CO2 concentrations in the last 50 yrs that didn't happen in thousands of years before. So you are now telling us temperatures changed before but didn't affect CO2, but now they do. Make your story straight.

The fact that the extra CO2 comes from humans is one of the easiest thing to prove in the entire climate change concept.

thunderlips11 says

As you say, I never met an agnostic that defended Polytheistic Deities, or the idea that every rock and tree is a spirit. Only the approved Real Religions(tm) of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Norse Troth, Greek Gods, Aztec Feathered Serpents, none are taken seriously for a moment by so-called Agnostics.

When I demonstrate the falsehood of all religions, I am being rational, honest, and sincere. When a so-called agnostic supports the possibility of the gods accepted by his society, but not Native American, African, or Aboriginal gods, then that is racist. At least we atheists apply the same standards to all peoples and societies. We don't make exceptions for our tribe.

Agnosticism is conformity and racism masquerading as respect for others. It is far more respectful to honestly deny another person's religion than to insincerely agree with that person to placate him.

Taking an opposing view and defending it with rational, evidence based arguments is a far truer sign of respect for another person. It says you believe that person is capable of reasoning like an adult instead of being irrational like an immature child.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The Western wastelands were simply ungovernable before the Germanic tribes were converted to Christianity.

You do know that Clovis converted to Christianity in 496 and what followed was 1000yrs of dark ages, right?

No. Clovis converted to Catholicism. There were quite few other branches of Christianity, such as Arianism, at that time. The conversion process for the society at large took a few centuries, both before and after Clovis. The Dark Ages ended a couple hundred years after Clovis, not 1000yrs. Trade and commerce started to thrive in Western Europe by the 8th century; big cities and market centers emerged in the 9th and 10th century.

bgamall4 says

Dan, the Old Testament kingdom was a physical kingdom and had a place in history for a time. But the Zionists, the founding Israel president being atheist, are wanting to extend that kingdom and do unauthorized things to the Arabs that have no sanction by God.

There was never an Israel. This is coming from the premier archaeologists in Israel, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/t440bxhn1qA

EDIT: (This is the real, unedited version, not the dumbed down, cut in half, decontroversialized History of Pawn Shops and Ancient Aliens Channel Version)

Israel was a creation of Yahweh priests under King Josiah who were trying to create a claim to the richer, more fertile lands north of the arid Jerusalem Highland area. "King" Josiah ruled a kingdom smaller than most Scottish highland clans, with far less people; Jerusalem was a "cow town", somewhere of the level of Buffalo Breath, WY in terms of power and influence in the Middle East at the time.

There is no evidence Jerusalem was ever a place of consequence before the 5th Century AD, other than a place to water camels on the way to more important areas. It was a pre-Casino Las Vegas at best, a watering hole in the desert on a trade route between more important and inhabited places.

The Hebrews were basically Scots Highlanders, an ignored and marginal semi-settled group famous only for occasional cattle raids.

thunderlips11 says

As you say, I never met an agnostic that defended Polytheistic Deities, or the idea that every rock and tree is a spirit. Only the approved Real Religions(tm) of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Norse Troth, Greek Gods, Aztec Feathered Serpents, none are taken seriously for a moment by so-called Agnostics.

Then you did not meet the particular Agnostics who leave room for ambiguity for those other deities. You may as well have said you never met a person who spoke Lapland dialect, Dodecanese dialect, or Chiachihuacan dialect.

Reality says

Anthropogenic and CO2 level, which is not the same as temperature rising.

Honey, CO2 levels causes global temperatures to rise as shown in the links above. The CO2 rises are entirely the result of humans burning fossil fuels as shown in the above video. The case is closed. The jury has already returned a guilty verdict.

As the great Richard Feynman once said, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Any person who lies about climate change is not only risking hundreds of millions of lives, but is also wrecking the economy and should have no say in public policy and law. Pollution and climate change are bad economics.

Reality says

Then you did not meet the particular Agnostics who leave for ambiguity for those other deities. You may as well have said you never met a person who spoke Lapland dialect, Dodecanese dialect, or Chiachihuacan dialect.

I would love to be pointed to an agnostic who does leave room for these.

Dan8267 says

Translation: We all know that the afterlife is a lie, but I think it's a useful one.

Nope. We simply do not know if it is a lie or not, for certain.

The problem is that the truly evil people don't fall for the lie, but can use the lie to get otherwise good people to do really evil things like fly planes into buildings, blow up children schools with suicide bombers, "honor" kill rape victims, enslave entire races, commit genocide, etc.

You are kidding yourself if you think those alcohol drinking brothel hopping young men (assuming they were in the planes at all) were religious, or did it for religious reasons.

Those flying planes and missiles into buildings, blowing up or otherwise killing children, etc., do it for political and monetary reasons. You don't need religion for that. Just check out the enlistment in this country and drone pilots. They envision themselves as soldiers . . . i.e. men (and now women too) paid real money (solidus) to kill people. That's their job. Plain and simple.

Using lies to get people to behave is not as effective as using an honest, transparent court system, something we should be striving for instead of promoting Bronze Age lies.

Honest and transparent court system is of course something that we should strive for. However, in order for any court system to work, out-of-court settlements have to be encouraged instead of having every single dispute in society settled by trial by jury! Religion is a simply a system for inducing people to behave themselves without raising the issue to court settlement by mostly corrupt magistrates without religion.

Reality says

You do know that Clovis converted to Christianity in 496 and what followed was 1000yrs of dark ages, right?

No. Clovis converted to Catholicism. There were quite few other branches of Christianity, such as Arianism, at that time. The conversion process took a few centuries, both before and after Clovis. The Dark Ages ended a couple hundred years after Clovis, not 1000yrs. Trade and commerce started to thrive in Western Europe by the 8th century; big cities and market centers emerged in the 9th and 10th century.

BS. Most of Europe converted to Christianity before Islamic invasions in the mid-7th century and the dark ages ended with the renaissance in the 14th century, with the rediscovery of arts, sciences and the rest of the classical civilization that were forgotten (and mostly forbidden). The dark ages were a period of obscurantism based on religion that contributed to widespread misery and slow human progress.

Heraclitusstudent says

BS. Most of Europe converted to Christianity before Islamic invasions in the mid-7th century and the dark ages ended with the renaissance in the 14th century, with the rediscovery of arts, sciences and the rest of the classical civilization that were forgotten (and mostly forbidden). The dark ages were a period of obscurantism based on religion that contributed to widespread misery and slow human progress.

That's what they taught in the public schools in the mid-20th century. Then it was recognized/discovered that large cities and market towns came into being in the 9th and 10th century.

BTW, if you think religion held back Western Europe from 5th century to 14th century, how the heck would you explain the prosperity of Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Empire during that time period?

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

Then you did not meet the particular Agnostics who leave for ambiguity for those other deities. You may as well have said you never met a person who spoke Lapland dialect, Dodecanese dialect, or Chiachihuacan dialect.

I would love to be pointed to an agnostic who does leave room for these.

I for one am. I don't know which one of them I will meet after I die, or some kind of holy multiplicity (a word play on trinity), or even aliens or smurfs.

Reality says

That's what they taught in the public schools in the mid-20th century. Then it was recognized/discovered that large cities and market towns came into being in the 9th and 10th century.

Markets? Show me the science, infrastructures, laws, institutions, medicine, life expectancy, arts, quality of life during the dark ages.
It's called the dark ages for a reason.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

That's what they taught in the public schools in the mid-20th century. Then it was recognized/discovered that large cities and market towns came into being in the 9th and 10th century.

Markets? Show me the science, infrastructures, laws, institutions, medicine, life expectancy, arts, quality of life during the dark ages.

It's called the dark ages for a reason.

It's was originally called "the dark ages" mostly because of a lack of court historians writing history documents for latter historians to read them.

Science, infrastructure, laws, medicines, life expectancies, etc. etc. are all brought to you fundamentally by the market place. If you want physical manifestation, you can look to the Cathedral building craze in the 9th and 10th century. Those buildings took generations to build! It took a seriously prosperous society to build them. Universities like Paris and Oxford were built established around that time too.

Reality says

You are kidding yourself if you think those alcohol drinking brothel hopping young men (assuming they were in the planes at all) were religious, or did it for religious reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/r25alb0_xUk

Yeah, religion is fucking great.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, religion is fucking great.

There were plenty atheistic "fucking greats," like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.. In fact, they were the biggest mass murderers in human history!

Dan8267 says

Honey, CO2 levels causes global temperatures to rise as shown in the links above. The CO2 rises are entirely the result of humans burning fossil fuels as shown in the above video. The case is closed. The jury has already returned a guilty verdict.

No they did not. Only a correlation was shown between CO2 level and global warming . . . and if you look more closely than what was presented in your links, you'd notice temperature rise came before CO2 rise.

Then after that correlation, the scammers quickly moved onto focusing on CO2 rise instead of temperature rise.

As the great Richard Feynman once said, "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

Any person who lies about climate change is not only risking hundreds of millions of lives, but is also wrecking the economy and should have no say in public policy and law. Pollution and climate change are bad economics.

You would have had a good career as a temple priest in Azteca, demanding the ritual murder in order for the sun to rise the next day.

Reality says

Dan8267 says

Yeah, religion is fucking great.

There were plenty atheistic "fucking greats," like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.. In fact, they were the biggest mass murderers in human history!

Dude, one, you clearly haven't taken the time to watch the video and therefore have no basis to respond to the comment. Your response literally took less time than watching half the video.

Two, stating that atheism is an evil philosophy because Stalin and Mao are atheist is as ridiculous as stating Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever because they worn mustaches just like Hitler and Stalin did.

See that thread for more details. Stalin and Mao were evil because they were power crazed, not because they were atheists. The 9/11 hijackers flew into building because of their religion. The Westboro Baptist bigots are gay bashers because of their religion.

There is nothing in atheism or rationality that supports the evils of Stalin and Mao. There is much inherent in religion that supports the evil of the holocaust, the North American genocides, the Spanish Inquisition, and thousands of years of rape and murder including today's honor killings. Big difference.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/dEQuW2v6U2o
This hatred and bigotry is intrinsic to religion.

Reality says

Shintoism is a religion. It promises honors and (worse than death) humiliation in after-life.

BS. Shintoism has no such systematic punishment promises about afterlife.
Taoism doesn't either.
Zen Buddhism (like Taoism) rejects duality and looking for 'good' by opposition to evil is one aspect of duality. Thus escaping the cycle of reincarnations is not based on a level of morality or respects of laws. It is based on a level of spiritual achievement and transcendence of duality.
Like in genesis, the knowledge of good and evil pretty much excludes you from paradise.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

IT's extremely sad, whatever her reasons were.

Her reasons aren't in question. We know what they were. She believed in heaven. She thought her dad was in heaven. She thought she would see her dad in heaven if she died. She was wrong about all three things.

Don't try to change the facts. There is no doubt that she ended her life because of her false belief in an afterlife.

A couple weeks later, same thread.

humanity says

He used even weaker reasoning to prove that one phrase to her mother (with the antecedent "don't feel bad Mom"), is proof that the girl was of sound mind and made a rational decision to kill herself for the purpose of being with her father in the afterlife, actually knowing that she would be.

He actually believes he has proven this ?

Dan8267 says

humanity says

He actually believes he has proven this ?

My position, which no one has been able to refute, is that anyone who believes the girl's death is tragic does not truly believe in the afterlife. Bashing me doesn't refute this position.

I don't believe in an afterlife, I'm quite sure humanity doesn't either, from what he's said.

What a difference a couple weeks make. Now I get it. You don't gracefully lose an argument you just adjust your position to something you think you can defend.

Although even this later (totally different) position is hard to defend. You don't think that say Catholics for example think that death is often tragic ? Especially death of a child ? If you were right, you are only proving that truth be told they don't really believe very strongly in an afterlife, because they all are going to believe that death of a child is tragic. Regardless of whether they say some BS like "she's in a better place."

Reality says

Science, infrastructure, laws, medicines, life expectancies, etc. etc. are all brought to you fundamentally by the market place.

Yeah, it's well known that all Leonardo, Michelangelo, Copernicus, Bach, Descartes, Newton, Mozart and even Einstein did was all driven by the market place and its requirements.

They all made huge profits out of it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Zen Buddhism (like Taoism) rejects duality and looking for 'good' by opposition to evil is one aspect of duality. Thus escaping the cycle of reincarnations is not based on a level of morality or respects of laws. It is based on a level of spiritual achievement and transcendence of duality.

In my opinion these are closer to philosophy than religion, since there isn't a deity involved per se. THe chinese get religious about it, with added rituals and superstitions, but at the core I don't see these as all that similar to Chritianity, or Islam, or even Hinduism for that matter.

I guess in some variants of Buddhism, Buddha is a deity. But certainly not in Zen Buddhism.

By the way, Jews don't believe in an after life, and that is clearly more of a religion than Buddism or Taoism.

Reality says

It took a seriously prosperous society to build them. Universities like Paris and Oxford were built established around that time too.

No it took societies sacrificing everything they had to build cathedrals.

What was taught during dark ages was severely limited to what the church would allow i.e. not much. Many ideas were simply forbidden by religious authorities.

Dan8267 says

Dude, one, you clearly haven't taken the time to watch the video and therefore have no basis to respond to the comment. Your response literally took less time than watching half the video.

I had seen that video before.

Dan8267 says

Two, stating that atheism is an evil philosophy because Stalin and Mao are atheist is as ridiculous as stating Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever because they worn mustaches just like Hitler and Stalin did.

Nope. I never said Atheism is an evil philosophy. What I did say was that religious is not the (sole) reason why people do evil. Even those without religion, such as Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, are quite capable of evil.

Dan8267 says

There is nothing in atheism or rationality that supports the evils of Stalin and Mao. There is much inherent in religion that supports the evil of the holocaust, the North American genocides, the Spanish Inquisition, and thousands of years of rape and murder including today's honor killings. Big difference.

The Holocaust had nothing to do with religion unless you think believers in Judaism brought it upon themselves. In fact, the Holocaust was carried out on a Social Darwinist ground. North American genocide was once again not on religious ground; it was simply a land grab; in fact, many tribes were spared after they were converted. Spanish Inquisition killed less people than the number of priests and nuns killed in the French Revolution alone, never mind the mass murder of religious people in the 20th century by government worshippers. Rape, murder and honor killing took place long before religion had anything to do with any of it. You are failing to recognize that religious texts condone some of the practices simply because those acts were already part of the tradition, just like the US Constitution condoned slavery, which was already in place, not US Constitution causing slavery.

marcus says

Now I get it. You don't gracefully lose an argument you just adjust your position to something you can defend.

I am most willing to change my position should a logical argument or new information warrant doing so. However, I have not changed my position in this thread because no one has given me a descent reason to do so.

There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the girl's letter in the original post. You're arguments that she's a secret atheist who killed herself to promote some global atheist agenda is stupid and has no foundation in reality.

It is also the case that this particular girl's motive, although illustrative of the negative consequences of the afterlife lie, are not necessary to demonstrate the fact that the afterlife lie makes killing oneself and others a perfectly rational and moral decision.

Neither you nor anyone else has even addressed the fact that if the Christian afterlife were real, then killing babies before they could sin is a moral imperative. The contradiction between accepting the premise and rejecting the necessary conclusion of the premise remains unchallenged.

Nonetheless, there is nothing ungraceful about changing one's position should greater understanding or knowledge of a subject matter come to light. The fact that arguments are to you about who is right rather than what is right is your weakness, not mine. I've always held the position that the messenger is irrelevant.

marcus says

In my opinion these are closer to philosophy than religion

Well then I let you argue with Reality on his thesis below, and as to why societies in the east didn't collapse:

Reality says

Without a religion promising the reward and punishment in afterlife, and give people a sense to police oneself and feel good about it, human societies fall apart rather quickly.

Heraclitusstudent says

BS. Shintoism has no such systematic punishment promises about afterlife.

Taoism doesn't either.

Zen Buddhism (like Taoism) rejects duality and looking for 'good' by opposition to evil is one aspect of duality. Thus escaping the cycle of reincarnations is not based on a level of morality or respects of laws. It is based on a level of spiritual achievement and transcendence of duality.

Like in genesis, the knowledge of good and evil pretty much excludes you from paradise.

You are confusing the theoretical tenets with the marketing points to the masses. In fact, most successful religions have two versions: one is marketed to the masses to make them behave, then another set of tenets marketed to the inner circle of rulers so they are prepared to break the rules.