My religeos beleif falls under 4. However I would caveat that I accpet that current ESTIMATES are that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old and the known universe is estiamted at 13.5 billion years. Old.
My caveat is because I am not sure that the universe is that young. simply because something had to come before it. With string and quantum theory and improved observations of the universe I bleeive there is some reaon to beleive our "universe" is not alone.
AGW: 4
Religion: 0
None of your options fit. Some of all in the AGW except 4 and 5.
While I don't believe AGW is a made up scam, a majority of those who believe in AGW for the most part do so not from evidence or logical thought but because they have been told man is destroying the environment. It is not coincidental those same people would also sign a petition banning water because they are told big evil corporations are using it for profit and it's use is bad for the planet.
There may be a God, the bible is not his word but the word of man written to control men. Evolution requires too much random chance and would require more mutations than possible to create the amount of diversity in the the few billion years life has been on the planet. I have sympathy for others because I am free and was fortunate to be born in a country founded on freedom.
AGW: In the 1 or 2 category
Religion: 3 or 4 category
AGW: 3.8 to 4.0. I gave a range because some aspects I agree with 4 and some I question but am not sure about so I may need to study certain aspects more in-depth before narrowing my number. (Note: I do not like the word 'catastrophic' as it means different things to different people. I prefer things to be described more in-depth than just a single word explanation.)
Religion 0.5. I am an atheist but am not certain if there isn't a 'God'. I am certain that, if there is a 'God' that God does not exist within human religions. You may also classify a 'God' as an action or something similar. I have a problem even knowing what a 'God' is. Every description varies amongst every person. That being said, I refuse to put my belief in something that has not been proven to my acceptance level. And sorry, but the writings in a book does not meet my proof. If you want to call God that motion or action that caused the Big Bang then you have every right to and I will accept it if it is proven and if it isn't I will question it but it will not be out of the realm of possibilities unless one aspect of ti falls within the most likely false category.
Pat: You are right that everything comes down to cause and effect. How you think this points to a God being true, specifically your own personal God, is beyond me though. If you won ten games of poker in a row would you classify that as 'luck'? It comes down to cause and effect. The cards dealt, the choices made, but many would still classify it as luck. It is a human word to describe the likelihood of a selected chosen path.
Pat: Evolution deals with probabilities and odds as well in some aspects. The probable outcomes of a mutation being good, neutral, or bad for the creature dependent on their environment and/or the creatures that hunt them. 'Luck' is the word to describe a correct choice or path out of a number of paths or choices.
1 ) There has been some warming, though there is doubt over how much; natural factors can explain most, if not all of the observations. The contribution from human activity is, if anything, very small. Current average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has gone up by 0.2 Celsius since 1978 so I have a hard time believing that people have much to do with it. History tells us that temperatures always fluctuate over time.
6) I believe in God and the goodness of the teachings in the Bible. The Bible helps me have faith that God and His goodness is real.
0
4
Of course, no sentence or two could perfectly encapsulate my position on topics such as these, but I'd put it at 3.5 for AGW, and between a 1 and 2 for religion.
"0 ) You are an Atheist! Though you would probably agree that logically, we can’t be absolutely sure, this uncertainty is too small to form part of your thinking. YOU ARE CERTAIN THAT THERE IS NO GOD! Knowing that ultimately, everything comes down to the luck of the draw, you have sympathy for those who are less fortunate than yourself."
Huh???
You insist that all "atheists" have your viewpoint. For example, somehow if I am an atheist I am supposed to share your polittical/social belief about having sympathy for those who are less fortunate than myself What if I think that most poor people in the U.S. are poor because they are lazy or stupid--that things are not random? I can't be an atheist if I have that view?
I am agnostic to both. 1 is the best for AGW but I wouldn't say that we know with certainty anymore than alarmists know.
3 is probably the best for religion. I was raised an agnostic but for what it is worth, I have experienced things that lead me to believe there may be more to our existence than what is understood by science but I don't pretend to understand it. Those who believe they understand these issues, e.g.atheists and very religious people, are certainly either ignorant or deluding themselves IMO.
... and your view of global warming?
Following on from my last question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Amv3b6PKaVt_JsopvNLLq2Psy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130613163546AAn3WKQ
... I thought it would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between belief in “Creationism” and in AGW, since the claim that there is such a correlation is often made by both sides here, in respect of the other side.
Hopefully what appears below is reasonable; please let me know which numbers best represent your views on AGW and on religion. If you think you are somewhere in between, it’s ok to use a decimal.
First, your position on AGW:
0 ) There is no warming to explain; the whole thing is a scam run by the left to raise taxes for socialist causes and to further their ambition of global communism!
1 ) There has been some warming, though there is doubt over how much; natural factors can explain most, if not all of the observations. The contribution from human activity is, if anything, very small.
2 ) Human activity is a significant factor, however, the instrumental record shows that the warming has slowed or stopped; perhaps AGW has run its course. Natural factors, such as the Sun, are underestimated by climate science.
3 ) Both natural and human factors contribute to the observed warming; it is probable that at least half is due to our activity, especially our use of fossil fuels. However, there is no reason to believe climate sensitivity is particularly high; it is likely that it is low. We have plenty of time, no special action is needed now, lets wait and see.
4 ) Human activity is the reason for most, or all of the warming; natural factors are much smaller and tend to be cyclical. AGW will probably be serious and maybe catastrophic, at least in human terms. You would prefer that we take action now rather than gamble; time is running out.
5 ) Human activity is responsible for all of the warming; it will be very serious, probably catastrophic. Urgent and drastic action is needed now; it may already be too late.
And on religion:
0 ) You are an Atheist! Though you would probably agree that logically, we can’t be absolutely sure, this uncertainty is too small to form part of your thinking. YOU ARE CERTAIN THAT THERE IS NO GOD! Knowing that ultimately, everything comes down to the luck of the draw, you have sympathy for those who are less fortunate than yourself.
… or perhaps not!
1 ) You are not an Atheist, as logically, we can’t be absolutely sure. However, though you agree there is no evidence for any God, you would say that absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence. Though you think it unlikely, you don’t rule out the possibility of a God; you keep an open mind.
2 ) You really don’t know! Perhaps you once had a strong conviction but are now questioning your earlier belief, or perhaps you’ve never had any strong feelings either way.
3 ) You are fairly certain that there is something more than just the physical universe; you are not sure what though. You are still seeking answers.
4 ) You believe in God; either you are a follower of one of the main faiths, or you have an overwhelming conviction about God’s existence. YOU ARE CERTAIN THERE IS A GOD! However facts are facts; you accept the age of the Earth as around 4.5 billion years, also the 13.5 billion for that of the universe. You accept the evidence for evolution, but would probably say it was guided at key stages by God, or that God knowingly created the universe in such a way as to lead to us.
5 ) Not only are you certain that there is a God, you are certain of the literal truth of the Bible! The Bible is infallible; the Earth and universe were created in six days, around 6000 years ago; any evidence to the contrary is either flawed or dishonest!
Knowing that ultimately, everything comes down to the action of free will and the grace of God, you have little sympathy for those who are less fortunate than yourself.
… or perhaps not!
Please indicate the number that best represents your position on both subjects. If you want to add anything to clarify, please do. Also, I would welcome anything you have to say on individual and collective responsibility, and on whether or not we have free will.
As before, best answer will be determined randomly from all complete answers, possibly weighted for quality and style.
My answers by the way; AGW 4.2, Religion 0,
Thanks in anticipation.
on a scail of one to ten my level of creationism id give a negative score to if i could as it is just such a uneducated simplistic view point and i know global warming to be fact from the informatin iv seen from more souses than i can count so 10 out of ten but i think we will deal with it the main problem for me is the pollutants other than CO2 as they course so many health problems we have enough carbon based fuels in Varese forms for hundreds of years but the chemicals realest would case some health problems for most of us if not all
I would go with AGW 4, Religion 1.
And I disagree with Pat, while classical physics teaches us about cause and effect, quantum physics leaves us with an indeterminacy about some things that might as well be ascribed to "luck." If Schrodinger's Cat lived 18 radioactive half-lives (since cats have 9 lives total), then we might describe that cat as very lucky; if instead, the cat lived just a fraction of a radioactive half-life then that cat would be unlucky. Cause and effect are still present, but there is an unpredictability that we might just as well call luck.
EDIT for Pat: Yes, it's a cause and effect situation with "luck" involved, contrary to what you said.
AGW 2.5 - Although "AGW has run its course" doesn't make sense so I'd leave that out.
Religion - 1
1 and 1 for me.
First catagory (4).
Second catagory (0).
4 on AGW. 3 or so on religion.
on AGW, "time is running out" is... a little misleading, perhaps. It's more a matter of... things will get worse, and the more action we take now, the less harm we'll have (and/or the less action we'll need to take) later.
And on religion... I tend to refer to myself as a nonspecific theist. I believe there is a Higher Power... but I also believe that said Higher Power wouldn't play stupid games with us, and creationism, given the available evidence, would count as a stupid game.
AGW 0 or 1
RELIGION 3
irrelevant question tho.
"My answers by the way; AGW 4.2, Religion 0,"
That's an impossible position to take. AGW requires a cause and an effect.
Your stated religion of Atheism - "Knowing that ultimately, everything comes down to the luck of the draw, you have sympathy for those who are less fortunate than yourself."
There's no such thing as "luck" if you believe there is cause and effect.
Your question is irrelevant because your own reasoning is flawed!
-----------------------------------
I have to plead arrogance on your reply. Your contrition shows that you have no positive thoughts of why human existence is positive. It almost seems that you are gloating. Arrogance in claiming that you know how science works by playing games with religion in a science question shows your lack of respect for human existence. Personally, I think you are a friggin idiot! Cause and effect is detrimental to a true Athiest's attitude.
---------------------------------
Atheism is directly and entirely against any positive movements that humans make on life itself. I doubt that you really believe what you say (even when it seems you are contrite).
-------------------------------------
Jeff M - Poker is a game of chance with many variables. It has to do with probabilities and odds. The art of gambling is a true profession.
-------------------------------------
pegminer - Schroedinger's Cat lives or dies by "cause and effect" in either case.
------------------------------------
Jeff M - Luck is an emotional word directed towards something that is not understood or misunderstood. I would rather call it being fortunate or unfortunate. My choice of interpretation for sure.
-----------------------------------
pegminer - "Yes, it's a cause and effect situation with "luck" involved, contrary to what you said."
Was the cat fortunate that it died early so it would no longer be tormented in a box, or was it unfortunate that it had to endure more torment?
Position on AGW: "0" But I would say there is no man-made Global Warming. There has in fact been a little natural warming, but not much.
On religion: "5" but I don't agree with the part that says "Knowing that ultimately, everything comes down to the action of free will and the grace of God, you have little sympathy for those who are less fortunate than yourself."
-----------------------
Just by your name we true scientists could surmise your position. We are not that stupid, although you surely think us such, as indicated by your editorial rather than question.
1. Recorded history of man's inhabiting the Earth goes back 6000 years, not the history of the Earth.
2. Your obvious interpretation of 'day' is of a 24 hour period. That is narrow minded, and obviously a decision of an uninformed individual. The 'day' you refer to was originally written in another language. So day would be a translation of the original meaning. In English the word 'day' has several meanings, one of such is found in Dictionary.com, for instance.
"period of existence, power, or influence: in the day of the dinosaurs. "
Now are you going to argue that the dinosaurs existed on Earth for only 24 hours? That would be foolish.
So since your question narrows down and misrepresents a true believer in the Creator of the Earth it should not be answered, either in an analog or digital form. But I will say, There is one who is responsible for the creation of Earth and the installation of man upon it. The Bible has never been proven wrong. And AGW is a proven scam concocted by man to scare the bejesus out of unwary individuals.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
As far Evolution is concerned. Anyone who can believe that has been smoking pot by the tons. There is no prove what so ever. There is a missing chain, rather than a missing link. If you believe in it then prove it. Make an eye as efficient as ours, the one that was supposed to be made by accident.
I will let you fill in the blanks.
AGW 3.8 I don't believe that natural factors are necessarily small, but they are cyclical and have been mostly going in the wrong direction.
Religion 4.0
I would be approximately a 4 and a 3.
The premise of the question is seriously flawed, however, because there is no reason to expect much correlation, other than a slight INVERSE correlation through a common susceptibility to anti-science propaganda. Creationism and anti-climate science, however, have radically different origins.
The Biblical creation story derives from AGE-OLD pondering about where we come from. It comes from ancient PRE-SCIENCE musings that have only lately been hijacked by fake-Christian con-artists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Fossil fuel industry anti-climate-science is POST-SCIENCE lying that goes back to only about 20-25 YEARS ago. The very idea of AGW itself is only about 120 years old, systematic scientific proof of it about 50 years old, and rock-solid scientific proof about 20 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
The fossil fuel industry got seriously involved only AFTER the science was so clear that the policy implications
