All Comments (45)

Google

Google

Google

Google

Make peace, not war!

Nice site

Nice site

Susan: Please let those folks in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, etc, know about global warming--they could use a warm up (and thaw) this week. Forest fires are created when man prevents nature's cycles of lightening induced fire that clears the undergrowth. Controlled burning which environmentalist fight tooth and nail can accomplish the same objective--preventing large destructive forest fires.Global warming is a fraud perpetrated by those who profit from goverment grants to study the same. For proof of the fraud go to Saint Paul, Mn and do some sledding this week.

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

Susan,

when will religious people separate the moral message from the scientific message in the religious works of the world, including the Bible?
Just a couple of examples and there are many more:

Psalm 88 vs. 38
And his throne as the sun before me and as the moon perfect forever, and a faithful witness in heaven.
Wisdom 11 vs. 21
But thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.

Even the paper we used i.e.; graph paper, has a religious connotation. The Greek word translated as scripture is ‘Graphe’

Jesus went on to say even the hairs on our head are numbered.

Either God has a lot of free time on his hands or there is something very profound in these statements

AJdelosReyes CA-USA:,"religion for the propagation of religious belief/s is exclusive to religion"

Only the belief part. Science propagates itself through education. Religion educates in the negative direction, the student is more ignorant than before learning that which is taught.

Religious education begins with a list of "what we believe" that is different from all other religions. Constantine demanded and got just that known as the Nicean creed. There can be but one correct "what we believe." Different religions are separated from each other by "what we believe" proving that all but one religion teaches lies and leading to the question - is there a correct set of beliefs? Science require proof for that which is taught as factual.

Religions do have commons. Passing the plate for example. All do that. There are also common beliefs. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is what the three great faiths have in common belief, that the supernatural being in the burning bush was God.

On NBC world news last evening they were bemoaning the fact that under the evangelical administration, born of abortion, people are becoming so poor the plate is coming back near empty. Actually NBC never lays anything at the Bush administration's doorstep, it's just a sign of the times, trade imbalance etc.

Scientist is a job that may or may not pay well or anything at all. Minister is a job that is always compensated. How much depends on how many people a particular minister is leading to hell. The big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell. Can we expect their opinions on science to lead in any other direction? Have they opposed the notion of "global warming" from the pulpit, supported Bush and bashed Goore in the past? Was/is it a sin to vote for a Democrat?

Bringing religion in on any science discussion is like bringing Nazis in on the details of the new German constitution. I'm afraid religion has already announced it's "position" which is contrary to the fundamental protocol of science, "must be proved to be accepted."

All right, all right. This topic has become muddled enough with extraneous blah-blahs.

There is religion, and there is science. Or better put: there are religion-ists, and their are scientists. Can they have an alliance? An alliance for what? Obviously, for the advangement of their respective objectives WHERE SUCH OBJECTIVES meet or are in confluence. Because, of course, each has it sown exclusive objectives.

Where is or are this/these meetings or confluences?

In brief: where the weal of mankind is affected. Science for science sake is exclusive to science; religion for the propagation of religious belief/s is exclusive to religion. Science as it affects humans and their world mingles with religion as it is about human relationships (with each other and with the world)--this is where an alliance is both viable and necessary.

How then describe such an alliance? Why but in an already familiar agreement: The "let-alone" policy, that opens a free space for the exercise of initiatives and skills. In fine: Let the scientists do his science; let the religionists attend to his religiosity! What will it profit science to investigate the claims of religions that can not be scientifically studied? What will it profit religion to contest scientific findings unless the contesting is done using the tools of science (which no religionists will do or even find worth doing if they can and, conversely, what no scientists will dignify unless in accord with the processes acceptable to science)?

We can, however, agree on what is good or beneficial for men on earth and what is otherwise. To achieve the former and negate the latter, is a task that both scientist and religionist can help bring about. For example: our eco-system needs to be husbanded, how should we go about doing so? An agreement on the answer can be arrived that conforms or is congruent to the beliefs of the religionists and the findings of the scientists. Build an alliance there. And so on.

Along the said concern, the real problem of an alliance (as a consensus and a concordat that leads to action), I feel, is between and among religionists, between and among religionists and anti-religionsts, and between and among scientists, and between and among scientists and flat-earthists!

Just take a gander at all the preceeding comments. Further, i say nothing more.
.

It is good that the cooperation on the environment and on HIV/AIDS prevention that is already taking place.

--------------------------------------------

AIDS history:
http://www.pozgroup.com/blogs/blog_messages?blog_id=10400

Andy: "Religion is more important than science period. www.andyskysea.com"

1. Andy, just which religion are you referring to. Are you saying they are all the same -- ie it doesn't matter??? How about paganism or belief in Zeus or Hinduism?

2. I tried to check out your site and was told it doesn't exist.

Are you making that up too?

Yours, ThinkAboutIt

Religion has outlived its usefulness.
It has no place in a modern rational world.
For everything useful in life we have to thank science.
If we don't dump religion,religion will dump us.
The war continues....

Religion is more important than science period.
www.andyskysea.com

Religion is more inportant than science period.
www.andyskysea.com

Not to worry ThinkAboutIt:

Thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org makes evangelical heads hurt. Just another reason why they warn us to not think but just do what they dictate.

Isn't it comforting to think about the president being a puppet strung to them? He consulted all the big name "pastors" Pat, Billy, Bobby, all the significant ones and even knelt before the pope as he called upon a higher power in preparation to attacking Iraq.

Oops! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul gives us a look at their "higher power." The supernatural being in the burning bush on fire with the variety of fire found in hell is the father of Jesus.

As Jesus hung on the cross he advised the "good" thief, "this day you will be with me in paradise." Elsewhere in the Bible and as a part of the official Christian creed it says that upon His death Jesus "descended into hell." One need not be a five star detective to see what that all means. Obviously, Jesus thought of hell as paradise and looking further in sacred, (word sacred means burn) scriptures, "the house of My father" where there's plenty of room for all.

So not to worry. People of all three great faiths are headed at light speed to hell for violating the first commandment. The big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell. How American can one get? This is a Christian nation. Sacred - burned.

Susan Brooks writes: "For the evangelical the continued existence of the planet is not an absolute condition for the salvation of the human being".

* Which explains why Evangelicals see no problem with partnering with Right Wing politicians who are happy to make a profit while destroying the environment.

* Which is precisely the reason why so many nonbelievers are ANGRY at Evangelicals (and some of this anger improperly spills over to other Christian groups, in my view):

Evangelicals -- by their large numbers in voting -- are aiding and abetting in the destruction of the Earth's precious environment. For this, they can expect to receive disrespect-- even disgust towards them -- to the point of being accused of being immoral!!!!

Are not the effective actions of Evangelicals more of a threat to our children and the planet that the Right Wing Muslim terrorists? At a minimum, they are in the same LEAGUE.

Anyone care to show me where my reasoning is wrong?

Susan Brooks writes: "For the evangelical the continued existence of the planet is not an absolute condition for the salvation of the human being".

* Which explains why Evangelicals see no problem with partnering with Right Wing politicians who are happy to make a profit while destroying the environment.

* Which is precisely the reason why so many nonbelievers are ANGRY at Evangelicals (and some of this anger improperly spills over to other Christian groups, in my view):

Evangelicals -- by their large numbers in voting -- are aiding and abetting in the destruction of the Earth's precious environment. For this, they can expect to receive disrespect-- even disgust towards them -- to the point of being accused of being immoral!!!!

Are not the effective actions of Evangelicals more of a threat to our children and the planet that the Right Wing Muslim terrorists? At a minimum, they are in the same LEAGUE.

Anyone care to show me where my reasoning is wrong?

"I know that "Come, Holy Spirit" is my prayer as I watch these terrible scenes from the fires."

Does the holy spirit tote a firehose? Otherwise I fail to see what good prayer will do. Frankly, this ending line is a fabulous summation of exactly why religion and science will never coexist, and rightly so: magic has no place within science.

A token few in both camps appear to embrace the dissonance; how they do that is more of a mystery to me than why christians believe beaming ESP towards the sky will produce any actual results in the real world. The same evangelicals who will reach across the divide on "Green" issues will reject the exact same rationalism on an issue more dear to their faith.

Chaotician:

By the time we find out we have a problem it's usually too late to avoid it. So far none of them have gotten drunk enough on faith to think they will survive a nuclear event. That will change when loyal servants of Allah get their hands on the bomb. Survival isn't in their bag of tricks. MAD, mutually assured destruction doesn't stop the already MAD. Probably a little more compelling problem than global warming. Dead is dead no matter what the cause of death.

I'll welcome the work by the Devil to prevent the coming tragedy of Global Annihilation by warming or more mundane forces like George and Dick; so I suppose I can accept the support of the Evangelicals particularity if they also oppose the murderous actions of their chosen icons, George, Dick, Rudi, et al.. Not much value in reducing Green House Gases if George and Dick go nuclear!

Just as long as that help does not require any acceptance of their collective insanity; I'll refrain from enrolling them in a 12 step program to recover from their blind faith. Amen!

Why don't scientists ever speculate on the harm done to the planet when it comes to all these other planets they have studied and are almost certain once contained life?
Why can't we learn from the damage caused to the planet Mars by it's life forms that caused the planet and all life to die?

Terra Gazelle:

I think there are explanations for just about everything. Even OJ had one for the cut on his hand, "broke a glass on the sink in the hotel because he was upset by the news." But then there's the possibility Ron Goldman did that with his fingernails trying to get loose. And then there is the glove that was found at the scene, pulled off by the same action that caused the cut on OJ's hand.

I'm probably paranoid. I think the LA Corner didn't look under the victims fingernails on purpose, "all time NFL ground gainer."

Thanks for the info.

BGone,
There is a "Burning Bush"... A perennial herb with white flowers that emit flammable vapour in hot weather.
fraxinella, dittany, gas plant, Dictamnus alba

The vapour might have caught fire for a moment, such as a flash, gone out and Moses got spooked.
And it is very drought tolerant, such in dry arid places.

terra

Susan,

The question is:

In his "letter to a Southern Baptist pastor," biosociologist E.O. Wilson warns: "An alliance between science and religion, forged in an atomosphere of mutual respect, may be the only way to protect life on earth." Is such an alliance necessary? Possible?
You say: “The collaboration of religion and science on this project of addressing global climate change is an imperative, clearly an imperative. There is a lot of good news today, not only the prospect of religious and scientific cooperation, but also the actual fact of it.”

But can this alliance be used to protect life on earth? More specifically, can this alliance be used to bring about responsible limiting of population growth; and what would you consider the optimal world population to be from a quality of life point of view?

You say: “I was at a meeting recently with Richard Cizik, the Vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. Richard is sometimes nicknamed “the green evangelical.” He remarked to me that he thought that it is through the cooperation on the environment that the gulf that has arisen between science and conservative Christianity can and is being bridged.”

My take on this “cooperation on the environment that will bridge the gulf between science and conservative Christianity” is that it offers a lot of encouraging promises to solve many problems relative to the environment.

Unfortunately, the elephant in the room is the more urgent imperative to get world wide population growth under control. I know this is a most unpopular subject, but I wonder what you and my fellow posters would have to say about the idea of a government mandated sterilization program to stop and/or reverse population growth in our country, and perhaps all countries of the world if such a program could be sold. And also, what would you consider to be the optimal world population from a quality of life point of view. I’m thinking that it would be on the order of half the current 6 billion.

The source of God that one nation is under comes from the burning bush. From another thread, some science worth examining before we decide who is and who is not scientifically qualified. This is the God of all three great faiths.

To Henry James from BGONE:

The bush was not on fire. The sun which was assumed correctly to be made of some special fire silhouetted the bush at dawn. The bush was in a break in the cliffs surrounding Akhetaten. The bush was 93 million miles from the fire of the sun so it didn't burn at all.

It's an optical illusion where the sun appeared to climb the bush and end sitting on the top of it that is our source of God today. That bush was so special it is mentioned many times by Amenophis IV, a prolific writer. Her mother told her the sun was her father because she had become pregnant with no assistance from the king, Pharaoh Amenophis III.

All we need to do is say those that believe the sun was/is God should hold scientific opinions worth examining. When the believer happens to hold the most powerful office on earth the importance of opinions is a given. Amenophis IV was never Pharaoh but the Greeks that attempted to read her "unreadable writing on the wall" 800 years later looked at the "snake on her hat" and made a reasonable assumption. Assumptions make asses of us all sometimes.

The human race has suffered enough from the, "God in a burning bush" nonsense. Isn't it time to make the truth available to the general public? Or shall we continue to suffer in the name of God? There's an awfully lot of knowledge that will be wasted, billions of man hours studying the hoax when the truth is known. Think of all the experts on the Bible, doctors of divinity and what they will do to "earn" a living.

That's what this weeks question is all about, bringing doctors of divinity and doctors of science together so the doctors of science can be educated. Doctors of divinity do know everything already don't they? Just one bit of information left to give them a complete education.

The Moderate:

It is! It is new! A lot newer than the Bible eh dude. When people stop telling the same old joke, the Bible I'll stop noticing that it's a proved hoax. When someone else gives me the gun that hoax buster give me I'll use it. I'll bet you're just tired of being showed to be a Lucifer worshiper. Stop worshiping Lucifer and I'll stop noticing you do.

Now what was the question? Oh yeah, the coming together of science and religion. That's a kind of worn out one isn't it? In the beginning there was no scientist just crooks called witch doctors that scared the money out of people with boogies in the dark. Very scientific I'd say.

Your turn, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Let's see some "scientific" facts to refute that Biblical finding. You ain't got none? I thought so.

BERT..previous lifes your having been stretched on the rack,as variety of treats, as be common practice.It having but,aided in development of your sense of humour. Ability of the masses, as to read as write,held back for many hundreds of years,for many nations it still common practice. However we all be as brothers sisters, still as one family.It be no easy journey our spiritual development,to that of, spiritual enlightenment. Keeping an balance of judgement no an easy task. There a need for many more to be a stretched on rack,thus all nations,all people's having an far more developed,as (laughable) sense of humour.

Good topic, fire, let's talk about all the
religious firebugs out there and their socio-political arson, for a minute, especially stuff
like the 'end is nigh' rhetoric, just that one
thing by itself, do YOU really believe that, lady?
I don't, I believe that the Church and its' global
counterparts rightly see that their days as a
powerful political entity are numbered, their
assumed amnesty from public accountability
disappearing in scandal after scandal, and
the question stands as to what they might be
tempted to do with the other Trinity, Money, Power, and Influence, were they to start
seeing any one or all three really start to
wane.

Religion's been around for a long time.
Religion's been around since the printed
word, probably since the first caveman looked
up at an eclipse and said, "OOK!"(probably
not an actual quote, but he/she/it probably
grunted or squeaked something when the Darkness
Demons stole the sun). Anyway, the Jesus racket
pays pretty well, but in my view, it IS a racket,
and the other Abrahamic branches are probably
just as rotten as what we've seen in the USA.

So, where's all the money go? Faith-based
accounting, maybe? Is there like, a Holy Wormhole
in the bottom of that collection plate/ATM
machine that instantly transports those millions
and billions of donated revenue to up On High,
where angelic bank tellers redistribute the
money to the Most Deserving right back here
on earth, or is there like a casino or something
there, nestled in that little cloud there in
the back that nobody really talks about, a Heavenly Cigar Bar where no questions get
asked or answered? What REALLY goes on over
at Vaticanville, does the Pope have a green
eyeshade for his other hat, or like a clip-on
for the big pointy one?

And, since you brought up the California fires,
let's talk about all the cross-border 'fun' that
the Catholics have been up to. Did you guys
send forth St. Lightning to do the work of the Lord or something there? What REALLY goes on,
I might wonder, but will never know...

Susan,practised abuse of religion, as science, over many moons,being now worked to a fine art. For wealth fame,power,many have but sold their souls, becoming as dark creatures of the night. That they unite, be the last need of humanity. Susan,do not encourage, be not water they pour over the fire, but petrol.Susan,for a time the planet unable, sustain human life,hence for an period, we have to vacate it.Yet it not ending of an story,only an chapter, of the journey,in human development... .. .

Dear RT:

There is no doubt that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". You can prove in a lab that it passes certain wave lengths (sunlight on the way down) and blocks lower wave lengths (heat from the surface of the Earth on the way back up) trying to get out. The physics are clear on this. There is no reasonable doubt.

From: www.realclimate.org:

"On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts."

BEGONE:

"Absolutely so. Now which "spirit" are we talking about?"

A joke is funny once, or maybe even twice if it's really good. I have been away on business for a while and I return to find you still repeating the same old tired line. Get some new material dude. Get out in the sun some afternoon and catch some vitamin D. It'll do you a world of good.

Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite:

You said, "Fire is a multivalent biblical symbol. Fire scourges the earth as the end of days approaches; fire also means the inspiration of the spirit."

Absolutely so. Now which "spirit" are we talking about?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is AN interpretation of sacred scriptures and about "flaming spirits" too.

The question is about the marriage of science and religion, kinda like Madam Curie and Charles Manson getting hitched. After all, isn't science like religion just a lot of "educated" opinions?

Chicago Theological Seminary is an educational institution? Have you added the proper reading of sacred scriptures to the traditional, God in the burning bush one yet?

No? Then how can we expect religion operators to examine all the facts, global warming for example - as mentioned in the question? Maybe there's more than one, "Inconvenient Truth"? Do you find Moses selling his soul to be inconvenient? I thought so.

Why are we praying to Devil? Devil needs no encouragement. When the wind blows, the waters rise and the dust won't settle we cry out for help from God but it's Devil that makes the scene, as though He didn't have anything to do with it in the first place. I get it. Devil needs a seat at the "peace" conference table, just in case peace threatens to break out.

Keep up the good work. Hell isn't half full yet. There's a lot of atheists and other non believers refusing to go there. The big money goes to those leading the multitudes to hell and some big tax money, (borrowed, groan) for the ones deciding a Devil, some Devil is up and about, (global warming). There's a dollar or two of government money for those "officially" chewing on Devil's activities in places not known as churches. We can't let Devil's representatives miss out on that big money now can we. Good job.

Jozevz

come again...?

Whatever happened to prayer?
Seriously,if there is a God,why aren't we praying to him?
We hear so much about the power of prayer,yet it's a power never tapped into.
Let's have a mass 'pray in'.
Let everybody everywhere pray to God at the same time,to extinguish the fires and adjust the earthly thermostat to reverse global warming,and bring in temperatures which will be perfect for all God's creatures everywhere.
What is the point in having God's Ear if we don't use it in emergencies.
And what's the point in having a God if He does nothing in times of crisis? Aren't Gods supposed to be able to do wonderful things?
In all the time this God has been in office,He has done nothing. Famines still happen,tsunamis too,
and earthquakes,tornadoes and hurricanes,floods and fires,and droughts;not to mention wars,holocausts and genocides,and the holy sodomy of little boys.
Could it be that maybe there is no God?
Could it be that we are all alone down here?
What a terrible thought! All alone;all six billion of us.No.There must be a God.Someone must in charge be up there in Heaven. Otherwise it wouldn't be Heaven would it.
Maybe He died and nobody told us.Who would know?
Everything that lives,dies.Even Gods.
A loving God;a live loving God,wouldn't be such a do-nothing kinda Guy. He would try to help,surely.
Otherwise,where does the loving bit fit in?

Again, Gerry, I would reiterate that the ignoramuses (ignorami?) to whom you refer are not the sum total, or even the majority, of religious believers. Imagine how just plain embarrassing it is for us to be associated with such a limiting version of our diety!

I wonder what kind of collaboration would be possible with ignoramuses of the creationist fundamentalist ilk. How low would a reasonable person have to stoop to find a "compromise" with the very negation of reason without losing the last grain of self-respect? Education, knowledge without any religious or otherwise superstitious flavor is the only means for salvation of this poor little planet.

Just a couple points. The Santa Ana winds are not baked in the desert. they occur in the fall when the deserts are relatively cool. They are hot because they are descending from higher elevations and compressed, and gain speed from being forced through narrow mountain passes. and it's the lack of rain (we have had 2 instead of the normal 17 inches of rain in Southern California this year) that is the problem, not the vegetation all the rain has grown.

Evangelicals should at least ponder the possibility that the second coming isn't just around the corner and that God will ask them why they didn't lift a finger to keep his creation healthy as long as he intended by using the brains he gave them.

VDO said: "RTS - But aside from the specifics of the global warming argument -- which is more politics than science -- shouldn't faith and reason be allies, not enemies?"

Yes...

... your question seems to me like asking if artists and women should be allies or enemies.

False Dichotomy, of course.

Peace,
RT

Um, just a reminder, not all Christians accept pseudo-science in place of genuine inquiry.

RTS
But aside from the specifics of the global warming argument -- which is more politics than science -- shouldn't faith and reason be allies, not enemies?

I agree that there is no theoretical barrier to cooperation between religion and science... indeed many religious people *are* scientists and vice versa.

The caveat is that religious organizations should not advocate for an arbitrary set of political initiatives simply in the name of goodwill between science and religion.

The link between carbon emissions and global warming is specious and is not scientifically established. To blindly pursue the wrong solution for idealistic reasons would benefit neither scientific nor religious integrity.

Peace,
RT