Profile for Stillness
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Stillness |
| Member number | 7723 |
| Title | Lifecrafter |
| Postcount | 701 |
| Homepage | |
| Registered | Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 23 2007 22:38
Profile
quote:On things scientific (and we'll leave it there lest I be accused of derailing again) I agree. The point is that being amicable and tolerant is not just about being nice, but is practical. People can deal with, "Well, we'll just have to think about that some more" much better than they can deal with, "That's just idiotic." When you say the latter you don't just limit the other person, but yourself from adjusting and growing. Pride comes before the crash. ----------- SoT, it's not just Dawkins. I don't feel like he was elected Mouthpiece. I do feel that what you noted as an anti-scientist sentiment may stem from a reaction to scientists like him. It's not my sentiment. I'm anti-anybody-that-abuses-their-position. When the mechanic rips me off because I don't know much about cars I don't write off all mechanics. It may prompt me to get familiar with the automobile so that I'm not as easily fooled next time though. And if the next mechanic says, "I'm the mechanic here. Trust me" when I try to ask questions about his diagnosis I'll be taking my car elsewhere. Bad scientists and bad mechanics - it's basically the same. The prime difference being that mechanics can only steal money, but scientists can steal minds and sway societies. We have a duty to be wary. It would be unscientific not to be. ------------- EDIT: TM, do you think it's possible to use scientific method and arrive at different results? If so, what do we do then? Assume the majority is correct? Go with the guy who calls other he most names? [ Thursday, August 23, 2007 22:50: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 23 2007 16:04
Profile
quote:Yeah, it is. Let's say we disagree on an issue and I hold myself out to be an agent of truth and knowledge. What is the best way for me to find out who, if either of us, is right? Call you stupid for disageeing? Suggesting we put our heads together to sort out the facts of a matter? Now, let's say we discuss and still disagree. Should I call you stupid now or say, "let's agree to disagree and maybe we can think about this more if new information comes to light." If I call you stupid, should I be surprised if you don't want to hear my ideas? [quote]how would you feel if I thought I knew the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses better than you did?[/quote]I'd listen to your perspective. Even if you're wrong I might learn something of my faith from you. Let me suggest a more fitting illustration: How would I feel if you thought Jehovah's Witnesses were wrong about the Bible or God? It's better because I don't think I know more about biology than certain scientists, but I still think they're wrong. Most people I encounter are not as familiar with the Bible as I am, but they still disagree. I don't think they're stupid, and certainly wouldn't call them such. I love to talk to people interested in the Bible/God/religion. Sometimes they're actually right about cetain issues and I'm wrong. Sometimes I simply am not familiar with a topic even though I study and read the Bible daily. So I'd never be so bold and haughty as to belittle someone for disagreeing with me. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 23 2007 11:51
Profile
quote:I don't. Good scientists have done and continue to do much for us. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 23 2007 10:14
Profile
quote:That wouldn't be so horrible, but that's not the message. I've seen, heard, and read him and everytime those who disagree with him on humans origins are ignorant, blinded, irrational, etc. His view is unquestionably right. He can't tolerate the fact that some people have looked at the evidence logically and disagree so they are classified as stupid. He is not alone in that sentiment. That's a repulsive attitude for anybody to have. It's no wonder when people are repulsed. EDIT: Ephesos, I was sarcastically mocking Thuryl. [ Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:16: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 23 2007 07:16
Profile
quote:I think it's a backlash to the attitude exemplified by folks like Dawkins who basically says, "Science has uplifted you. You may keep your spirituality for now, as long as you will accept what I tell you as you would the word of your God." ---------- quote:Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point about the view of those who have ideas that don't fit your own. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 23 2007 06:14
Profile
Most of the folks I know are not intellectuals, though I do know some. I my experience, the trust people place in science is not fully dependant on their station in life - that even goes for scientists. That's why I don't wholly agree with Synergy's latest generalization. A wise person has proper perspective on his limitations whether he studies climatology, practices medicine, lays brick, or takes care of home and family. I know working class folks that place great stock in human ability to accomplish anything. I also know scienists and professors that love science, but recognize it can only take us so far. One of the most telling perspectives in regard to this conversation, is when people say, "I am not religious, I believe in Science." As if spirituality would somehow betray science and Science is not their religion. ------ I do agree that the illiterate should be lied to. They have a lot of nerve even breathing the same air as us, let alone expecting honesty as if they even know what truth is... Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 22 2007 19:53
Profile
I have a greater interest in science than most people I know. But I do know a fair amount of science-minded folks, researchers, scientists, and professors as a lot of my friends and associates are from a major college town where I spend a lot of time. It's my experience that intelligence (at least what I think you mean by the word) has little bearing on the view people have towards science and the trust they place in its representatives. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 22 2007 17:13
Profile
I'm not presenting the "nobody knows everything" position to counter the global warming argument, but to encourage humility. As I said before, it's not hard for me to believe that our actions have damaged our climate I'm just not convinced. --------------- There's not unanimity and certainty as with acceleration due to gravity. I've seen some links here (including some of yours) that mention scientists with doubts. I've posted one myself. That's why I was asking if the temperature increase due to us has been quantified. That would at least indicate that somebody thinks they have a real handle on all the factors that could be involved. Note this link I got from Ephesos' Wikipedia post: "In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html That's the kind of honesty I'm talking about. If I was some sort of decision maker (which I'm not, so my opinion ain't worth much) that's the kind of presentation that would have my rapt attention and would be the basis for my actions. I don't need exaggerations to decide what to believe. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 22 2007 11:02
Profile
For the sake of your illustration I won't question you on what would and would not qualify as drastic and just agree with you on the acceleration. Now find some scientists who'd disagree to make your illustration really fit. I'm guessing you'll find unanimity. You won't find the same on the global warming issue. Why do you think that is? Ephesos, your logic circle would be more viscious if I said "humans know [i]nothing.[i]" Zeviz, I can accept your point. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 22 2007 08:06
Profile
If God exists (the Judeo-Christian God) then knowledge from him would be absolute. ------ Acceleration due to gravity may be one of those partial truths that I mentioned. But to use words like "always" and "without exception" is saying quite a bit. How would you know that? That is the very heart of the matter. Still your theory is applied and works. That carries far more weight than an untested idea. Now explain to me exactly what gravity is and how it works including its relationship to the other forces... Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 22 2007 07:25
Profile
I never said argument was counterproductive - I'm in fact saying the opposite. What I'm saying is that the way you go about presenting it can be productive or counterproductive. If a scientist says. "Humans pump X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere causing Y amount of temperature increase annually. We know this is the cause because we've isolated A, B, and C and have found them to be inconsequential for these reasons" he's got my attention. If he says, "We're causing the world to heat and anyone that disagrees is stupid" I'm less prone to listen. The well being of humankind overshadows personal pride. This is not some highschool debate team. ------- Truth is reality. Your words let me know you don't get me. If you did you would know that I believe in non-negotiable absolutes. The thing is that humans don't know it all. Anybody thinking otherwise is deluded. When they speak of knowledge they've uncovered through scientific method in absolute and non-negotiable terms it lets me know they have lost touch with reality and puts a large question mark over everything they say. Science simply does not work that way. I'm not a scientist, but I've studied it enough and have enough interest in it to know that much. I think the scientific method is generally the best means we have to unlocking the secrets of the universe. So, when a scientist (or better yet a large group of them) says that they've looked at an issue from every angle presented and is putting forth the best solution they can come up with then I'm all ears. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 22 2007 05:23
Profile
quote:You misunderstand me. I'm saying humanity should investigate these things, come to a conclusion, and act on it. I'm all for that. What I'm also saying though, is that because something has popular appeal, scientific or otherwise, does not make it correct. History should tell us that. So if we make a decision we should very well be prepared for the outcome that we are dead wrong. Which leads us to this - while making a decision the wise course is to listen carefully to all sides while keeping an open mind. Belittling people because they have a different view is counterproductive. It may be their view can change or enhance our own and vice versa. Whenever I see scientists or anyone denegrade someone with a different opinion my trust in their position goes right out the door, because I automatically know they have an ulterior motive. They want to be "right." They don't want the truth so they refuse to listen and don't want me to listen either. To that end they say the dissenter is a wacko, lunatic, anti-science, fringe, etc. By the way, I know exactly what a theory is. On divine revation, please note I said "truly." The implication being that it is information from God which would be absolutely and wholly true, unlike scientific knowledge. If you are a disbeliever, of course you don't believe in such things, but that is really beside the point. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Ahht in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 22 2007 05:01
Profile
I have a good buddy that goes around to garage sales and buys stuff and makes a killing on ebay. He has an eye for what people will like. He told me he could almost quit his day job. Edit: So I chose garage. [ Wednesday, August 22, 2007 05:02: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Tuesday, August 21 2007 02:10
Profile
I never saw the information on how much in degrees the human contribution is. I've seen how much carbon we've put out but I've looked at the links and the posts and don't see what this translates too in degrees. Anyone with mastery in a field of knowledge can make a position sound convincing. That does not make it the right position though. I love science and everything good it has done for us in terms of knowledge and technology. But just as technolgy can always be improved, knowledge is only partial. And scientists are at best only human. If they have a love for truth and stick to a method to uncover it - fantastic! They also have bellies, families, houses, lust, bosses, limited intelligence, limited time and all of the other things that can influence where a person's focus is, what they see as they examine it, and how what they report they see. Aything peer reviewed is reviewed by people with the same issues. I would agree that a multitude of minds on an issue can provide some clarity, but there are no guarantees. This is why I'm not troubled by dissenting opinions and find no need to belittle someone with different views. Unless you have a truly divine revelation, you don't really know. When something moves past theory and really starts working, then you may be onto something. But all sides on this warming issue are theorizing. If we cut back carbon emissions and things seem to cool in decades to come we can say, "Maybe we were right." Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, August 18 2007 18:28
Profile
OK, so humans put CO2 in the atmosphere. I can buy that. More CO2 means hotter temperatures. I can go for that too. What I am not seeing from the "human-induced warming" camp is how much is actually affected by humans in terms of degrees. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, August 17 2007 18:30
Profile
Yeah, but didn't we already determine the the human contribution to greenhouse gases is only a tenth of a percent? This global warming thing is beginning to look more and more overblown. I'm pro clean planet, but anti sensational claims. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 16 2007 10:17
Profile
I've agreed with some of what you've said before while some is always questionable, but for the first time I think I'm in full harmony with every single word of your rant. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 16 2007 09:43
Profile
Yes, identifying greenhouse gases as "greenhouse gases" is insane. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 16 2007 07:25
Profile
quote:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=so+called&x=0&y=0 so-called /?so??k?ld/ –adjective 1.called or designated thus: the so-called Southern bloc. 2.incorrectly called or styled thus: so-called intellectuals. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 16 2007 06:38
Profile
thuryl beat me :mad: Edit: quote:Hmm, I'll grant that. Sometimes "so-called" simply refers to how a thing is designated though with no regard to the writers agreement. In fact, that is the primary usage of the word. So, your point would only be valid if the article was arguing against any greenhouse effect. [ Thursday, August 16, 2007 07:02: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 16 2007 06:35
Profile
Thuryl, I think the double negatives in my quote threw you. I agree. ----- Kel, that site is not anti-evolution. It's about astronomy. In fact, what little it does comment on evolution is pro-Darwin from what I remember. The quote is regarding the effect a scientific theory can have on society, regardless of the veracity of the theory. And saying something is "so-called" does not mean the thing does not exist. In this case i think the writer was commenting on the bias inherent in calling gases "greenhouse." If you say "greenhouse gas" most people immediately think, "this gas is responsible for global warming." The point of the article is that it's the sun, not human activity. I don't agree or disagree, but I let's look at both sides honestly. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| The Sky Is Falling...? in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, August 16 2007 05:23
Profile
I don’t know whether to go with Al Gore and his ‘ignorance oriented religious belief system’ or the ‘lunatic fringe greenhouse gas disbelievers.’ I think it’s unrealistic to think humans are incapable of affecting our planet on a global scale. I also know, as has been mentioned, that majority or popular scientific opinion doesn’t make a thing so. I read information about the Sun’s effect on climate change a while ago and since then I’m somewhere in the middle. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7 So I didn’t vote because you don’t have a dead center option. The last one “little interest or concern” is close, save the “interest” part as I’m very interested in what happens to our planet. I’m just not very concerned. Here’s why: I think Zeviz’s approach has some merit – we have nothing to lose and everything to gain if we go to cleaner more efficient energy. At the same time I always try to take the latest fear-inspiring buzzwords with a grain of salt. There’s always something new to worry about and I refuse to get worked up about it anymore. If we need to go to solar, wind, electric or whatever, I’m all for it. I hate high gas prices and greedy oil companies. If the sun is the culprit and we can’t do anything about it, well…I don’t like wintertime that much anyway. It gets cold in Michigan. Either way, humanity will live and adapt if we have to. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| My arms are starting to hurt! in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Sunday, August 12 2007 05:55
Profile
In one of my all time favs, escape velocity nova, you could become military governor of a planet if you defeated all of it's forces. I've often wished that Geneforge had a feature like this. I just end up staking out 2-3 strategically placed maps and treating them like I'm the governor and keeping all of my stuff there. I don't really know how easy it is to do this in the other games. Geneforge is the only series I play. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, August 4 2007 21:57
Profile
I don't have a problem with you or anyone on these boards. I actually like you. You do make it clear that you view me as an imbecile though. That view is not uncommon here. Even if I am a little offended I don't flame in return because I appreciate some of the perspectives and they're worth hearing even if they come with a little jab. I do think I am owed the right to mock when you call me things like 'amazingly ignorant' though. Maybe the sarcasm helps me deal with the pain. :( Seriously though, don't dish it out if you can't take it. Get some thicker skin or stay outta the kitchen.[/cliche abuse] ---------- Random, Jesus is son of David through Mary, but only through Joseph as an adopted son. Your sites give evidence that the Jews don't think Jesus is God's son. No one's arguing against them believing that. The point is that everyone knew he was a descendant of David. Alo, in ancient Hebrew and Christian thought the punishment for sin is death. All children of Adam are born sinners, so when they die it is what their works merit them. [Psalm 49:7-9]No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him-- the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough-- that he should live on forever and not see decay. If you read anything about someone dying for other people’s sins that means they don’t have any themselves and it is messianic. Isaiah 53 (which I assume you’re alluding to) is clearly messianic and fulfilled in every way by Jesus. Isaiah 9: Is absolutely messianic. It speaks about one who would sit on David’s throne forever. Zechariah 12: I won’t argue this too much atm except to say that prophecies are sometimes not quite convicing alone, but take on deeper meaning when viewed together - the sum is more than the parts. Zechariah 13: Why do you think this has anything to do with the messiah? Daniel 9: Now this is a major one. The time period is accounted for as it lists the start as when the word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem. This occurred in 455 BC. 69 “weeks” after is when “Messiah the leader” should appear. The Jews though in not only weeks of days but weeks of years because of the seven year cycling in their law. So, this 69 weeks of years would be 483 years. This brings us to 29 CE – exactly the time Jesus appeared. “And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. The leader that was coming did bring the city and the holy place to ruin when the Roman General Titus came like a ‘flood’ in 70 CE (see Daniel 11:10). Sacrifice was ended when Jesus dies “at the half of the week,” or 3-1/2 years after his ministry started, ending the need for animal sacrifice. This is a perfect example of a fulfilled biblical prophecy that is detailed, has a duration, and a start date. Hosea 11: Moses is not called “God’s son,” Jesus is. The allusion is also to Israel. Again, it's when you piece all the prophecies together that the picture becomes clear. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
| Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") in General | |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Saturday, August 4 2007 18:21
Profile
quote:We weren’t. True religion comes from God. If God cares is it unreasonable to expect that he would teach us the best way to do things? If he doesn’t does he really care? quote:Interestingly this is the exact opposite of what Christianity is. It is apolitical, at least as it concerns earthly government. It certainly has nothing to do with terrorism, moral or otherwise. Everything good in America and civilization as a whole comes from whatever godliness it has. (Of course, “good” can be in the eye of the beholder as we have discussed). All the ideas that work well are in the Bible. Equality, liberty, fair and caring governance, helping those in need, environmental protection – all these are biblical ideas. quote:I wonder how you’re using “religion.” Jesus did teach getting to know God and love, but his message also included laws and obedience. Interestingly, Jesus himself is a priest and king as it was prophesied he would be. His very message was “the good news of the kingdom” over which he’d be king. This kingdom would have an administration of lesser kings and priests and rule over the planet. So if you get away from priesthood, laws, ordinance and religion, you get away from Jesus. That is unless you simply remove the parts that you don’t like and make your own “Jesus.” quote:You’re imagining an idealistic family setting with naughty children that just need a little direction, but life is not like that. Imagine a wayward son who has killed, raped, tortured, and terrorized his brothers and sisters. The father tries to help him leave his bad ways and gives him time, but his son won’t listen. The father is ever patient but comes home to find another son killed by the hands of the wayward one and the rest of the family at gunpoint being tormented. He knows that his son won’t listen and now his family is at risk. Would you find fault with him for killing his son? Would you think him a wise and good father if he simply let his family die because he’ll never give up on his son? My example is extreme, but so is life. People abuse one another and have been doing so for thousands of years. God, as revealed in the Bible, has tolerated this situation for the sake of resolving certain issues and extending salvation to those who would like to be part of a united universal family. His love and mercy makes him patient, but it is these very same qualities that prevent him from tolerating badness indefinitely. And this is why neither you nor I can be a better father than he is. He epitomizes balance in love and justice– never too lenient, never too severe. The best we can do is try. As always I agree with much of what you’re saying, except that you don’t make enough of a distinction between what the Bible teaches and what Christendom in general has done and taught in the past 1900+ years. quote:Why should I trust your view of reality and follow your teachings about what life and spirituality “is, and should be” and the “simple fact that no here (sic) alive knows… what God may or may not have done.” Has God spoken to you? If he has not and you don’t accept revelations from others, how do you know anything about God? Why shouldn’t I believe that God started congregations of people set up in an organized fashion at various points throughout history and that this is the way he wants to be served? What makes your way better? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |