The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Getting back onto the subject of Climate change/global warming, I was reading an article today that talked about the difference between The Western and Eastern takes on global warming, while the Western World(America, Canada) is still debating the causes of global warming(man-made or not) in Europe they have already come to the conclusion that AGW is real and are debating the appropriate actions/responses to take to fix this problem.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Adam, I encourage you to read Sylvia Browne's teachings to get an entirely different take on God. You are correct to point out the "stupidity of it all" from the reference point of the teachings of the Bible, taken literally. Sylvia was raised a Catholic, and now distances herself almost completely from Catholic teachings. Read not only her teachings, but her life story. She is not perfect, as a psychic she has made some wrong predictions. But she doesn't claim to be perfect either, and she knows why she has imperfections.

There's so much much more I could tell you, but it's really up to you to do the legwork as I've described above. You have the inquiring mind.




I read this, and have to agree that totally literal interpretations of the Bible lead to paradoxes. But the Bible should not be taken literally, that is the lesson. As for impossibility, well, I have to bring up the classic example of the Flatlanders. The Flatlanders live in 2 dimensional space. They also only see in 2 dimensions. Therefore anything that is in the 3rd dimension, i.e. above or below their Flatland, is impossible to them. The whole concept is unimaginable to their 2-dimensional minds.

It is increasingly clear that there are more than 3 dimensions (4 if you include time) to overall reality (which might include spiritual world(s) we can't sense). To say that something like a "cubic sphere" is impossible is to say that it is impossible in our 3 (or 4) dimensions. Perhaps a new dimension, which we cannot comprehend, makes a cubic sphere possible.

You are correct about her being far from perfect, she's a convicted felon. I actually do know a bit about her already, there was a research article in Skeptical Inquirer(A fantastic magazine, I have a few issues) about her, because she said something like she gets 80% of cases correct, but their conclusion was, "Browne has not even been mostly correct in a single case."

But enough about her supposed physic abilities(hot and cold reading techniques basically), onto the spirituality part of Sylvia Browne.

The book you told Paul Beckwith about, "Life on the other side", about her near-death experience is all fantastically poetic, but your brain is quickly dying when you flat line, and we don't know what you experience when you are in between death and life(or after death for that matter), different people have had all sorts of different near-death experiences, but really these experiences could just be the last thoughts(basically dreams) of a dying brain(and could be influenced by that person's way of thought up to that point of their life).

Her retelling of her near-death experience to me at least sounds like a dream, that she spiced up with some adjectives(how would she know that this white light in front of her had sacred brilliance and infinite intelligence). Her religious beliefs seem to mix and mash a bunch of religions together, reincarnation, purgatory, a white light, etc...

Her idea of the afterlife is all well and good, and it sounds like a very nice place(and it even uses the proper criteria for determining good and bad, deeds not belief) but I don't believe in it for several reasons. Plus I don't have to believe it according to her I just have to accept God when I get there to go to heaven. I'm perfectly capable of living a normal life without God, and then if when i die I meet God obviously I'd accept him, I'd have all the logical proof I needed(I don't think that is going to happen though)

Reasons:
- I have problems with nearly all of her 7 stages of advancements they aren't logical to me.
- She is so specific, don't this offensively but I'm reminded of Scientology by her beliefs.
- This whole religious ideal came out of a near-death experience, which like I said before is like a dream, fantastical ideas and creations can come out of dreams but it doesn't mean they are correct
etc...

On to your next point on impossibility, that statement is interesting, I feel no reason to believe that there are any other dimensions besides our own and I don't know why'd we care if there were these dimensions seeing as they are impossible to reach therefore it is a pointless line of thought(unless we could somehow reach them), but science is delving into something similar to this, the multiverse( a whole bunch of universes side by side) theory for example in physics(but we are supposed to be able to go into other universes, therefore not making it useless, I don't know how that works exactly).

Also if this other dimension is something we can't comprehend why bother? That means the best position would be agnostic on that particular issue, because since we can't comprehend it we can't feel positive or negative feelings on the subject. Dawkins makes a point like that on God(s), if God(s) can't be comprehended how do all these people(every religion basically) know exactly what he/they want(s)? If he can be comprehended then he can be scientifically tested and proved either to be real or delusion.

Just my 2 cents...

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Adam, I encourage you to read Sylvia Browne's teachings to get an entirely different take on God.

Sylvia Brown? You fall for Sylvia Brown? Really??? That cheap fake cold reader???? Really?????

Wah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah...........

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

To say that something like a "cubic sphere" is impossible is to say that it is impossible in our 3 (or 4) dimensions.

Use your imagination for a cubic-sphere :D


The middle sphere is a cube, isn't :D

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Paul Bonham:
Where to begin....

Yeah, my problem with religion/God is not the 'faith' thing(although i'd go with facts and evidence over blind faith and belief any day), it is the stupidity of it all.

Adam, I encourage you to read Sylvia Browne's teachings to get an entirely different take on God. You are correct to point out the "stupidity of it all" from the reference point of the teachings of the Bible, taken literally. Sylvia was raised a Catholic, and now distances herself almost completely from Catholic teachings. Read not only her teachings, but her life story. She is not perfect, as a psychic she has made some wrong predictions. But she doesn't claim to be perfect either, and she knows why she has imperfections.

There's so much much more I could tell you, but it's really up to you to do the legwork as I've described above. You have the inquiring mind.

A good essay on the impossibility of God, God is impossible!

I read this, and have to agree that totally literal interpretations of the Bible lead to paradoxes. But the Bible should not be taken literally, that is the lesson. As for impossibility, well, I have to bring up the classic example of the Flatlanders. The Flatlanders live in 2 dimensional space. They also only see in 2 dimensions. Therefore anything that is in the 3rd dimension, i.e. above or below their Flatland, is impossible to them. The whole concept is unimaginable to their 2-dimensional minds.

It is increasingly clear that there are more than 3 dimensions (4 if you include time) to overall reality (which might include spiritual world(s) we can't sense). To say that something like a "cubic sphere" is impossible is to say that it is impossible in our 3 (or 4) dimensions. Perhaps a new dimension, which we cannot comprehend, makes a cubic sphere possible.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Maher also believes in a lot of pseudo-scientific woo.

Yeah his opinions on the pharmacy companies conspiring to make everyone sick is far-fetched to say the least. He has some problems with medicine and doctors too. Hey everyone has their flaws, at least Maher has a lot of intelligent opinions to go against his irrational ones.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I was watching Bill Maher's show recently and he actually defended O'reilly so maybe he isn't as bad as I think.

Maher also believes in a lot of pseudo-scientific woo.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

As for the donation it is hardly surprising. They weren't likely to give it to the democrats.

But they are "fair and balanced"! Sure, and one of it's largest investors doesn't come from the same country as the people who carried out the 9-11 massacre either.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

I like Glenn Beck. I liked him on CNN and I like him on Fox. CNN has tanked since they got rid of Beck. Hannity has some credibility problems and seems to be a bit more partisan than Beck and O'Reilly for that matter. I think Beck plays well to middle America, especially right of centre believers which I suspect make up a majority of the American public.



I don't watch either of those shows. I didn't find them all that funny. The daily show can have its moments but not enough to justify the waste of time.

I was watching Bill Maher's show recently and he actually defended O'reilly so maybe he isn't as bad as I think. Hannity talks about how America is the greatest country ever given by God on this whole wide planet(when it ranked 11th recently, Canada was 7th overall, world's best countries ) a bit too much. You should go see Glenn Beck's 'I have a scheme' speech on August 28th, he actually pretended like he didn't realize it was on the same day as Martin Luther King's speech and at the same place(He actually might not have known, but I'm trying to give him some credit here), his justification: "I will stand several stairs down from where Martin Luther King gave his speech". I'm sure his speech is going to magical(as well as all the other speakers, I know Sarah Palin is on the list).

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

And FOX doesn't do the same thing? They gave a million dollars to the republican party( a few days ago) and during the healthcare debate would only show citizens who were against it, not very fair and balanced if you ask me. I'm not defending the other media outlets but FOX news is just as bad if not worse. It can hardly be considered news.

I saw plenty of coverage on Fox that looked at both sides of the health care debate. They always have at least one or two token liberals on each show. As for the donation it is hardly surprising. They weren't likely to give it to the democrats.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Some of their viewership has to be people laughing at Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, or one of the other crazies on FOX news.

I like Glenn Beck. I liked him on CNN and I like him on Fox. CNN has tanked since they got rid of Beck. Hannity has some credibility problems and seems to be a bit more partisan than Beck and O'Reilly for that matter. I think Beck plays well to middle America, especially right of centre believers which I suspect make up a majority of the American public.

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are just as credible as FOX news and they're comedy shows.

I don't watch either of those shows. I didn't find them all that funny. The daily show can have its moments but not enough to justify the waste of time.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Probably because they perceive that the other networks are so deeply into their own agenda that they won't report the news if it doesn't coincide with the media's prejudices...

And FOX doesn't do the same thing? They gave a million dollars to the republican party( a few days ago) and during the healthcare debate would only show citizens who were against it, not very fair and balanced if you ask me. I'm not defending the other media outlets but FOX news is just as bad if not worse. It can hardly be considered news. Some of their viewership has to be people laughing at Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity, or one of the other crazies on FOX news.

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are just as credible as FOX news and they're comedy shows.

I've actually recently been listening to BBC news, it seems pretty good.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Playing chess seems like a much more interesting alternative and better use of your time then reading Palin's book.

That is the problem in America, FOX is actually having an effect on politics, Obama was so scared of them, that he fired a woman when a part of her speech was taken out of context by fox and friends. Why are they listening to FOX?

Probably because they perceive that the other networks are so deeply into their own agenda that they won't report the news if it doesn't coincide with the media's prejudices. The blow back from this loss of trust has been devastating to the mainstream media since their revenue is based on a rapidly dwindling viewership. FOX on the other hand doesn't seem to have much trouble attracting viewers.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

They sure seem to be stirring things up for Obama's 2010 mid-term elections. I have been thinking about getting a copy of Sarah Palin's book but have been pretty busy and have been a bit slow reading non-chess related books. Slow for me anyway. Hard to find time when you are playing chess almost every weekend.

Playing chess seems like a much more interesting alternative and better use of your time then reading Palin's book.

That is the problem in America, FOX is actually having an effect on politics, Obama was so scared of them, that he fired a woman when a part of her speech was taken out of context by fox and friends. Why are they listening to FOX?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

They predicted an active hurricane season this year. Hasn't happened.

The hurricane expert that wrote the section on IPCC's report tried to get his name stricken from the report because the final conclusion was changed to be quite opposed to what the research actually showed. They wouldn't do it. I guess they still consider him part of the consensus.