So you in no way believe that climate change of the past indicates the future? None? At all? Strictly the study of climate history is all yo do?
1 and 2: it most certainly informs the future, but perhaps not in the way you mean. 3: I study the past, but the findings directly affect the interpretation of the present and possible futures.
Where are you looking? Because it isn't in the fields of science. Stuff changes every week, adjusting to new information and new connections.
I found this article interesting. Max Tegmark: Religion, Science and the Attack of the Angry Atheists
That's two different things. I'm saying there is always new information, new things to discover that might change our understanding of how things work. But we still see things work the same way now as they did 50 years ago and presumably 500 and 5,000 years ago. If you let go of a pen, it is going to fall to the ground 10 out of 10 times. That isn't going to change. The explanation for why it does that exactly might.
I think he is slicing the onion awful thinly. According to his survey, there is "no conflict with Origins Science." I know enough Catholics to know that his survey is not representative of the facts on the ground. Furthermore, having magic infallible chairs and calling birth control in Africa evil is not friendly to humanists in general (Origins Science aside). And there is a reason atheists are angry. They are the second most persecuted group in the world behind homosexuals (Atheists around world suffer persecution, discrimination: report | Reuters for example). At the same time, the group is painted as the antagonistic ones for simply daring to question the predominant belief systems of the world.
Why don't we present a true test to the respective sides - argue religion from an antithetical perspective than your own. Card and his "team" present the ways in which God may not exist. IP and his "team" argue why s/he may exist. Then, discuss the ramifications of each, if true (e.g. Your natural position is wrong).
Tough approach, there is zero physical evidence for a supernatural overlord. Amazingly, this supernatural overlord demands the blind allegiance of a child. I have always found it extraordinary that a handful of men shaped world culture for better than 2000 years. This is what I want answered, why?
I got the humor, War, so don't take this as a shot at you. But the religious debates are largely civil around here, sans the rare exception where emotion becomes too pervasive. What makes it (seem) so difficult is that there are entirely reasonable people who hold distinctly different views, where little common ground is to be had (or even desired, by either side), and each are capable apologists of their own respective bents. So while these discussions rarely (ever) move the conversion needle, they do affect one another, however imperceptibly, and while disagreement(s) often remain, they're at least respectfully honest ones. I think that's my single favorite thing about those here, the ability to consistently, respectfully, strongly and honestly disagree with one another, be it issues involving religion, politics, worldview, race, sex, class, and somewhere way down the list - sports. I always learn something, for sure.
Surely you don't profess to be incapable of it, IP. You can say that you won't, but not can't. Let's see how it goes, if only as an exercise. We'll still respect your atheism in the morning...nothing to fear.
