Benjamin

Skeptical science says that the human CO2 emissions in 2008, from fossil fuel burning and cement production, was around 32 gigatoones of CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-...

The CDIAC expresses this number in metric tons of carbon: 8749 million metric tons. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008....

How can I convert gigatoones of CO2 into metric tons of C? Skeptical science is (I think) including the weight of the whole molecule, including the oxygen atoms. I believe that I need to factor in the weight of O2, but don't remember how.

Do these figures match up reasonably well?

When the stock market crashes, and people lose their investments, where does that money go to? Who gets rich?

People say that both liberals and conservative are to blame. But seriously, where is the equivalent to the conservatives’ Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox News?

Why does the Bible go into great detail on how to sacrifice animals and dictates how much you can beat your slaves, but tells us nothing useful about mathematics, electricity, the germ theory, a cure for cancer? There is nothing in the Bible that could not have been written by ignorant, superstitious, stone aged goat herders.

Why don’t this fact disturb Christians? If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then what does the Bible tell us about God?

Please help; I am having a difficult time with this question. Thoughtful answers only please…

“Faith” can be defined as a belief in something for which there is no evidence. So my question is: how can a smart, educated, thoughtful person believe in something for which there is no evidence? Now I know what most theists will say. They will say that there is plenty of evidence but that I just don’t recognize this evidence as legitimate.

I have asked a similar question a few days ago. Here is a summary of the “legitimate evidence” for the existence of God that was provided by people who answered the question:

A. “The Bible is substantiated by archaeological proof.” – Well, that’s only partially true. Archeology proves that a Great Temple once stood in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that proves that Jesus drove the money changers out of that Temple. The person making this bold claim, of course, neglected to name even a single archaeological discovery that proves that his God exists. And no, that the Great Temple once stood doesn’t prove that Jesus lived. If this logic worked, then the existence of Manhattan proves that Spiderman exists.

B. “Well science gets things wrong all the time.” – True. There is no discovery, no observation, no scientific theory, and no law in science that is beyond correction. But, when a scientific theory gets tweaked, or tossed, it is because our understanding of what is observed gets better, not because of some divine intervention. It doesn’t follow that if science gets something wrong, then that proves God must exist. When science gets tweaked, this only proves that the scientific method is the best means for understanding how the world works. When we finally accepted Plate Tectonics, it was because of better observation of the natural world, not because God told us. And just because there are some answers that science hasn’t answered yet (or may never answer,) doesn’t mean that it is smart or reasonable to fill in those gaps with “God must have done it.”

C. “Even a scientist has faith in … science.” Wrong. Science is nothing more than a collection of publically verifiable evidence. Earth orbits the sun – publically verifiable. Bacterium, viruses, and other pathogen cause disease – publically verifiable. Objects with mass attract one another (gravity) – publically verifiable. If something is verifiable, then one does not need faith to believe; there’s evidence! Of course, one can not be an expert in all fields. Our current body of knowledge is so large that one person can not know everything. Sometimes we must trust experts, but the point is that science can be verified.

D. “The Bible is proof that God exists.” – This is a horrible argument, and I can’t believe that so many “thoughtful” people make it. Basically this is a circular argument. [There is a God because the Bible says so. I know this because the Bible is the inspired word of God.] How can a thoughtful person not see the fallacy in such circular reasoning? Also, if one is going to assume that the Bible proves their God, then logically they must also assume that the Koran proves Allah, Bhagavad-Gita proves the Hindu Gods, and the Book of the Dead proves that the afterlife occurs in an underworld realm, etc… This argument also ignores our current understanding of who, when, where, and why the various books of the Bible were written.

E. “Pascal’s Wager” [Even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because they will have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.] – I don’t have room to get into Pascal’s Wager, but basically the wager is ripe with reason and logic fallacies.

F. “I have a personal relationship with God.” – Sure. However, how can one not understand that it is possible to feel the presence of God without Him even existing? Our brains are extremely capable of producing simulations for our conscious mind to experience. For example, I work as a nurse in a hospital; almost every night, we have delusional and demented patients that are challenged with experiences that aren’t consistent with reality. People who make the above statement should take an Intro to Psychology class and challenge themselves to learning more about how the mind works.

G. “The Bible describes faith this way: ‘Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews 11:1” At least this person was honest -- Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. But he fails to answer my question: How can a thoughtful, intelligent person believe that wishing hard enough for a God will make Him real.

Please help; I am having a difficult time with this question. Thoughtful answers only please…

“Faith” can be defined as a belief in something for which there is no evidence. So my question is: how can a smart, educated, thoughtful person believe in something for which there is no evidence? Now I know what most theists will say. They will say that there is plenty of evidence but that I just don’t recognize this evidence as legitimate.

I have asked a similar question a few days ago. Here is a summary of the “legitimate evidence” for the existence of God that was provided by people who answered the question:

A. “The Bible is substantiated by archaeological proof.” – Well, that’s only partially true. Archeology proves that a Great Temple once stood in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that proves that Jesus drove the money changers out of that Temple. The person making this bold claim, of course, neglected to name even a single archaeological discovery that proves that his God exists. And no, that the Great Temple once stood doesn’t prove that Jesus lived. If this logic worked, then the existence of Manhattan proves that Spiderman exists.

B. “Well science gets things wrong all the time.” – True. There is no discovery, no observation, no scientific theory, and no law in science that is beyond correction. But, when a scientific theory gets tweaked, or tossed, it is because our understanding of what is observed gets better, not because of some divine intervention. It doesn’t follow that if science gets something wrong, then that proves God must exist. When science gets tweaked, this only proves that the scientific method is the best means for understanding how the world works. When we finally accepted Plate Tectonics, it was because of better observation of the natural world, not because God told us. And just because there are some answers that science hasn’t answered yet (or may never answer,) doesn’t mean that it is smart or reasonable to fill in those gaps with “God must have done it.”

C. “Even a scientist has faith in … science.” Wrong. Science is nothing more than a collection of publically verifiable evidence. Earth orbits the sun – publically verifiable. Bacterium, viruses, and other pathogen cause disease – publically verifiable. Objects with mass attract one another (gravity) – publically verifiable. If something is verifiable, then one does not need faith to believe; there’s evidence! Of course, one can not be an expert in all fields. Our current body of knowledge is so large that one person can not know everything. Sometimes we must trust experts, but the point is that science can be verified.

D. “The Bible is proof that God exists.” – This is a horrible argument, and I can’t believe that so many “thoughtful” people make it. Basically this is a circular argument. [There is a God because the Bible says so. I know this because the Bible is the inspired word of God.] How can a thoughtful person not see the fallacy in such circular reasoning? Also, if one is going to assume that the Bible proves their God, then logically they must also assume that the Koran proves Allah, Bhagavad-Gita proves the Hindu Gods, and the Book of the Dead proves that the afterlife occurs in an underworld realm, etc… This argument also ignores our current understanding of who, when, where, and why the various books of the Bible were written.

E. “Pascal’s Wager” [Even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because they will have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.] – I don’t have room to get into Pascal’s Wager, but basically the wager is ripe with reason and logic fallacies.

F. “I have a personal relationship with God.” – Sure. However, how can one not understand that it is possible to feel the presence of God without Him even existing? Our brains are extremely capable of producing simulations for our conscious mind to experience. For example, I work as a nurse in a hospital; almost every night, we have delusional and demented patients that are challenged with experiences that aren’t consistent with reality. People who make the above statement should take an Intro to Psychology class and challenge themselves to learning more about how the mind works.

G. “The Bible describes faith this way: ‘Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews 11:1” At least this person was honest -- Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. But he fails to answer my question: How can a thoughtful, intelligent person believe that wishing hard enough for a God will make Him real.

Please help; I am having a difficult time with this question. Thoughtful answers only please…

“Faith” can be defined as a belief in something for which there is no evidence. So my question is: how can a smart, educated, thoughtful person believe in something for which there is no evidence? Now I know what most theists will say. They will say that there is plenty of evidence but that I just don’t recognize this evidence as legitimate.

I have asked a similar question a few days ago. Here is a summary of the “legitimate evidence” for the existence of God that was provided by people who answered the question:

A. “The Bible is substantiated by archaeological proof.” – Well, that’s only partially true. Archeology proves that a Great Temple once stood in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that proves that Jesus drove the money changers out of that Temple. The person making this bold claim, of course, neglected to name even a single archaeological discovery that proves that his God exists. And no, that the Great Temple once stood doesn’t prove that Jesus lived. If this logic worked, then the existence of Manhattan proves that Spiderman exists.

B. “Well science gets things wrong all the time.” – True. There is no discovery, no observation, no scientific theory, and no law in science that is beyond correction. But, when a scientific theory gets tweaked, or tossed, it is because our understanding of what is observed gets better, not because of some divine intervention. It doesn’t follow that if science gets something wrong, then that proves God must exist. When science gets tweaked, this only proves that the scientific method is the best means for understanding how the world works. When we finally accepted Plate Tectonics, it was because of better observation of the natural world, not because God told us. And just because there are some answers that science hasn’t answered yet (or may never answer,) doesn’t mean that it is smart or reasonable to fill in those gaps with “God must have done it.”

C. “Even a scientist has faith in … science.” Wrong. Science is nothing more than a collection of publically verifiable evidence. Earth orbits the sun – publically verifiable. Bacterium, viruses, and other pathogen cause disease – publically verifiable. Objects with mass attract one another (gravity) – publically verifiable. If something is verifiable, then one does not need faith to believe; there’s evidence! Of course, one can not be an expert in all fields. Our current body of knowledge is so vast that one person can not know everything. Sometimes we must trust experts, but the point is that science can be verified. It can be personally verified by you if you wished to become an expert within whatever field.

D. “The Bible is proof that God exists.” – This is a horrible argument, and I can’t believe that so many “thoughtful” people make it. Basically this is a circular argument. [There is a God because the Bible says so. I know this because the Bible is the inspired word of God.] How can a thoughtful person not see the fallacy in such circular reasoning? Also, if one is going to assume that the Bible proves their God, then logically they must also assume that the Koran proves Allah, Bhagavad-Gita proves the Hindu Gods, and the Book of the Dead proves that the afterlife occurs in an underworld realm, etc… This argument also ignores our current understanding of who, when, where, and why the various books of the Bible were written.

E. “Pascal’s Wager” [Even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because they will have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.] – I don’t have room to get into Pascal’s Wager, but basically the wager is ripe with reason and logic fallacies.

F. “I have a personal relationship with God.” – Sure. However, how can one not understand that it is possible to feel the presence of God without Him even existing? Our brains are extremely capable of producing simulations for our conscious mind to experience. For example, I work as a nurse in a hospital; almost every night, we have delusional and demented patients that are challenged with experiences that aren’t consistent with reality. People who make the above statement should take an Intro to Psychology class and challenge themselves to learning more about how the mind works.

G. “The Bible describes faith this way: ‘Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews 11:1” At least this person was honest -- Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. But he fails to answer my question: How can a thoughtful, intelligent person believe that wishing hard enough for a God will make Him real.

Please be specific...

“Faith” can be defined as a belief in something for which there is no evidence.

So my question is, how can a smart, educated, thoughtful person believe in something for which there is no evidence?

I know that people faith believe for several different reasons.

Some are lazy – They simply don’t want to take the time or effort to thoughtfully explore their religion and how they came to believe such things in the first place.

Some are scared – Some people have been indoctrinated as kids and are so scared of Hell and of God that they can’t even admit to the possibility of being wrong. Jesus has turned “thinking” a crime, in their mind.

And some people are just plain stupid.

But how can a smart, educated, thoughtful person believe in something for which there is no evidence?

This question is not meant to be offensive; I would like to hear counter-arguments to a criticism of “faith” believing.

Revelation 4

1 After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3 And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and ruby. A rainbow that shone like an emerald encircled the throne. 4 Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. 5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits[a] of God. 6 Also in front of the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal.

In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. 7 The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:

“‘Holy, holy, holy

is the Lord God Almighty,’

who was, and is, and is to come.”

9 Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:

11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God,

to receive glory and honor and power,

for you created all things,

and by your will they were created

and have their being.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revela...

26 [Jesus] replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’

28 After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. 29 As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, 30 “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it.’

In these passages, Jesus is stating that (A) the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. (B) He is commanding murder of those who disagree with Him. And (C) is asking his disciples to steal a horse.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2...

If God was able to make the cosmos, all the plants, and all the animals out of nothing, then why did he require Adam’s rib in order to create Eve? Couldn’t He have just created Eve out of nothing as well?

Young Earth Creationists: A friend of mine says that she believes in dragons, ones that can actually once flew and breathed fire. She bases this belief on the fact that dragons are mentioned in the Bible. Is this an outrageous claim, or do many other YEC believe in fire-breathing dragons?

If you are going to answer this question, please do so in a way that will make sense to someone of another religion.

Why do people say that God doesn’t send people to Hell, people send themselves? I haven’t seen any evidence that justifies a belief in the Christian God; but, if Hell is real, I wouldn’t choose to go there.

So, (A) God created Hell.

(B) God created the rules for who goes to Hell.

© Nothing happens that isn’t according to God’s will.

(D) God supposedly knows exactly what evidence it’ll take to convince me that He’s real, yet fails to provide this.

The ball is completely in God’s court; I would choose not to go to a place of eternal torture. When people say, “God doesn’t send people to Hell,” it seems like they haven’t really thought all this through very well. What do you think?

Ok, so my girlfriend dumped me because I don’t BELIEVE. The definition of “believe” is to be persuaded of the truth or existence of, or the reliability of something. But how does one go about believing in something for which there is scant evidence?

(A) I know that people “feel” or “hear the voice of God” when they prey; But believers of other religions feel the exact same way when they are preying to other Gods – i.e. same experience, different God. This is strong evidence that believers are sharing a common psychological attribute of the mind and less evidence that millions of different believers are contacting millions of different supernatural beings. That same emotion can be elicited by electrically or chemically simulating specific portions of the brain.

(B) She says that her holy book, the Bible, proves the existence of her God. This is a circular argument and doesn’t work for me. Moreover, if her holy book proves her God, then hundreds of other holy books also must prove millions of other Gods. Marble comics must also prove the existence of Spiderman, right?

In addition, we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. What we do know is that they were written 40-100+ years after a supposed historic Jesus died, by Romans who weren’t familiar with the customs of the Jews or of the geography of the area where Jesus ministered. This would be like me writing about someone’s claim of alien abduction that happened fifty years ago in Chile, and the guy that was abducted and everyone he knew were now dead and all that I had to go on were oral tales from guys who liked to sit around the campfire at night telling tall tales. Why should I believe that the Gospels are true and accurate? If Jesus preformed so many amazing miracles, then why did no eyewitness write about them? According the Matthew, at the moment of Jesus’ death, zombies invaded Jerusalem.[1] Why did no one else write about this invasion? There must have been hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses in Jerusalem at the time (this was the Passover holiday, remember?); the Roman Empire would have taken a keen interest in a zombie invasion.

The Gospels are obviously tall tales designed to turn a historic person into a supernatural legend.

Belief is not something that one chooses. I can’t will myself to believe; belief is based on evidence. I could choose to go to church; I could choose to recite the Lord’s Prayer; I could choose to swear on a whole stack of Bibles that I believe. But none of this could actually make me believe if I in fact don’t have any convincing evidence. One can feign belief in God, but one can not will one’s self to believe. If I feigned belief, wouldn’t an omniscient God see right through this deception? Belief is based on one’s understanding of the world Am I really supposed to accept tell tales as facts and ignore reality? How is this supposed to work?

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthe...

Other than climate change and evolution, in what fields of science is there no debate among the experts, but considerable debate among the public?

If it turns out that the global warming deniers are wrong, and billions of people around the world will need to be relocated a few decades from now, do you think that the deniers will generously donate their time and money to help people adapt to climate change, or do you think that they will stick their heads in the sand a pretend that there isn’t any problem at all?

Please note -- this question is a hypothetical. It assumes that the deniers are wrong and that the worst hypothesized climate change consequences will come to pass.