NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a Global Warmist, because it seems like the one that would tick the OP off the most.

I am a Global Warmist, because it seems like the one that would tick the OP off the most.

*sloganizes you*

Sometimes You Feel Like a Global Warmist, Sometimes You Don't.

None...organized religion is lame, I personally am an agnostic...

Aww, Pastafarian isn't on there. :(

I am a Global Warmist, because it seems like the one that would tick the OP off the most.

I thought the FSM would forgive me if I voted that way too, for the same reason.

So Debate is not in your vocabulary.Ah, vacuous assessment. But that's okay, false premise appears to be your forte'.
I am a naziDidn't say that. Pay closer attention. The "debate" you so herald would be well expressed in what i DID say.
and buffoon
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
and to be mocked mercilesslyWell, get used to that.
because I defend the position that science is debate.No offense, but your "defense" is really, really sorely lacking. That's what i was getting at - you've got no substance.
When i put the option of global warmist I knew I would get more radicals from that religion than any other. But you somehow didn't know that you'd be mocked for trying to coin a new term that makes no real sense, which in turn reflected your "debate style".
Thank you for showing the rest of the posters how radical a religion global warming can be.How did i do that? Why don't YOU show how i voted, so people know you aren't being disingenuous with your statements there? Hmmm? Or perhaps you don't mean to be honest, and your "debate" isn't about integrity.
NOW back to the original reason of the thread, What religion are you? As i'd intimated ... can't you read the poll results? :rolleyes:
Do not "mock others mercilessly" for their view of religion.You haven't given ME one to mock, obviously. And very few OTHER posters are mocking YOU about your "view of religion".
Capice?

Nope. I'm still an undergrad, so I've got a few years of schooling to go, and while I'm doing atmospheric research right now (which is somewhat situational) my actual focus is optical sciences and photonics. Though that in itself is a fairly broad field.

Still, my lab is looking at the same layer of sky, the ionosphere, as HAARP, though our measurements are passive rather than active (we use all-sky imagers rather than ionospheric heaters and diagnostic equipment), and we're trying to observe two different sets of phenomena (their looking at ionospheric dynamics and auroras, we're looking for something called gravity waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave), not to be confused with gravitational waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves), which are a completely separate thing entirely.

Which is still fascinating research.

Hope that answers your question :)

Very cool, yes that does answer. I think you're going to have a pretty fulfilling career. Congratulations. *bows*
:)

I am a Global Warmist, because it seems like the one that would tick the OP off the most.
At least Global Warmism is centered around something real, unlike the biblical crap.

Atheism ought to have been a choice in the poll.
It isn't a religion, or at least so its adherents tell me.

At least Global Warmism is centered around something real, unlike the biblical crap.

2 for 1. Yay!

Very cool, yes that does answer. I think you're going to have a pretty fulfilling career. Congratulations. *bows*
:)

Thanks :)

I've still got a ways to go, though. Year and a half of UG, then gotta make the decision to move on to grad school or not, since that'll be a 3.5 to 5 year committment, or if I want to do a little work first, and then go for grad school.

OK, I am curious what religion you concider yourself and why?

I consider myself a member of the Church of Correct Spelling.

BTW, "global warmist"? did you honestly think you were being clever? Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. That way, you can look up the correct spelling of consider, and also the definitions of both "clever" and "infantile".

I don’t suppose you ever took a philosophy class? Design vs substance is a matter that’s commonly seen in philosophy classes here. Hence why I used this to explain myself further. But yes, the idea is that every time you picture a chair in your head, or draw plans for chair design, it is indeed a chair you have.
I’m in the middle of a Philosophy degree, but I’m afraid I haven’t come across ‘Design vs. Substance’. I’ll have a wee read of the SEP’s article, though I’m already bogged down in Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Gettier shenanigans and a bit of Nozick and Rawls to top it off. :p

However, as an intuitive musing, I’d say that there is a vital difference between a chair in the room in front of you and a chair imagined/drawn. The chair in the room actually exists.

A belief about or pertaining to religion is a religious belief. As I said, by very definition of the word. I don’t know how else I can explain it.
Yes, it is a belief about religion, but it would be disingenuous to say that a belief about religion is the same as a belief that a god or gods exist.

To explain, a Christian can have a belief about the Hindu god Vishnu, that he is a manifestation of Brahman for example, without believing that Vishnu exists. Furthermore, it would be wrong to say that the Christian has a Hindu belief/faith, when he merely has a belief about Hinduism (or Advaita Hinduism, to be more precise).

That’s the distinction I want to make, and it applies equally to atheism. The atheist has a belief about religion, but not a religious belief (which implies faith), just as the person who disbelieves in ghosts has a belief about the supernatural, not a supernatural belief.

I concede that you could call a belief about religion a ‘religious belief’, but that’s hardly appropriate given the circumstances.

An atheist that believes God doesn’t exist has a religious belief. He has the belief that God doesn’t exist. It is a belief(because it cannot be proven nor disproven) and it is religious in nature (because it pertains to religion as a concept).

A theist that believes in his particular brand of god has a religious belief. It is a belief because it too can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is religious with nature because it pertains to the concept of religion.

A = C ^ B = C → A =B
As I believe I’ve shown the difference between an athiests belief about religion and a theists religious belief/faith, the formal logic should look like:

A = C ^ B = D → A =/= B,

where:

A = athiest
B = theist
C = belief about religion
D = religious belief/faith

I am the worlds most pious, God-fearing Christian. No, really. I am. I never miss church. Just ask anyone.:cool:

It isn't a religion, or at least so its adherents tell me.

If atheist is a religion then monotheist and polytheist would be too.

If atheist is a religion then monotheist and polytheist would be too.

???

These are only the number of gods u worship dude.

???

These are only the number of gods u worship dude.

Which, in the case of atheist, is none.

atheism would also be a cult of socialist construction to make people look for nothing but the government to be their saviour.

That is an erroneous extrapolation.

Atheism's stance does not even question the existence of God- to an Atheist, the very question itself is inconsequential.

Furthermore, Atheism does not carry any political implications, it is entirely a metaphysical statement- metaphysics being the branch of philosophy that deal with the nature of the universe itself.

Whilst the latest trend of Christianity is to fuse Church and State together in order to have " government to be their saviour" in the throes of a Theocratic movement, Atheism's political stance is that there must always be a separation between Church and State- The Legislative branch should never mix in affairs of the private citizen's creed and as such it must espouse a system of laws derived from logical, rational mental processes instead of favoring one religion or another. Concomitantly, the different churches must have no sway on government, as all citizens must be equal before the law and theocratic favoritism of one religion would violate that principle.

Some other philosophies have Atheism as a natural resultant of their axioms, whilst others tack Atheism on- Communism sought to eliminate religion in order to, as philosopher Ayn Rand put it, create a religion of materialism where the state was the ultimate focus of worship. But this is not a feature of Atheism.

New Promethea subscribes itself to the philosophy of Objectivism, created by the philosopher Ayn Rand - a staunch opponent of communism and socialism and supporter of laissez-faire capitalism. This means that while there is a distinct separation between Church and State in New Promethea, we do not enforce laws that restrict an individual's private worship, all are free to worship privately and in their communities as they please. However, all those who are serving in government are asked to follow logic and reason and not have their legislative decisions be influenced by one religion or another, neither to make public demonstrations endorsing one religion or another while in their function as public officers- as private citizens, they may do whatever they wish.


Therefore, USE, correct your erroneous extrapolation. Your vituperative comments were not logical.

???

These are only the number of gods u worship dude.

And the last time I checked, zero was still a number.;)

none

What's a Budist?

Is that anything like a Coorsist?

How about a Heinekenist?

Sorry if this has already been caught, I just skipped to the last page, but it's Buddhist, not budist. I consider myself atheist because I find any god hard to believe in. Given enough time, I can find a contradiction in almost any religion. We have no proof that God exists, just a large book written by people claiming to have been "inspired by God." For all I know, this was just the world's first large novel, and yet people worship it. That's like worshiping the Harry Potter books because J.K. Rowling claimed to have been inspired to write them by God.

I consider my self better than everyone else at all things except succeeding.

That is an erroneous extrapolation.

Atheism's stance does not even question the existence of God- to an Atheist, the very question itself is inconsequential.

Furthermore, Atheism does not carry any political implications, it is entirely a metaphysical statement- metaphysics being the branch of philosophy that deal with the nature of the universe itself.

Whilst the latest trend of Christianity is to fuse Church and State together in order to have " government to be their saviour" in the throes of a Theocratic movement, Atheism's political stance is that there must always be a separation between Church and State- The Legislative branch should never mix in affairs of the private citizen's creed and as such it must espouse a system of laws derived from logical, rational mental processes instead of favoring one religion or another. Concomitantly, the different churches must have no sway on government, as all citizens must be equal before the law and theocratic favoritism of one religion would violate that principle.

Some other philosophies have Atheism as a natural resultant of their axioms, whilst others tack Atheism on- Communism sought to eliminate religion in order to, as philosopher Ayn Rand put it, create a religion of materialism where the state was the ultimate focus of worship. But this is not a feature of Atheism.

New Promethea subscribes itself to the philosophy of Objectivism, created by the philosopher Ayn Rand - a staunch opponent of communism and socialism and supporter of laissez-faire capitalism. This means that while there is a distinct separation between Church and State in New Promethea, we do not enforce laws that restrict an individual's private worship, all are free to worship privately and in their communities as they please. However, all those who are serving in government are asked to follow logic and reason and not have their legislative decisions be influenced by one religion or another, neither to make public demonstrations endorsing one religion or another while in their function as public officers- as private citizens, they may do whatever they wish.


Therefore, USE, correct your erroneous extrapolation. Your vituperative comments were not logical.

Wow. Quite a first post. Welcome to NS, New Promethea.
:)

Not to be on topic or anything;

Rasied by an Athiest dad, and a theist mom. I took more to the Athiesm side for my first 20 years, now, I am Pagan at age 26.

As for why, i guess the part about being gay and left-handed, yet rejected by an "all-loving" god never made sense to me. or the racism, sexism, homophobia, ad nauseum. or that their god is suppossed to be friendly, but they have to bow first before talking with him :confused:

As for being Pagan to the point where my science mind diminishes, no, and vice versa.

Science asks the how, what, when, where. Religion/spirituality/philosophy asks the why, and who. The two do not/should not conflict. :fluffle:

Why was i born 2 pounds, 14 ounces? Why is there no answer on the SETI project? Why the hate?

Rafe
OOC

I see Pagans walking around enjoy their lives, i see Christians living in fear.

I was considering Buddism*sp?* before Paganism.

OK, I am curious what religion you concider yourself and why?

"what religion do you concider yourself".

makes me wonder what percentage of awairnessess, human or otherwise, tangable or otherwise, actually consider themselves a religion, as opposed to say, subscribing to one or believing in one.

i consider myself an awairness that attempts to avoid deceiving myself.

in attempting to avoid deceiving myself i ruel out niether the possible existence nor nonexistence of anything.

considering however, how small a part of the infinite is anything finite, the probability fallows, of being rather small, that any one possibility out of an inifinite number of possibilities, i'm saying this rather poorly, but anyway, there may be a pretty good chance of something existing, and a pretty poor one, of whatever does, resembling very closely what any one, or even any several, thinks they know about it.

=^^=
.../\...

???

These are only the number of gods u worship dude.

Yes. I was making a point.

Science asks the how, what, when, where. Religion/spirituality/philosophy asks the why, and who. The two do not/should not conflict. :fluffle:

Science doesn't ask why? That is crazy. How many theories and hypotheses would have started with "why does that frog have those sort of eyes" or something similar? The fact is they do conflict, but science always comes out on top. People used to think the earth was only a few thousand years old, but science asked questions and found answers that directly contradicted religion. Science tries to answer everything, and eventually will come very close to it. In the process religion and spirituality will diminish and very possibly disappear. We have already seen this in the last one or two centuries.

Why was i born 2 pounds, 14 ounces?

There are very obvious medical reasons for this. I don't know them, but any doctor could probably tell you.

Why is there no answer on the SETI project?

Because of the unimaginable size of the universe and the unlikelihood of ETs sending communications towards earth at the same time there is intelligent life here.

Why the hate?

Ignorance, fear, indoctrination... Religion? :p

Concider, heh.

But mm, Catholic.