In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with
ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social
change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational
religion that battles with science when there are rational religions
with zero conflict with science that are nature based?

Somebody call?

Chortle. You and I disagree on politics. Part of the deal. It's what
people do.

It's called arrogance to say you know something, when you have no proof
one way, or the other. A theist claims certainty. An atheist claims
certainty.

And most atheists claim that certainty based on the errors of one
specific religion without even looking at others. That's letting the
opposition define the rules in your game. The rest of the religions
out there are dismissed out of hand on the false assumption they all
make the same mistakes - They don't. As if all other religions address
deity at all -They don't. As if all other religions expect their
members to believe in the existance of deity - They don't.

What religion doesn't believe in a divine being that can act in the
world?

Spirituality is just sensing the interconnectedness of everything.

As if all
other religions oppose science - They don't. As if all other religions
make the errors of biblical inerrancy or biblical literalism - They
don't. To base one's atheism on these points is like dismissing the
existence of mountains because you happened to grow up in a flat region
with no visible mountains. Or to conclude the world is flat because
you've never been high enough to see its curvature yourself.

Faith isn't proof. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but there has been no
metric which proves the existence of God, although atheist have taken
LSD and/or psilocybin, and have had spiritual experiences, not
Christian, but spiritual none the less.

We agnostics see no proof one way or another. Theism, and
atheism are both a matter of faith.

Going on the objective only, the agnostic approach is the best
supported. Until you consider my "They don't" points above. I
personally accept, for myself, subjective evidence, knowing full well
that by definition subjective evidence is only available to myself and
does not apply to others. So I'm not an atheist. Nonetheless I decided
to join a religion that does not care if its members are atheists or
not.
Need some definitions here. An atheistic religion?

Spirituality and religiosity aren't exactly the same thing. The former
would be constrained by natural laws, the later wouldn't.

As far as global warming goes, I'm down with dairy ranching in
Greenland

It's an issue not handled in the currect discussion. While the fact of
global warming completely real it demonstrates that our current century
is not the warmest of recent times. It demonstrates that the records
cited do not go back as far as climate records in general. It also
demonstrates that degree of human causation is not the primary issue
because humans have done fine in centuries past that were warmer than
today. The primary issue is the social change triggered by climate
change and what to do about it. The history of Greenland makes it clear
that global warming has happened in the past without human input so it's
not about that. A point that Nad R hasn't gotten.

but when California's Central Valley floods because of rising
sea levels, where are you going to get your produce then?

Whew it would take a lot of sea level elevation to fill the San Joacin
valley!

It's done it before, but it won't be done quickly, if at all.

A question for climate geologists - As climate has changed across the
last several tens of millions of years, how much has the amount of
arable land changed? As the glaciers receded towards the poles the
deserts near the equator grew. How close to parity was that change?
Right now the USDA zones keep north in the northern hemisphere. How
much of that is a reduction of total arable land and how much of that is
a change of where the arable land is? And how much of the change in
amount of arable land is from other causes of desertification like the
human caused ones of deforrestation and irrigation causing gradual salt
build up in the soil?

The food supply would have to reflect the more tropical nature of the
world.

The discussion never does seem to address the net change in arable land
as the glaciers recede and the deserts grow. Until you start reading
Billy's material about building up new soil and that's an indirect
reference.

High CO2 levels have led to several mass extinctions. Global warming
could be more than just inconvenient.
--
---------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw