Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (44452)	11/10/2017 11:02:12 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 357146

Good post, but I toss "believe" out as well and instead substitute "understand". Believe even with "that" still means you are doing it on faith and don't actually know why. If that is the case, say you accept Scientists views on the subject even though you don't personally understand it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (44452)	11/10/2017 12:26:48 PM
From: denizen48	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 357146

Oh please, you post like you are our resident professor of thinking...while you completely miss other people’s point.

To: Lane3 who wrote (44452)

11/10/2017 12:37:14 PM

From: koan

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 357146

You knew what i was saying. It would be perfectly proper to say I believe that AGW is real.

I don't know who Ray Comfort is, but it is too bad he could not have debated Charles Pierce who said: "Everyone is always in one of three states of mind: belief, doubt or disbelief.

Most top climate scientists believe in AGW. They believe AGW is real and very very dangerous to our species.

Getting things correct is more important than arguing over syntax.

I also do not believe there is a god, of any kind. I do not even think sentient beings capable of higher order thinking would recognize a concept of a god as making any sense.

<<

when I asked him how many do not believe in anthropogenic global warming he said -effectively none i.e. we know!!!!

Koan, I've brought this up before. You do the notion of AGW a great disservice when you say you believe in it. We are said to believe in fairies and ghosts and deities and other supernatural entities. These are outside the scope of science. Claims of scientific validity are not expressed with "believe in" but rather "belief that" something or other has been sufficiently evidenced.

In the "Evolution vs. God" propaganda piece, Ray Comfort makes a bunch of atheists look like fools in part by repeatedly saying they "believe in" evolution. We don't believe inevolution. We don't believe in gravity. They are science.

To: Lane3 who wrote (44452)	11/10/2017 12:48:12 PM
From: zzpat	Respond to of 357146

The religious nut has a standard for everyone else that he can't have for himself. He believes in a god without any evidence whatsoever but then says it's wrong for others to believe in something based on facts and science. If the religious nut had the same standard for himself as he has for the rest of us he wouldn't sound like a hypocrite. Prove there's a god and if you can't shut up.

To: Lane3 who wrote (44452)	11/10/2017 2:26:51 PM
From: one_less	2 Recommendations Recommended By denizen48 i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 357146

The word "believe" gets thrown around a lot and is often misused. It merely means you have confidence in something you can't fully explain (particularly when it is to the satisfaction of others) with available information. People who say they believe something, or don't believe something, should be the people most interested in the availability of more information, especially if it challenges that belief/nonbelief. Politicizing beliefs makes openness to challenges less likely, at least for people who don't generally engage in critical thinking.