• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in ‘great peril’

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
@1213
You said "the reason is the politicians that apparently can only make things worse. Most problems in this world seems to be caused by politicians. If people would be free individuals that have only power over their own life, this world would be better. For example we would not have wars without politicians"

That goes against common-sense. Have you not heard of civil war?
While I agree that many politicians are corrupt and/or not particularly religious, who voted for them??
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Whereas you think the head of an organization of bureaucrats has no ulterior motive while asking for "more".
"Projection"?

The science is now very clear on this as the link I gave you shows, but then maybe your politics trumps science? Seems that way.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't think Trump is authoritarian, because he doesn't act like one
Say what???

Trump has long been known as a con man and we also know that he wouldn't accept the results of the 2020 election and tried to twist arms so to try and negate it. He is a neo-fascist, and this is not hyperbole on my part as I have studied fascism in detail for decades now.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
It's the Daily Fail, what did you expect? Pro tip: if it's an article worth reading, it has a link to the original study - which should be worth more reading. If the study was published in a respected peer reviewed periodical, use that link in your post and you won't read complaints about biased sources.

He sits in a boat with a hole in the hull. If he wants to debate whether it is better to fix the hole with wood or just hemp and tar, he shouldn't stand in the way of the people who are pumping.
Iow, there was time enough for general debate. Calling for debate now is only an excuse for not acting.
You still did not read the article so you cannot follow the argument.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
If your only argument against the science

My word???

I am not against science and neither is Professor Michael Kelly from Cambridge. If you read the article you would have known that he was questioning an anti-scientific attitude. He does not want science to become a dogma.

That seems to be what you are advocating - dogmatic science controlled by the propaganda machines of politicians and big business???????????
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
My word???

I am not against science and neither is Professor Michael Kelly from Cambridge. If you read the article you would have known that he was questioning an anti-scientific attitude. He does not want science to become a dogma.

That seems to be what you are advocating - dogmatic science controlled by the propaganda machines of politicians and big business???????????
I find it ironic that you criticise me for not reading the article you posted, when it is clear your response came after only reading seven words of my post.

Try reading it in full, champ.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
There simply is no evidence whatsoever that it is inerrant

The Holy Spirit made a few mistakes then? Would you mind informing us, as well as the Spirit, where it erred?

I left the church I grew up in because they refused to believe in the basic concept of evolution

Evolution does not need a god? God. It is undirected.
So modern science is your ultimate measure of truth?

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
That is probably the major foundational principle of the true Christian church and our knowledge of God.

Care to explain the meaning of this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
 

Five Solas

Active Member
If you didn't already know that, you have no business even trying to quote any newspaper as a source.

I have not bought any newspaper for well over 30 years. I just simply don't care what the name of a paper is.
I care about the facts. I would gladly compare all newspapers (online) in my search for the facts - all of them if possible. I am fully aware all newspapers have an ideology. I have a deep distrust of anyone who only follows the ideology of certain papers that says what he/she wants to hear. People like that are brainwashed like the majority of people in the UK - mindless sheep.

There is absolutely no difference if the lie (or fact) comes from a conservative or liberal newspaper.
A lie is a lie.

What you do is to shoot the messenger (newspaper) because you don't like the message. That is not good debate.

Could you please inform me how the Daily Mail lied or misrepresented what the Prof said? Let's stick to the facts

For me, if science stops exploring and asking questions it stops being science - and, please, don't hide behind so-called consensus. It is a lazy way of aiming to win an argument. It is propaganda and mind control.

I mostly agree with this:
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period...
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." Michael Crichton
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I have not bought any newspaper for well over 30 years. [snip]
I'm not interested in your rambling. The point I was making is that the opinion of one scientist that we shouldn't be dogmatic about science does not negate the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion and decades of evidence, and citing the Daily Mail as a source is almost as low a bar as you can possibly set for yourself, so you've not really presented an argument.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
I'm not interested in your rambling. The point I was making is that the opinion of one scientist that we shouldn't be dogmatic about science does not negate the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion and decades of evidence, and citing the Daily Mail as a source is almost as low a bar as you can possibly set for yourself, so you've not really presented an argument.
And I have said that anyone who hides behind so-called consensus is lazy or does not have a better argument to make. Consensus is claimed in situations where the science is not solid enough. No one claims that 1+1=2 because there is consensus. The science is strong enough.

I stand by this: The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate.

Again, you are welcome to believe the lies and propaganda of your chosen newspaper. Enjoy...
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
And I have said that anyone who hides behind so-called consensus is lazy or does not have a better argument to make. Consensus is claimed in situations where the science is not solid enough. No one claims that 1+1=2 because there is consensus. The science is strong enough.

I stand by this: The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate.

Again, you are welcome to believe the lies and propaganda of your chosen newspaper. Enjoy...
I agree, the route to truth is transparency, openness and a willingness to engage with the evidence. Not just citing one opinion from one source.

You agree, right?

So, put your one opinion to the side and engage with the actual evidence.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...Have you not heard of civil war?

Yes I have. Would not have happened, if power would not have been centralized to some individuals. That is why I think centralizing power is like forging “One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.”
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
Trump has long been known as a con man and we also know that he wouldn't accept the results of the 2020 election and tried to twist arms so to try and negate it. He is a neo-fascist, and this is not hyperbole on my part as I have studied fascism in detail for decades now.

I don't believe you have studied fascism. And no one should accept result that is not properly shown to be correct. And when it was ok that Hillary Clinton said Biden should not concede in any situation, why should Trump concede?


Democrats never accepted Trump's win in 2016. The whole time they presented false accusations. Are you calling them fascists?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I don't believe you have studied fascism. And no one should accept result that is not properly shown to be correct.
At this point, this is just denial. The election was found to be the safest election in history, and the results are confirmed. Anybody still denying this is just desperate and in serious denial.

And when it was ok that Hillary Clinton said Biden should not concede in any situation, why should Trump concede?

Firstly, this is whataboutism.

Secondly, I don't recall anybody saying Biden never conceding would ever be okay.

Thirdly, "do not concede on the night" is not the same as "don't admit you lost the election, even after all the votes are counted". You will notice that barely any news outlets equate the two statements except for far-right ones who are deranged enough to think that's what it means.

Democrats never accepted Trump's win in 2016.
Hillary Clinton conceded the election on November 9th.

The whole time they presented false accusations.
Nope. The allegations were almost entirely true. There was Russian interference in the election. It just could not be determined how much the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to bring about this result, largely due to a lot of witnesses pleading the 5th.

There is a world of difference between the Russian interference allegations - which were true and shown to be true through investigations and numerous reports - and the allegations Trump has made about the 2018 election - which have never been substantiated in any way, shape or form. There is also a huge difference between conceding an election and then calling into question the effect of Russian interference on the election and calling for an investigation into possible collusion, and outright claiming the election was "stolen" or "rigged" and refusing to accept that you lost and never conceding it to the extent that you drive thousands of your followers to attack the capitol building and kill lawmakers.

Anybody who doesn't see this difference isn't equipped to say anything about politics.
 
Last edited:

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The climate problem is cumulative, so I'd say it's worse than 50 years ago even though we are generating less pollution than we were 50 years ago.

The danger of a global catastrophe due to warring nations has gotten worse in the last 10 years, but is still not as likely as it was 50-60 years ago.

The real danger is in the rise of corporate conglomerates and their ability to subjugate whole governments to further redistribute the world's wealth (and power) into the hands of a small number of the most greedy and unscrupulous among us. Because that course of action cannot lead humanity in any direction that will not result in horrific abuse and disaster.

Corporate conglomerates can only appear with the help of government, interfering in the free market. In the free markets, competition keeps things honest. An overprice product, like green energy, would not do very well in a free market. But when government interferes, such as artificially with driving up the price of oil to make green look better, then all types of problems begin. This has led to inflation since the price to ship everything increased.

Energy is now a world wide problem under the current US government energy policy. The USA was on the road to becoming an energy exporter which was good for the world economy. It would have make it harder for Russia to create its share of world instability; another government causing problems. The Ukraine war had little to do with the free market, but now it hurts both the energy and food markets.

A good example of how US government made conglomerates was forcing business to give health insurance. This had a much larger impact on small businesses who do not benefit by economies of scale. Big business was better able to handle this leading to elimination of their smaller competition.

The Covid bogeyman allowed government to interfered too much in the free market. In the USA, the Democrat run states shut down their economies, way more than needed, leading to bottlenecks in the economy, that are still causing world wide problems. China also over did it with the shut down still leading to supply problems. The real problem is the Left does not like free market Capitalism and appears to do the things needed to mess it up.

The housing crisis in 2008, which had a world wide impact, was due to the Democrats in government messing with the free market. For many years previous, they tried to force and shame banks to make insecure home loans to bad debtors. This was against free market common sense and was resisted. They then came up with a different approach which was to use the government to back up unsecured loans with tax payer money. This predictably led to predatory loan behavior and lots of bad loans, since the free market was tweaked in the wrong way. The result over extension of debt and the collapse of the housing market.

The Democrats did the same thing with student loans. Instead of letting the free market set University prices, like it always had been, they interfered by underwriting even bad students loans with tax payer money. This led to predatory over pricing by most of the universities, that escalated the debt of students. Like the housing market, this could have been avoided, by letting the free market work.

Now the same group is trying to do this again with green energy. They originally wanted to put the tax payer under $3 plus Trillion in debt, up front; add to national debt, to interfere in the free market. The goal was to force everyone to buy green lemons. This latest scam is making everyone nervous, since these same people have a poor record of success. What I would do with the green energy debt is anyone who signs off on this next disaster needs to put all their personal assets on the chopping block, so when it screws up, they are not still sitting pretty, with everyone else taking the hit. Did Pelosi or Kerry lose anything from the housing and student loan disaster they helped to create? This time they both need to put their assets up on the chopping block. If this is good policy there is nothing to worry about. If it is a skim scam then it will hurt them too.

Anyone who signed off on the student loan debacle should also have their assets seized and given to the students to decrease some of the debt they created. Their needs to be consequences for the pain they have created when they adversely tamper with the free market in predictable ways.

America used to be the ship with a steady economic keel, but now it has become source of world wide anxiety. This got worse starting at the Swamp and Democrats led Coup against former President Trump. It showed that a corrupt element had gained too much power in Washington and it has rigged the system in such as way to get away with crimes, without punishment. They have doubled down and the world does not feel safer, especially since this element pander to their own kind; criminals.

The USA is no longer the light on the hill, but a fire in the pit. This can change in November but elections are only the first step. Step two is to weed out the weeds in government, and apply the justice due. Then we can cover the pit and get back up the hill. We should lead by positive example and not by disasters created.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Holy Spirit made a few mistakes then? Would you mind informing us, as well as the Spirit, where it erred?
The Holy Spirit is not an inerrant encyclopedia of history. The Bible is about God but is not God.

Evolution does not need a god? God. It is undirected.
So modern science is your ultimate measure of truth?
Between religion and science, my priority for objective and factual information is the latter. However, it is not my spiritual guide.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
That is probably the major foundational principle of the true Christian church and our knowledge of God.

Care to explain the meaning of this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Where did I say or suggest that God could not have created all?

So, if the Bible is supposedly inerrant, please provide objective evidence for that?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
A good example of how US government made conglomerates was forcing business to give health insurance. This had a much larger impact on small businesses who do not benefit by economies of scale. Big business was better able to handle this leading to elimination of their smaller competition.
If we had universal healthcare, both business and all Americans would benefit.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
America used to be the ship with a steady economic keel, but now it has become source of world wide anxiety. This got worse starting at the Swamp and Democrats led Coup against former President Trump. It showed that a corrupt element had gained too much power in Washington and it has rigged the system in such as way to get away with crimes, without punishment. They have doubled down and the world does not feel safer, especially since this element pander to their own kind; criminals.
Maybe get off of the right-wing media so as to see reality much more clearly.

It is VERY clear that Trump and many of his supporters were the ones who were organizing the "coup", and an increasing number of Americans are seeing that truth, including more and more Republicans.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
So, put your one opinion to the side and engage with the actual evidence.

Thinking about it, I do not know what you are trying to say. You unleashed this huge smokescreen to hide something and vomited poison against a newspaper that does not suit your ideology missing the whole point.

You clearly do not know me which I understand because I have not been here long.

I did not question any evidence. If you think I did then it is because of your overzealous passion for the ideology you follow whatever it may be.

Now, put your opinion to one side .... bah!!! - what a silly remark!
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
The housing crisis in 2008, which had a world wide impact, was due to the Democrats in government messing with the free market

I think you really should take a good look at history, the so-called housing crisis was created from the misuse of hedge funds and greed before 2008.
The financial crisis was primarily caused by deregulation in the financial industry. That permitted banks to engage in hedge fund trading with derivatives. Banks then demanded more mortgages to support the profitable sale of these derivatives. They created interest-only loans that became affordable to subprime borrowers.
What Caused 2008 Global Financial Crisis? (thebalancemoney.com)
 
Top