1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal air time to climate deniers

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by MikeHoncho, Jul 7, 2014.

  1. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=- Club Member

    52,689
    25,584
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    Link

     
  2. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,680
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Good.
     
  3. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    Everyone is NOT entitled to his/her opinion, you are entitled to an opinion you can adequately defend.

    Science does not cease being science if you simply choose not to believe it! I agree with the BBC Trust. Keep in mind, what they are refusing to accept is the notion that climate change is not happening. Saying that human contribution is only one of a series of contributions to the change is acceptable.

    As a person of faith, I have to respond to the folks who believe the earth is only 6000+ years old and demand that such a belief is entitled to scientific "equality".
     
    unluckyluciano, Two Tacos and Fin D like this.
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,680
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Exactly. Science is not opinion. Varying opinions are allowed to carry equal weight, an opinion does not carry equal weight to science however.
     
  5. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,037
    4,791
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    Why waste time arguing with people of fundamentalist, literalist religious faith? They are totally invested in their faith, and desperately want to believe in anything consistent with it and disbelieve anything inconsistent with it. Their faith gives them comfort, happiness, fellowship and a sense of purpose. Why destroy that? You will get nowhere anyway, because you are dealing with religious dogma, not logic. Just tell them that the scientific evidence places the issue beyond debate, and that you respect their faith, so there is no sense in discussing it further. Then offer them a brewski in the name of the Lord.
     
  6. Unlucky 13

    Unlucky 13 Team Rosen Staff Member Club Member

    28,478
    30,006
    113
    Apr 24, 2012
    Troy, Virginia
    I really don't understand how the deniers care as much as they do. Clearly, the funding and push behind the denial is backed by the fossil fuel companies. They buy off politicians and add time to push their agenda. How any average person can't see that is amazing.
     
  7. Silverphin

    Silverphin Well-Known Member

    10,288
    3,895
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Coming from a Christian, is just ticks me off when someone uses Christianity (or any religion) to try and disprove science, or vice versa.
     
  8. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,037
    4,791
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    I sympathize. But science cannot disprove religion. It can show that certain stories could not have occurred as literally told within the realm of the physical laws, but it cannot disprove that there is an intelligence that created the physical laws, or that the stories are allegorical. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. God could have chosen to create the cosmos via the Big Bang and evolution. Maybe God is a Physicist. It's the literalists who create the problem, and despite what they'll tell you, literalism is not essential to Christianity.
     
    Ohio Fanatic likes this.
  9. scotty_irnbru

    scotty_irnbru Well-Known Member

    855
    610
    93
    Oct 12, 2013
    Dundee, Scotland
    If you believe that an intelligence created the physical laws, then what preceded the intelligence? A more intelligent creator? Without wishing to debate science vs religion I think you have to say that they are mutually exclusive. One offers a best fit explanation for what we have through rigorous experimental and rational thought, the other suggests what might have occurred without any explanation. Intelligent design might be the worst fudge of the bunch.
     
  10. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box


    Only if time is solely linear.

    We have this discussion in the religion forum regularly. It is ultimately circular.

    What I think we can all agree on is that it is not the best use of religious faith to impose a particular (and narrow) religious interpretation onto a question of science. Looking at a scientific argument and simply answering "I don't believe it because my understanding of faith precludes it" is bogus. The individual who answers that way is raising their interpretation to the level of ultimate truth. What those of us who are people of faith are saying in this thread is that even we don't think that is valid.
     
  11. scotty_irnbru

    scotty_irnbru Well-Known Member

    855
    610
    93
    Oct 12, 2013
    Dundee, Scotland
    Ok dude, I understand. I agree, religion v science threads (much likes guns and politics) just go round in circles.
     
    Ohiophinphan likes this.
  12. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,351
    23,020
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    eh you could say the same for the big bang theory and such.
     
  13. Ohiophinphan

    Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box

    Which is why I say such arguments become circular. I am happy as both a person of faith and a person who respects science to say, we do not know all the answers nor will we ever know all the answers. It should not preclude us from seeking those answers in all fields but to claim full understanding is to me arrogant.
     
  14. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic 30 years and counting Club Member

    26,464
    12,427
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    that is the reasonable common ground that so few are willing to settle on, including the majority of people in my own family.
     

Share This Page