"black friday" reminder (what would Jesus buy?)

[ArciMoto]

On 7/19/2023 at 6:44 AM, Didacus said:

ArciMoto, you seem to be outright invested in this aren't you?

Are we all going to die in the near future on account of the environment being destroyed - I think not, but time will tell I suppose.

 

Human nature has a direct influence on how an individual frames an issue,... so as a kid (going to Catholic school), learned religion can provide a basis for moral beliefs AND that religion can also provide a sense of community and connection to tradition. 

 

As I see things, religion can be a source of comfort, guidance AND used for good,... if (and only if) people realize selfless (moral) decisions need to be pondered AND backed up with actions of strength and resolve.

 

We live in a capitalist world where many people value jesus BUT the inconvenient truth is many so called believers, do not pay heed to what jesus actually had to say,... so over time came to realize "What Would Jesus Do" isn't the key question, the more interesting question is what would jesus (want us to) do,... keep in mind the only time jesus violently acted out, is when he was in the temple over turning the tables of the money changers (Matthew 21:12-17). 

 

NOTE jesus also told the rich man that the price to get into heaven is to give away his money and possessions (Matthew 19:21-24),... basically jesus warns that love of money excludes being able to serve god (Matthew 6:24)

 

 

FYI,... the prosperity gospel (i.e. the worship of money and material goods) is the "fastest growing religious movement on earth" 

 

https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/inside-the-fastest-growing-religious-movement-on-earth/6009.article

 

AND the "prosperity gospel is taught to 4 in 10 evangelical churchgoers." 

 

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/july/prosperity-gospel-survey-churchgoers-prosper-tithe-blessing.html
 

looking at the big picture (of knock on effects),  of ever growing "wants" of people to possess material goods, science indicates it has a pretty big environmental impact

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160224132923.htm

 

as for the doodle video

 

 

...the reason I put it together is because of a popular quote attributed to Albert Einstein,... "if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough" AND thought the science AND faith ideas show that there are consequences for actions

 

ALSO figured the video was a counter measure to stuff put out by Alex Jones (an influential alt-right conspiracy theorist, who states climate change is a hoax AND that he is on a mission from god)

2023.06.20 - Flashback! NASA Admits Climate Change Occurs Because Of Changes In Earth’s Solar Orbit, Not Because Of Suvs & Fossil Fuels

 

https://www.infowars.com/posts/flashback-nasa-admits-climate-change-occurs-because-of-changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-not-because-of-suvs-fossil-fuels/

2023.07.17 - Alex Explains “Downloading” God’s Mission & Planting The Seeds That Will Bring Down Satan’s Empire

 

https://www.infowars.com/posts/alex-explains-downloading-gods-mission-planting-the-seeds-that-will-bring-down-satans-empire/

 

 

 

 

[fides' Jack]

On 7/22/2023 at 2:41 PM, ArciMoto said:

a time lapse side by side video, can't show a plants nutritional content

Irrelevant.  More CO2 = more plants = more food = less starvation.  I'm sure that whatever the new nutritional value is, whether it's more or less (per volume, as you said), is still better than nothing, and certainly better than the fast food that so many in the West eat daily.  CO2 is literally the life-giving air that is needed by the planet. 

The plant itself is significantly healthier with much more CO2.  That's better for everyone, even if it takes slightly more of the plant to get the same nutritional value. 

On 7/22/2023 at 2:41 PM, ArciMoto said:

as far as proving the Dunning-Kruger effect,... I've never taken a formal psychology class,... but do have my own analogy of an old proverb

You can also lead a person to bad science and corrupt his soul.  

I have taken a formal psychology class.  I disagree entirely with the notion that because you were indoctrinated in some undergrad class that you somehow have some kind of expertise that those who didn't go to school don't.  In fact, I've found it's quite the opposite; time in academia has become synonymous with the absence of critical thinking.  This is true even within the seminaries of the Church.  

Just because the government espouses something does not make it "science".  Even the phrase "trust the science" is anti-scientific.  All true scientists know this.

 

Still, the video got you to admit the truth: more CO2 means healthier plants.  They might have less nutritional value, but they are healthier in themselves.  Thank you for admitting the truth!

On 7/22/2023 at 3:49 PM, ArciMoto said:

who states climate change is a hoax

By the link you posted, you proved this is not true.  Use your words more accurately.

Did you actually read the article?  It's saying the same thing as what you said in the first half of your video.

So you agree with Alex Jones?

[Didacus]

I almost have a feeling Moto is simply copy-pasting prepared replis with minimal tailoring to fit into context.

It's like a propaganda machine...

[ArciMoto]

On 7/27/2023 at 10:44 AM, Didacus said:

I almost have a feeling Moto is simply copy-pasting prepared replis with minimal tailoring to fit into context.

It's like a propaganda machine...

To some all degree replies on a debate forum are variations of a "copy-paste" because people have worldview beliefs that are deeply held,... for example some *cough* believe that climate change is a hoax AND that covid vaccines alter DNA (while other uses of phat-mass do not)

On 3/12/2022 at 8:26 AM, Nunsuch said:

Just to respond (probably fruitlessly) to one of @fides' Jack's untruths.

ca·peesh about what might be perceived as a propaganda machine?!

Anyway since,... Genesis 1:26–31 tells us that God made man and woman "in his image" AND they "have dominion over the fish of the seas and over the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves upon the earth" ...care to share any insights about will 'mankind' evolve to have God's omnipotence?

Another way to view the question (I wonder about) at the intersection of science and faith (given the issue of climate change), does 'mankind' possess the power (or omniscience) to destroy "every living creature that moves upon the earth..."

Because, Genesis 1:26–31 tells us that God made man and woman "in his image..." yet another way to ponder the question (I wonder about), does 'mankind' possess the self discipline and restraint NOT to destroy "every living creature that moves upon the earth?"

Thought to bring up the topic, since Oppenheimer is playing in theaters

and since there are books on the topic,...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History

basically as I see things people have to decide, which route to take (since 'mankind' has "dominion over the,... earth")

[ArciMoto]

On 7/24/2023 at 7:45 PM, fides' Jack said:

More CO2 = more plants = more food = less starvation.

 

On 7/24/2023 at 7:45 PM, fides' Jack said:

You can also lead a person to bad science and corrupt his soul.  

 

On 3/12/2022 at 8:26 AM, Nunsuch said:

Just to respond (probably fruitlessly) to one of @fides' Jack's untruths.

 

Abstract

While the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the context of global warming is widely acknowledged, additional data from multiple sources is demonstrating that rising CO2 of and by itself will have a tremendous effect on plant biology. This effect is widely recognized for its role in stimulating photosynthesis and growth for multiple plant species, including crops. However, CO2 is also likely to alter plant chemistry in ways that will denigrate plant nutrition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9003137/

http://scitechdaily.com/increasing-levels-of-co2-results-in-less-nutritious-crops/#:~:text=Elevated levels of CO2 make,resulting in less nutritious crops.

http://globalhealth.washington.edu/news/2019/04/23/high-co2-levels-will-wreck-plants-nutritional-value-so-don-t-plan-surviving

 

PS since the OP was about the prosperity gospel,... figure I'd share something I thought was hilarious (and thought provoking)

 

[fides' Jack]

On 7/29/2023 at 9:37 PM, ArciMoto said:

However, CO2 is also likely to alter plant chemistry in ways that will denigrate plant nutrition.

Wait - you mean there is no scientific consensus that it will make plants less nutritious?  They think it might?  

I read some of the linked paper.  It's full of errors.  Like this one:

Quote

For example, a study of spring wheat lines from the early to late 20th century did indicate that newer lines had less protein in flour; however, each cultivar also showed a decline in protein with increasing [CO2] from the early 20th century (Figure 1). As spring wheat does not outcross per se, this suggests that [CO2] is directly affecting protein concentration separate from breeding history [13].

No, it doesn't suggest that.  Correlation does not imply causation.  This doesn't take into account the pervasive use of GMOs throughout all agriculture in the Western world, which absolutely would need to be looked at before CO2.  We changed the very nature of these plants in the same time period, and they think CO2 is going to be the chief cause of a decline in protein?

There are numerous things I would consider before I would consider CO2.  Such as use of chemicals (also in the same time period), changing farming methods, changing types of plants being used, etc....  This study ignores all of those and blames it on CO2.  This is exactly why statistical "science" is not science at all.

The study you linked is bad science, and it doesn't even offer evidence of what it's suggesting.  And what it's suggesting isn't even as big of an issue as is the ability to feed more impoverished people through higher CO2 concentrations.  Moreover, as is says above, it's a hypothetical.  They don't know that for sure.  What we do know for sure is that more CO2 means, definitively, more plant growth.

On 7/29/2023 at 9:37 PM, ArciMoto said:

 

I honestly don't get it.  He's going to get rich by begging?  That's "prosperity theology"?  There's nothing wrong with begging.  And it never made anyone terribly rich.  Especially among cavemen.

[ArciMoto]

On 7/31/2023 at 8:15 AM, fides' Jack said:

I honestly don't get it.  He's going to get rich by begging?  That's "prosperity theology"?  There's nothing wrong with begging.  And it never made anyone terribly rich.

there is a number of thing you don't get,...

put a charlatan in front a crowd of idiots "with more money than brains" (and the sad truth is, the idiots don't have that much money in the first place),... so at the end of the day, the "religious" charlatan, gets a business jet (paid for by idiots)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/06/04/wealthy-televangelist-explains-his-fleet-private-jets-its-biblical-thing/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/05/29/a-televangelist-wants-his-followers-to-pay-for-a-54-million-private-jet-its-his-fourth-plane/

looking at the bigger picture the worshiping of money and consumer goods, is damaging to the environment

http://www.sciencealert.com/consumers-have-a-bigger-impact-on-the-environment-than-anything-else-study-finds

 

 

[fides' Jack]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:21 AM, ArciMoto said:

looking at the bigger picture the worshiping of money and consumer goods, is damaging to the environment

More importantly it's damaging to people's souls.  Not as damaging as is worship of the environment, though, through the pachamama or gaia or "science".

[ArciMoto]

On 8/7/2023 at 3:26 PM, fides' Jack said:

More importantly it's damaging to people's souls.  Not as damaging as is worship of the environment, though, through the pachamama or gaia or "science".

when I went to the 2018 catholic answers faith and science conference got the feeling that most everyone there read the Bible as literal truth (and seems you are of the same school of thought),... I bring this touchy issue up because learned long ago that the way one should approach theology is to put things into context (AND that the bible is a collection of 66 different books, authored by different people over time, the common theme being they were inspired by god to find the truth)

 

point being even though (for example) the prayer of st francis isn't in the Bible (and in fact something that was first published in 1912, it contains a reminder to seek out the "truth")

 

basically catholics are turning a blind eye towards the scientific truth, that climate change is indeed 'man made' 

www.ThereIsNoPlanet-b.org

 

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, ArciMoto said:

AND that the bible is a collection of 66 different books

That's the Protestant Bible.  We have 73.

 

3 hours ago, ArciMoto said:

basically catholics are turning a blind eye towards the scientific truth, that climate change is indeed 'man made' 

But there has always been climate change.  Especially if you believe that the Earth is billions of years old (you are correct, I do not).  

So...  even if the climate is changing currently due to anything man-made - why is that bad?  

The truth is, it's just assumed to be bad, so much so that people just accept that it is without really giving it a single thought.

Remember, as you admitted and agreed, CO2 is good for plant growth, and plants would thrive if there were 3 times the current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.