I don't disagree with the 97% statistic, all I'm saying is that statistic only means one thing: and that is that climate scientists agree that human activity has likely contributed to climate change. By all means use the term denier - but do it in the right context. It certainly doesn't apply to serious and respected scientists who are commenting within their field of expertise. The weight of evidence does show that a combination of CO2, CH4, and N2O has contributed to climate change, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that it's a catastrophe or an imminent threat to humanity or any of that nonsense.
There is never anyone else besides Jehovah recognised as a legitimate god in the Bible. So how would it make sense that Jesus is the exception to the rule?
Holocaust deniers and truthers do not have any "facts". They have some evidence and when they are shown other evidence they refuse to accept it. If I showed you only the evidence that holocaust deniers want to show you then you would probably conclude that the holocaust never happened. It's easy to do that when you only have evidence for one side of the picture. Now let's imagine that it's 29 AD and I show you someone who is sick, and behaves irrationally. And I tell you he's possessed by a daemon. If I told you that same thing today, you may say to me "I'm going to accept your evidence, but I want to get the opinion of a clinical psychologist as well, and a physician before I decide whether I think this person is possessed by a daemon or whether he is in fact mentally or physically ill". In 29 AD you only get ONE side of that argument - there are no psychologists for you to ask, and physicians were not that great either - you may as well ash a witch doctor. So it is in the Bible that we have Jesus who says that "this person is possessed by a daemon". Can you see why that evidence is no longer good enough?
No one's saying that Jesus didn't encounter people whom he identified as being possessed by daemons. Nor is anyone saying that he didn't heal them. But the fact that they got better after seeing him doesn't prove they had any daemons. We now know about the placebo effect (and the therapeutic effect of prayer and meditation). We now know how much positive thinking goes towards recovery as well; so it could be a simple combination of the positive factors that he brought that helped people; or at leas the very few people who get mentioned as being healed by him anyway. Since we only have a partial record there's no data to tell you how many people he saw that didn't get better, or whether these people later had a "daemonic relapse".
There is never anyone else besides Jehovah recognised as a legitimate god in the Bible. So how would it make sense that Jesus is the exception to the rule?
Holocaust deniers and truthers do not have any "facts". They have some evidence and when they are shown other evidence they refuse to accept it. If I showed you only the evidence that holocaust deniers want to show you then you would probably conclude that the holocaust never happened. It's easy to do that when you only have evidence for one side of the picture. Now let's imagine that it's 29 AD and I show you someone who is sick, and behaves irrationally. And I tell you he's possessed by a daemon. If I told you that same thing today, you may say to me "I'm going to accept your evidence, but I want to get the opinion of a clinical psychologist as well, and a physician before I decide whether I think this person is possessed by a daemon or whether he is in fact mentally or physically ill". In 29 AD you only get ONE side of that argument - there are no psychologists for you to ask, and physicians were not that great either - you may as well ash a witch doctor. So it is in the Bible that we have Jesus who says that "this person is possessed by a daemon". Can you see why that evidence is no longer good enough?
No one's saying that Jesus didn't encounter people whom he identified as being possessed by daemons. Nor is anyone saying that he didn't heal them. But the fact that they got better after seeing him doesn't prove they had any daemons. We now know about the placebo effect (and the therapeutic effect of prayer and meditation). We now know how much positive thinking goes towards recovery as well; so it could be a simple combination of the positive factors that he brought that helped people; or at leas the very few people who get mentioned as being healed by him anyway. Since we only have a partial record there's no data to tell you how many people he saw that didn't get better, or whether these people later had a "daemonic relapse".
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
