Why is voting for Biden a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zeland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thbolt said:
At the same time there is a clear international scientific consensus that climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels and other human activities poses an existential threat to the very future of humanity …
Click to expand...
A couple of points:
  1. There is no clear scientific consensus that climate change poses an “existential threat to the very future of humanity.” The so-called consensus findings are all bogus.
  2. Even if some large proportion of scientists believe climate change is some level of threat to human life, it is also the case that a large portion of scientists think God does not exist. I am not convinced that we ought to trust the judgements of people prone towards overreach in what their particular field of study can properly conclude despite a determinable paucity of evidence.
 
Last edited:
The first point is questionable because the NAS, the “gold standard” of science review, has issued final reports on climate change.

The second point may be addressed by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. For example,

www.pas.va

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Official website of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in the Vatican. Located in the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican Gardens since 1936.
www.pas.va www.pas.va
 
Thbolt said:
The death toll from abortion is more immediate, but the long-term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity.
Click to expand...
The abortion deal toll isn’t merely “immediate” it is actual. The supposed threat to the “very future of humanity” is pure speculation based upon modelling that hasn’t come close to even predicting past climate events let alone those in the far future.

Bjorn Lomborg Declares “False Alarm” on Climate Hysteria​

Besides, carrying out abortion threatens the eternal destinies of those who commit them. Breathing out CO2 and thereby contributing by our very existence to “climate change” would by your metric make each of us a threat to human existence just by breathing.
Thbolt said:
The devastating fires in Australia are a sign of what lies before us, and a testimony that, on so many levels, our current pollution of the earth is stealing the future from coming generations.
Click to expand...
When the leftist politicians in affected states in Australia and the US come completely clean regarding who is starting the fires and how fuel loads were allowed to become disastrously high due to forest mismanagement in their jurisdictions then, perhaps, we can begin to discuss the actual threat of climate change. Prudence as a virtue is definitely sorely lacking among leaders in these places, and the implementation of unnecessary green new deals will be catastrophic for much of humanity, even more so than the worst case scenario from climate change.

If fossil fuels are banned we can only reliably produce about 10% of human energy requirements. That would be catastrophic for every person living in developing nations. Millions would die and the economic instability would trigger all kinds of disastrous repercussions.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
The abortion deal toll isn’t merely “immediate” it is actual. The supposed threat to the “very future of humanity” is pure speculation based upon modelling that hasn’t come close to even predicting past climate events let alone those in the far future.
Click to expand...
I agree and would like to add that we can expect much better technologies in 2025, 2030 etc. to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Right now we’re just in the prototype stage for carbon capture, which can “do the work of 40 million trees”. Abortions, on the other hand, are immediate deaths

 
Last edited:
Thbolt said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
A couple of points:
  1. There is no clear scientific consensus that climate change poses an “existential threat to the very future of humanity.” The so-called consensus findings are all bogus.
  2. Even if some large proportion of scientists believe climate change is some level of threat to human life, it is also the case that a large portion of scientists think God does not exist. I am not convinced that we ought to trust the judgements of people prone towards overreach in what their particular field of study can properly conclude despite a determinable paucity of evidence
Click to expand...
Worth keeping this post in mind when people consider your theological arguments.
Click to expand...
I hope they do.
 
HarryStotle said:
Even if some large proportion of scientists believe climate change is some level of threat to human life, it is also the case that a large portion of scientists think God does not exist.
Click to expand...
That’s a non sequitur.

Science studies the natural, knowable world, which would include the subject of climate change. The question of whether God exists is outside the scope of empirical scientific study, so what scientists believe regarding the existence of God is irrelevant to the question.
 
Last edited:
CTBcin said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Even if some large proportion of scientists believe climate change is some level of threat to human life, it is also the case that a large portion of scientists think God does not exist.
Click to expand...
That’s a non sequitur.

Science studies the natural, knowable world, which would include the subject of climate change. The question of whether God exists is outside the scope of empirical scientific study, so what scientists believe regarding the existence of God is irrelevant to the question.
Click to expand...
Right. But the penchant for scientists to draw supposed “scientific” conclusions far beyond their scope of study – i.e., pretending that science can disprove or say anything at all about the existence of God implies that a significant number of scientists are prone to speaking beyond their mandate or what is warranted.

Science is a discipline for a reason and its practitioners ought to show discipline in what conclusions can be reasonably drawn from the evidence.

Anyone who thinks the available science establishes that climate change is an existential threat to human existence is clearly listening to the cohort of scientists prone to hyperbolic overreach.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Even if some large proportion of scientists believe climate change is some level of threat to human life, it is also the case that a large portion of scientists think God does not exist.
Click to expand...
I think I would trust a doctor even he was an atheist. I cannot get my head around this point. You do not want to believe in global warming, fine, but I do not get discounting it because some scientists are atheists.

Besides, what matters is what a voter using Catholic morality believes.
 
The point he is making is that truth is not determined democratically. The consensus of science is wrong about God. They could also be wrong about Climate Change.
It is not a proof that they are wrong, but it is a rebuttal to the false confidence that many have in the current consensus. Science treats in theories not in certainties. The findings of science cannot be dismissed merely due to suspicion, but neither can they be wholeheartedly accepted on their face.
On climate, it is safe to say that there are far better solutions than what is proposed by Democrats, which is basically more taxation and intense regulation. Why not leave climate science to the scientists, rather than going in whole hog on policies that probably won’t help and will cost billions of dollars?
 
pnewton said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Even if some large proportion of scientists believe climate change is some level of threat to human life, it is also the case that a large portion of scientists think God does not exist.
Click to expand...
I think I would trust a doctor even he was an atheist. I cannot get my head around this point. You do not want to believe in global warming, fine, but I do not get discounting it because some scientists are atheists.

Besides, what matters is what a voter using Catholic morality believes.
Click to expand...
It isn’t because some scientists are atheists that I distrust those that are, it is because all too many scientists think that scientific inquiry leads them to conclude God does not exist.

That conclusion, however, does not follow but it is assumed by them that it does owing to their intellectual prowess. They can’t be wrong about the God question because they are so right about their science. That would be the logical disconnect.

That a “scientific consensus” on climate change is promoted by any of these scientists is an indicator of the same kind of hubris that leads many to be so confident that a scientist is equipped by science to finally answer the God question.

A true scientist would seek out every possible challenge to their pet conclusion to truly establish the validity of it. That many are touting the consensus in science on climate change to shut down dissenters rather than calmly hear out and answer those challenges means that hubris is at play. They are right BECAUSE they are the experts and intellectual superiors and not because the full array of evidence demonstrates it. A true scientist would welcome and answer dissent, especially when it poses a challenge to them, and not shut it down.

Watch the Bjorn Lomberg video I posted up thread to see why the panic and alarmism is more destructive to humanity than the actual provable effects of climate change.
 
Last edited:
Let me start the morning with a blessing rather than a barb.

May God bless us as we seek deeper understand of each other’s perspectives.
 
Last edited:
I’m talking about the candidates not the pro life movement. Trump is not pro life. is voting for Trump a mortal sin?
 
Trump is pro-life. You can keep saying he’s not. You can keep saying day is night and 2+2=3. I’ll keep correcting you.
 
he openly admitted to supporting abortion in cases of rape and incest. 2+2= pro abortion
 
That might be his personal position, which would be wrong, but his policy is to permit States to legislate on abortion themselves, not to enforce a ban on the federal level. Thus it is a moot point which version of anti-abortion laws he would support, because you’ll get to decide in your state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top