Hoarding is exactly what the government is doing right now by filling the SPR, and frankly it's the best thing that could happen. It drives prices up. High prices encourage demand destruction. They also finance new well development. The hoarded oil gives us a buffer to fall back on once shortages become more prevalent. High prices are what we need in order to adapt to what's coming, and the sooner they happen, the better.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
greenworm wrote:
Not belief, evidence.
Let me ask you a few questions about evidence.
How do you know whether you are awake or asleep now ?
Can you provide some evidence that you don't live in a computer simulation ?
If you are married, what empirical evidence do you have that your wife isn't cheating on you ?
Do you remember much of your first 3 years of life ? What empirical evidence do you have that your parents told you the truth of what you went through during that period ?
Btu _________________ only the paranoid survive
Last edited by btu2012 on Fri May 16, 2008 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
greenworm wrote:
Probably delusional due to dogma and high altitudes. I throw them in with the people who believe in vampires, werewolves and little green men. Oh, and they should have taken a picture, and that is why the Loch ness monster is more plausible.
Have you ever talked to a monk in person ? If not, what evidence do you have for your statements above ?
Btu
PS: For your information, most monks do not live at high altitudes. _________________ only the paranoid survive
Last edited by btu2012 on Fri May 16, 2008 2:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
threadbear wrote:
Modern atheist epistemology is not a step up, an evolution in consciousness, it is simply the drive to reduce the universe to something that can be controlled.
And to reduce man (i.e. humans) to something which can be used and controlled without qualms of conscience.
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Actually it is evidence, I have asked so many Christian in my life time, whether or not they have touched, seen, or heard and not one of them has answered yes. Not belief, man. I am very data oriented, trust me. One even said, "No, but how can you deny God, the planets wouldn't revolve the way they do without him, he has created an ordered universe." And that is where I said, your causality assumptions are ridiculous and the universe is not such a nicely ordered place, read some kepler.
Joined: Sep 24, 2007 Posts: 2584 Location: third from the sun
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
greenworm wrote:
Well, send the monk my way, I'll put him under the lie detector test.
So you never talked to a monk in your entire life ?!?
How come you were never curious to visit one given your phenomenological principles ?
And since you have no direct empirical experience of monks, how did you reach the conclusions below ?
Greenworm wrote:
Probably delusional due to dogma and high altitudes. I throw them in with the people who believe in vampires, werewolves and little green men. Oh, and they should have taken a picture, and that is why the Loch ness monster is more plausible.
It almost seems to me that you have a pre-formed belief about monks without any phenomenological evidence !!!
Doesn't this strike you as a betrayal of your own principles ?
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 3897 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil
Greenworm and Gandalf stand at opposite ends of the spectrum, each equally dogmatic in his view, each equally certain he is correct.
What is interesting is that although I have no idea what the truth is, I know that it is extraordinarily likely that one of them is wrong and there is a fair chance that they are both wrong about what they are decribing in absolute terms.
It's not often that you get such nicely packaged dogmas to compare.
Greenworm, there are so many holes that can be poked in your reasoning, I am surprised you don't see them. It is not necessary that I be right in order to show that your analysis cannot be correct as you are describing it.
You describe "facts" as if they were these objective bits of absolute meaning out in the ether, and it is only a matter of catching them in your net of rationality and showing them to us to build an irrefutable case for your position.
If the goal is to convince yourself of something, that method works fine, but if your goal is to convince someone else of the same thing, only a weak-minded person would let themselves be deluded in this manner.
Among the questions I would have:
1. How was the methodology developed for gathering the facts?
2. How are you sure you gathered all of the relevant facts?
3. What protections did you put in place against currently unknown facts that might alter the outcome?
4. What allowance have you made for your own biases in gathering the facts?
5. When analyzing the facts, how many different methodologies were used? Who decided which ones would be used?
6. When deciding which conclusions followed from an analysis of the facts, what was the methodology used to distinguish between supportable conclusions and interpretations and inferences based upon those conclusions?
7. No matter how rigorous the process was that led to the conclusions, can the conclusions ever be stated as "facts", or do they remain conclusions that are subject to revision and refinement based upon new information and errors that are discovered later?
8. Given that the human senses are inherently subjective, how can you be certain that any of what you characterize as facts are, indeed, facts, as opposed to a well intentioned and rational interpretation of something whose objective nature simply can't be understood by subjective perceptions?
Do you see the tyranny in your approach? Do you see the narrowmindedness of presuming that what is true in your eyes MUST be true in everyone's eyes?
More importantly, do you see that to the extent that you dismiss the views of others, you should have no expectation that they are not going to dismiss your views as well? If you know that your approach is only going to lead to your views being dismissed, why bother making the arguments? _________________ Our window of opportunity is slowly closing...at the same time, it probably requires a spiral of adversity. In other words, things have to get worse before they can get better.
-M. King Hubbert, 1983
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
