Religious belief instinctive
- Thread starter OldHippie
- Start date
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
I guess that sort of gets at the point TaylorTRoom was just now making. What sort of evidence could there possibly be that would refute global warming? I mean, if it’s not falsifiable, then is the proposition really scientific? It raises an interesting question, I think, about what sorts of conditions would have to prevail in order for falsifying evidence to emerge.
Or, let’s think of it this way: The Earth’s climate, in terms of temperature, is always either warming or cooling. It must be one or the other; it is never in a condition of stasis. Geologic history teaches that these periods of warming and cooling can last for an extended duration: decades, centuries, even millennia. And therefore it would seem that, for a scientist who lives during a period of cooling, all data that purports to describe the process of “recent temperature change” must suggest cooling. And, in similar fashion, it would also seem that for any scientist who lives during a period of warming, all data must suggest warming.
It would not much matter whether the data purported to describe one particular agent of temperature change or another. All data about all possible agents must be consistent with what is known in advance: that temperatures are either cooling or warming, as the case may be. This is particularly true in the absence of a unified climate theory. Without such a theory, it becomes impossible to isolate for different variables that may have a countervailing effect. It becomes impossible to reach beyond the part (human impact) that we can study and toward the whole (universal climate) which might illuminate the true significance of the part. Or, I suppose it’s possible to reach beyond it, but there is no scientific way to know whether we’ve grasped anything that approaches some sort of truth about climate change.
We live (or so it is said—and I suppose I do believe it) in a period of global heating. And therefore all data that aims to describe recent climate changes must inevitably point toward heating. The only conditions under which falsifying evidence could emerge would be the opposite conditions to those that obtained during the period in which the data was collected. In order to falsify the theory of anthropogenic climate change, we would first have to see a reversal of conditions.
But that doesn’t really seem like hard science to me, since there is no control group by which we might compare a climate impacted by man to a climate not impacted by man. It is this lack of any control group that AGW theory shares with supernatural explanations. AGW theory proposes to know how the world would be without man. Supernatural explanation proposes to know how the world would be without nature. But the adherents of both groups are trapped in a world that is animated by both man and nature, from which neither can be driven—“to punish me with this, and this with me”, as Hamlet said.
Of course, religious people have always accepted the proposed vision of the world without nature on faith, and they have called that faith by its name. Meanwhile AGW theorists, at least the most vocal of them, carry on under the belief that their neutral and beatific vision of a world without man is something more substantial than faith. They are mistaken, in my opinion.
Or, let’s think of it this way: The Earth’s climate, in terms of temperature, is always either warming or cooling. It must be one or the other; it is never in a condition of stasis. Geologic history teaches that these periods of warming and cooling can last for an extended duration: decades, centuries, even millennia. And therefore it would seem that, for a scientist who lives during a period of cooling, all data that purports to describe the process of “recent temperature change” must suggest cooling. And, in similar fashion, it would also seem that for any scientist who lives during a period of warming, all data must suggest warming.
It would not much matter whether the data purported to describe one particular agent of temperature change or another. All data about all possible agents must be consistent with what is known in advance: that temperatures are either cooling or warming, as the case may be. This is particularly true in the absence of a unified climate theory. Without such a theory, it becomes impossible to isolate for different variables that may have a countervailing effect. It becomes impossible to reach beyond the part (human impact) that we can study and toward the whole (universal climate) which might illuminate the true significance of the part. Or, I suppose it’s possible to reach beyond it, but there is no scientific way to know whether we’ve grasped anything that approaches some sort of truth about climate change.
We live (or so it is said—and I suppose I do believe it) in a period of global heating. And therefore all data that aims to describe recent climate changes must inevitably point toward heating. The only conditions under which falsifying evidence could emerge would be the opposite conditions to those that obtained during the period in which the data was collected. In order to falsify the theory of anthropogenic climate change, we would first have to see a reversal of conditions.
But that doesn’t really seem like hard science to me, since there is no control group by which we might compare a climate impacted by man to a climate not impacted by man. It is this lack of any control group that AGW theory shares with supernatural explanations. AGW theory proposes to know how the world would be without man. Supernatural explanation proposes to know how the world would be without nature. But the adherents of both groups are trapped in a world that is animated by both man and nature, from which neither can be driven—“to punish me with this, and this with me”, as Hamlet said.
Of course, religious people have always accepted the proposed vision of the world without nature on faith, and they have called that faith by its name. Meanwhile AGW theorists, at least the most vocal of them, carry on under the belief that their neutral and beatific vision of a world without man is something more substantial than faith. They are mistaken, in my opinion.
TaylorTRoom
1,000+ Posts
Well, coelecanth went a little deeper than I meant to. Nice reply. I'll elaborate my thoughts on this, but first I want to explain the care I'm taking with individuals. I'm going to make a few blanket statements that may not apply specifically to GT WT (or maybe they do). In return, please do not ascribe positions to me that I don't hold.
As coelecanth posted, it's pretty clear that the earth is relatively warmer now (now meaning the last 15 - 20 years). I have no quarrel with the idea that carbon in our atmosphere retains heat. My description of Global Warming advocates as religion-holders is based on two phenomena-
1. The IPCC has been making dire predictions since the early 1990s. Although carbon composition has risen since then, as feared, the temperatures have not gone up as predicted. Now, as I have posted on hornfans threads many, many times, that's a good thing. The IPCC is just not very good at forecasting. There is a science to forecasting, and experts in it have pointed to errors the IPCC (I'm using them as the catch-all leaders here) has made in preparing forecasts. These folks have been called deniers. The first error they make is that when a forecast fails, it should be recognized and the method adjusted. The IPCC is horrible about the former part, and secretive about the latter.
Many of the people arguing for the IPCC, in the academy, media, and government, have absolutely no idea how the models were created. If they did know, they wouldn't understand the. I read up on it, and a very sophisticated global finite element model was created. Those are very sophisticated models, requiring very, very advance mathematics abilities, but they are only as good as the assumptions about barrier conditions and relations between elements. I am very confident that 99.99% of the advocates of the policies are incapable of understanding the models. They are just willing to accept the conclusions...on faith? I think having faith in an expert because of his excellent record, and having faith in somebody despite a poor record is something else.
2. The policies advocated to fix this problem are non-sensical. It is as if a moral correctness is more important than efficacy. Cap and Trade will drive energy production to the third world, where it is even dirtier. Why is that a good idea, unless the real goal is to prove a point? Look, if there were convincing evidence that the world were really at risk, I would be all in favor of militarily subjugating the third world and forcing their economies back to an agricultural basis, to save it, but I don't think it's necessary. Evidently, nobody thinks that.
These two reasons are why I consider this movement to be more of a religion than a science, driven by a perceived moral need more than rational thought.
As coelecanth posted, it's pretty clear that the earth is relatively warmer now (now meaning the last 15 - 20 years). I have no quarrel with the idea that carbon in our atmosphere retains heat. My description of Global Warming advocates as religion-holders is based on two phenomena-
1. The IPCC has been making dire predictions since the early 1990s. Although carbon composition has risen since then, as feared, the temperatures have not gone up as predicted. Now, as I have posted on hornfans threads many, many times, that's a good thing. The IPCC is just not very good at forecasting. There is a science to forecasting, and experts in it have pointed to errors the IPCC (I'm using them as the catch-all leaders here) has made in preparing forecasts. These folks have been called deniers. The first error they make is that when a forecast fails, it should be recognized and the method adjusted. The IPCC is horrible about the former part, and secretive about the latter.
Many of the people arguing for the IPCC, in the academy, media, and government, have absolutely no idea how the models were created. If they did know, they wouldn't understand the. I read up on it, and a very sophisticated global finite element model was created. Those are very sophisticated models, requiring very, very advance mathematics abilities, but they are only as good as the assumptions about barrier conditions and relations between elements. I am very confident that 99.99% of the advocates of the policies are incapable of understanding the models. They are just willing to accept the conclusions...on faith? I think having faith in an expert because of his excellent record, and having faith in somebody despite a poor record is something else.
2. The policies advocated to fix this problem are non-sensical. It is as if a moral correctness is more important than efficacy. Cap and Trade will drive energy production to the third world, where it is even dirtier. Why is that a good idea, unless the real goal is to prove a point? Look, if there were convincing evidence that the world were really at risk, I would be all in favor of militarily subjugating the third world and forcing their economies back to an agricultural basis, to save it, but I don't think it's necessary. Evidently, nobody thinks that.
These two reasons are why I consider this movement to be more of a religion than a science, driven by a perceived moral need more than rational thought.
TaylorTRoom
1,000+ Posts
Well, GT WT, that's an interesting creed.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
GT_WT,
Let’s follow this line of reasoning, and see if we can apply it to the scientist.
A scientist does not always function in his capacity as a scientist. Most of his life is spent outside the lab. He is likely many other things besides a scientist, such as a husband, a father, or a citizen, or even a mower of the yard. As a scientist, he is subject to what he knows by virtue of empirical data. But as a husband, or a father, or a citizen, he is often confronted with the task of making decisions on the basis of propositions that are empirically problematic, or which are empirically inscrutable.
What does a good scientist do when confronted with these sorts of decisions? Does he abdicate his responsibility to act in his capacity as a husband, or a father, or a citizen, since he must make decisions on the basis of incomplete or doubtful information? I would suggest, GT, that you and other scientists are repeatedly compelled to make those sorts of decisions, and that in doing so you must cast beyond your knowledge—you must claim recourse to some vision of a higher, more general truth than the scientific method is currently able to provide. It is this vision that will serve as the basis of your decision.
Or let’s put it this way: The scientist as scientist is called upon to proceed carefully from one step to the next on the basis of empirical data; but the scientist as husband, or father, or citizen, is called upon to act as a moral being in a world full of moral implications—for himself, for his family, and for his community.
Now, if we think about the scientist who commits himself to this sort of moral activity—as husband, or father, or citizen—what evidence would there be that the basis of his moral decisions would pass muster in peer-review?
In this sense, moral agency requires a far deeper kind of faith than the rather obvious kind of faith that allows us to assume our chair is real, or (as in buckhorn’s recent example) that the hand in front of our face is real. Cartesian doubt merely asks us to accept on faith that our senses are not completely corrupted. But the faith that allows us to act as moral agents requires us to reach above and beyond our empirical assumptions, toward the light that leads us out of that cave that Plato made so famous.
So, having said all that, here’s the question: do you regard the sort of faith characterized by moral activity as a “necessary” faith? Or do you regard it as a “willing” faith?
Or, I suppose there is another alternative, according to which we might reject the possibility of moral activity altogether, on grounds that it is not the sort of thing that is subject to peer-review. No doubt there are some scientists who would argue exactly that. But I know you well enough to confidently state that you are not one of them.
Still, in understating the faith of the scientist, and in overstating the distinction between necessary and willing faith that separates the man of science from the world of husbands, fathers, and citizens, it seems you are determined to convince us of an argument that you don’t believe in your own heart.
Let’s follow this line of reasoning, and see if we can apply it to the scientist.
A scientist does not always function in his capacity as a scientist. Most of his life is spent outside the lab. He is likely many other things besides a scientist, such as a husband, a father, or a citizen, or even a mower of the yard. As a scientist, he is subject to what he knows by virtue of empirical data. But as a husband, or a father, or a citizen, he is often confronted with the task of making decisions on the basis of propositions that are empirically problematic, or which are empirically inscrutable.
What does a good scientist do when confronted with these sorts of decisions? Does he abdicate his responsibility to act in his capacity as a husband, or a father, or a citizen, since he must make decisions on the basis of incomplete or doubtful information? I would suggest, GT, that you and other scientists are repeatedly compelled to make those sorts of decisions, and that in doing so you must cast beyond your knowledge—you must claim recourse to some vision of a higher, more general truth than the scientific method is currently able to provide. It is this vision that will serve as the basis of your decision.
Or let’s put it this way: The scientist as scientist is called upon to proceed carefully from one step to the next on the basis of empirical data; but the scientist as husband, or father, or citizen, is called upon to act as a moral being in a world full of moral implications—for himself, for his family, and for his community.
Now, if we think about the scientist who commits himself to this sort of moral activity—as husband, or father, or citizen—what evidence would there be that the basis of his moral decisions would pass muster in peer-review?
In this sense, moral agency requires a far deeper kind of faith than the rather obvious kind of faith that allows us to assume our chair is real, or (as in buckhorn’s recent example) that the hand in front of our face is real. Cartesian doubt merely asks us to accept on faith that our senses are not completely corrupted. But the faith that allows us to act as moral agents requires us to reach above and beyond our empirical assumptions, toward the light that leads us out of that cave that Plato made so famous.
So, having said all that, here’s the question: do you regard the sort of faith characterized by moral activity as a “necessary” faith? Or do you regard it as a “willing” faith?
Or, I suppose there is another alternative, according to which we might reject the possibility of moral activity altogether, on grounds that it is not the sort of thing that is subject to peer-review. No doubt there are some scientists who would argue exactly that. But I know you well enough to confidently state that you are not one of them.
Still, in understating the faith of the scientist, and in overstating the distinction between necessary and willing faith that separates the man of science from the world of husbands, fathers, and citizens, it seems you are determined to convince us of an argument that you don’t believe in your own heart.
Coelacanth,
You're broadening the subject from whether the 'faith' a scientist has in her data is the same as the 'faith' that a religious person has in his god. The scientist has faith that the experiment will reflect reality. That outcome requires that he set up the experiment correctly but there are ways to test that assumption (e.g., replication). The person of Faith (note the capital 'F'), on the other hand, has no way to test his assumptions - even the most basic assumption that his god even exists.
You make the point that a scientist may employ different criteria outside the lab. That's certainly true. Outside the lab the scientist, being human, tends to slip into the mode of simply accepting things, even important things such as moral decisions, on faith. My moral behavior is based on what I learned from my father, and my teachers, and on the writings of Augustine, Spinoza, and Charles Darwin. I have faith that if I follow the best of their advice I will behave morally. I don't test this faith with the rigor that I test my research and I'm not sure how I would go about doing so. Luckily the peer-review concerning my moral behavior is forgiving. My wife and daughter disagree with me about many important things but are confident that I try to do good. My colleagues trust me to behave ethically. Most importantly (because she is most discerning), my dog thinks I'm a kind and loving god. That's all the peer review I need outside science - the good opinion of those that matter to me.
I hope that this shows that I haven't rejected 'moral' behavior altogether. It's just that I don't define the moral person as someone who satisfies the demands of a god.
I'm afraid I haven't answered you question about whether moral behavior requires willing faith or necessary faith. I don't think being moral requires faith, at least not faith in god; it only requires that you meet the expectations of the people you love and admire.
You're broadening the subject from whether the 'faith' a scientist has in her data is the same as the 'faith' that a religious person has in his god. The scientist has faith that the experiment will reflect reality. That outcome requires that he set up the experiment correctly but there are ways to test that assumption (e.g., replication). The person of Faith (note the capital 'F'), on the other hand, has no way to test his assumptions - even the most basic assumption that his god even exists.
You make the point that a scientist may employ different criteria outside the lab. That's certainly true. Outside the lab the scientist, being human, tends to slip into the mode of simply accepting things, even important things such as moral decisions, on faith. My moral behavior is based on what I learned from my father, and my teachers, and on the writings of Augustine, Spinoza, and Charles Darwin. I have faith that if I follow the best of their advice I will behave morally. I don't test this faith with the rigor that I test my research and I'm not sure how I would go about doing so. Luckily the peer-review concerning my moral behavior is forgiving. My wife and daughter disagree with me about many important things but are confident that I try to do good. My colleagues trust me to behave ethically. Most importantly (because she is most discerning), my dog thinks I'm a kind and loving god. That's all the peer review I need outside science - the good opinion of those that matter to me.
I hope that this shows that I haven't rejected 'moral' behavior altogether. It's just that I don't define the moral person as someone who satisfies the demands of a god.
I'm afraid I haven't answered you question about whether moral behavior requires willing faith or necessary faith. I don't think being moral requires faith, at least not faith in god; it only requires that you meet the expectations of the people you love and admire.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
GT_WT,
I appreciate your response, but I’m going to question you further about the last two paragraphs:
I appreciate your response, but I’m going to question you further about the last two paragraphs:
Lake_Travis_Horn
500+ Posts
I've found much of this thread thought-provoking, but this I struggle with:
TaylorTRoom
1,000+ Posts
LT Horn, I think you miss the danger of humanism as a moral rationale. One advantage of religious morals is that there is a theoretical third party arbiter of right and wrong- the deity. In a well-constructed religious moral code, this third party helps avoid biases leading down bad trails. The danger of self-dtermined morals in humanist societies is that all too often the society, always acting for the "greater good", ends up marching portions of the populace into death camps.
GT WT, your understanding of the roots of belief? David Hume wrote about that exhaustively, and would be worth reading. His work on beliefs and their basis was one of the drivers of the Age of Reason.
That said- back to your post about global warming. You noted that the current temperatures, much lower than the dire IPCC warnings of 20 years ago, are in the range of error of the forecast. That's true. What is also true is that if, 20 years ago, you had predicted temperatures would be exactly the same 20 years hence (today), then current temperatures would also be in the range of error. That is the problem with that forecast's result- it provides no value over a "naive forecast" (that's actually a forecasting term) of nothing happening.
Current models- I have a 2009 e-mail from Stephen Schneider saying he suspected solar forcing as the reason for the cooler temperatures than expected, and there is a lot of evidence that adding solar activity to the models makes them better. I'm all for better models, and I'm all for better policies. I don't se cap-and-trade as a policy that will give us any improvement, and mifght make it worse (since we share the same atmosphere with the third world).
I was initially attracted to this thread by the note that we might have an inherent attraction to religious belief. I agree with that, intuitively, and my experience is that there are many fewer true rationalists than there are people who think they are rational (or atheist). I still am convinced that many people accept major Global Warming announcements without critical analysis, and maintain that to believe them, based purely on faith in experts, despite data not supporting them, and proposing major policy changes of doubtful efficacy "just to do the right thing", have a religious faith.
In short, I believe in Global Warming science. I don't believe in Global Warming religion.
GT WT, your understanding of the roots of belief? David Hume wrote about that exhaustively, and would be worth reading. His work on beliefs and their basis was one of the drivers of the Age of Reason.
That said- back to your post about global warming. You noted that the current temperatures, much lower than the dire IPCC warnings of 20 years ago, are in the range of error of the forecast. That's true. What is also true is that if, 20 years ago, you had predicted temperatures would be exactly the same 20 years hence (today), then current temperatures would also be in the range of error. That is the problem with that forecast's result- it provides no value over a "naive forecast" (that's actually a forecasting term) of nothing happening.
Current models- I have a 2009 e-mail from Stephen Schneider saying he suspected solar forcing as the reason for the cooler temperatures than expected, and there is a lot of evidence that adding solar activity to the models makes them better. I'm all for better models, and I'm all for better policies. I don't se cap-and-trade as a policy that will give us any improvement, and mifght make it worse (since we share the same atmosphere with the third world).
I was initially attracted to this thread by the note that we might have an inherent attraction to religious belief. I agree with that, intuitively, and my experience is that there are many fewer true rationalists than there are people who think they are rational (or atheist). I still am convinced that many people accept major Global Warming announcements without critical analysis, and maintain that to believe them, based purely on faith in experts, despite data not supporting them, and proposing major policy changes of doubtful efficacy "just to do the right thing", have a religious faith.
In short, I believe in Global Warming science. I don't believe in Global Warming religion.
I still am convinced that many people accept major Global Warming announcements without critical analysis, and maintain that to believe them, based purely on faith in experts, despite data not supporting them, and proposing major policy changes of doubtful efficacy "just to do the right thing", have a religious faith.
Most people accept stuff without critical analysis. Religion, science, politics, etc.
Most people accept stuff without critical analysis. Religion, science, politics, etc.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives some consensus guidance for moral behavior. Does this speak to the current issue or am I talking about something different. Link
I think the idea of human rights stems from the "Age of Enlightenment" which was in its initial stages a reaction to Catholicism and Monarchy.
I think the idea of human rights stems from the "Age of Enlightenment" which was in its initial stages a reaction to Catholicism and Monarchy.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
GT:In reply to:
TaylorTRoom
1,000+ Posts
GT WT, I believe what I posted above- the earth is warmer now than a few decades ago, and that tests show that carbon in the atmosphere contains heat. I believe that solar input is the largest driver (duh! It's warmer in August than February! It's warmer at 3 PM than 3 AM!). I believe the IPCC has issued some crappy forecasts, overstating the threat, and not proposed any effective, realistic policies.
Can I defend 7th century BC priests in Judah, for a minute? To our modern eyes, these guys were extreme moralists in sheets, very similar to the ME Imams of today in appearance and manner. However, in the context of their time, they were advocating a very liberal philosophy, one much more fair to women for example. They were trying to do away with the temple prostitution practice (young girls without fathers or sponsors often ended up as temple prostitutes), and polygamy (really bad deal for women, as they have to compete for the affections of their husband). Read what herodotus wrote about Babylon to see just how weird the ancient world could be.
Religion can be good, and back to the OP point- can be good for a society. Humanists may have abhored slavery, for example, but it was religious abolitionists that banned it. There is no rational, Cartesian analysis that leads to a man risking his very life for the comfort of another. It takes a religious conviction, and an allegiance to a third party deity, to accomplish that.
Can I defend 7th century BC priests in Judah, for a minute? To our modern eyes, these guys were extreme moralists in sheets, very similar to the ME Imams of today in appearance and manner. However, in the context of their time, they were advocating a very liberal philosophy, one much more fair to women for example. They were trying to do away with the temple prostitution practice (young girls without fathers or sponsors often ended up as temple prostitutes), and polygamy (really bad deal for women, as they have to compete for the affections of their husband). Read what herodotus wrote about Babylon to see just how weird the ancient world could be.
Religion can be good, and back to the OP point- can be good for a society. Humanists may have abhored slavery, for example, but it was religious abolitionists that banned it. There is no rational, Cartesian analysis that leads to a man risking his very life for the comfort of another. It takes a religious conviction, and an allegiance to a third party deity, to accomplish that.
Coelacanth,
You're willing to ignore context for the sake of a 'gotcha' moment. Both statements are true. My morality is acquired from my culture, a culture that includes my parents, my teachers, and, yes, the writings of Augustine. My adherence to that morality is measured by the response of people I love and admire to my behavior.
As for my morality not being constrained by the opinion of others, it's clear that the 'others' I was referring to were those that held a different moral framework than I - those that admired the behavior of Hitler.
As for my work in the lab, your opinion concerning its quality is irrelevant.
You're willing to ignore context for the sake of a 'gotcha' moment. Both statements are true. My morality is acquired from my culture, a culture that includes my parents, my teachers, and, yes, the writings of Augustine. My adherence to that morality is measured by the response of people I love and admire to my behavior.
As for my morality not being constrained by the opinion of others, it's clear that the 'others' I was referring to were those that held a different moral framework than I - those that admired the behavior of Hitler.
As for my work in the lab, your opinion concerning its quality is irrelevant.
Certainly. Religion can express and demand love, charity, tolerance, and stewardship of nature. Religion can also be used to justify war, bigotry, sadism, and ignorance. Does the good that religions do out-weigh the bad? I don't think so - you disagree.
For me it goes to what you expect religion to do for you, which includes what religion is. Imo, too many don't think much about religion, by that I mean they maintain a rather naive, simplistic, and childish view that their religion is really a product of their god. Therefore, they don't have to think - god deemed it so it must be good.
But religion is little (or nothing) more than a cultural invention and contains all the plusses and minuses of a culture. Of course some will use religion to justify their hatred and bigotry, just look at the current crop of so-called Christians who use their bible to justify their bigotry toward gays. These were the same type who not all that long ago used their bible to justify their discrimination against blacks, including opposing the marriage of whites and blacks.
But the essence of religion, as a religion, is to create and respect some greater presence than your own. This is a good thing, and I think ultimately tilts the overall meter to "good" when it comes to evaulating religion.
For me it goes to what you expect religion to do for you, which includes what religion is. Imo, too many don't think much about religion, by that I mean they maintain a rather naive, simplistic, and childish view that their religion is really a product of their god. Therefore, they don't have to think - god deemed it so it must be good.
But religion is little (or nothing) more than a cultural invention and contains all the plusses and minuses of a culture. Of course some will use religion to justify their hatred and bigotry, just look at the current crop of so-called Christians who use their bible to justify their bigotry toward gays. These were the same type who not all that long ago used their bible to justify their discrimination against blacks, including opposing the marriage of whites and blacks.
But the essence of religion, as a religion, is to create and respect some greater presence than your own. This is a good thing, and I think ultimately tilts the overall meter to "good" when it comes to evaulating religion.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
buckhorn,
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
