Are you religious?

[Soxy]

Stop that statistics junk, missy...

You love bimodal distributions and you know it.

[sox4lifeinPA]

You love bimodal distributions and you know it.

 

btw, well done on the categories, even though I'm arguing them to death. Thanks for the effort. (I should put that in some other color so you know I'm being serious...oh well)

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think the most interesting to me is how few people there are in the middle. Although, this is a very lovely example of a bimodal distribution. Ha.

 

Or as my major professor liked to call it, a gluteal curve.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yes, I guess we've established there is an open-endedness to the categories.

 

Here's a good summarization of some 2001, 2002, 1nd 2004, national survey data. It does show a substantial decline in those who identify themselves as religious in the last 15 years, but still has over 80% of the country espousing either a religious or a spiritual bent.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac...g/chr_prac2.htm

 

 

and now that more people voted, my arguement goes out the window.

 

 

I'm going to shut up now (celebrate, people)

[Felix]

I would say that someone that is religious probably has some introductory level knowledge to their religion of choice. Someone that is spiritual wouldn't necessarily have to have much knowledge other than a willingness to be open to the idea of a higher power.

Thats basically what I'm saying (or trying to at least). Because of that, I think that religious people have to have some sort of religion, while spiritual people don't necessarily.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Thats basically what I'm saying (or trying to at least). Because of that, I think that religious people have to have some sort of religion, while spiritual people don't necessarily.

 

 

we agree. I was just focusing on the "member of...." part, which I do not believe a religious person needs to be. Then again, what does "member" mean.

[CanOfCorn]

we agree. I was just focusing on the "member of...." part, which I do not believe a religious person needs to be. Then again, what does "member" mean.

 

Do you really want to open yourself up to that???

 

I put myself in the Spiritual category...I'm Jewish by birth, not Bar Mitzphah'd, not practicing, but consider myself a Social Jew. Meaning, I consider myself Jewish as part of my overall self, but I don't necessarily believe in the religious part of it, the Old Testament.

 

It's a Jew thing...you wouldn't understand.

[Gregory Pratt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPLn9nv26NM

Warning: If you're squeamish, quit viewing at 3:00. That's unless you're interested in pictures of aborted fetuses.

 

Whatever feelings you may have of Neil deGrasse Tyson (I know many can't stand him), the material covered within this YouTube clip quickly details scientific evidence I've considered at one point or another when determing the existence of a higher being.

 

When it's all placed together, you really have to marvel at the fact humans are, one, alive; and two, aware of our existence. There have been numerous mass exitinction events on our planet -- a Gamma Ray Burst, Asteroids, Siberian Flats. Hell, 75,000 years ago humans were nearly whiped out from a supervolcano erupting in Indonesia. We're lucky to be here. Whether the aforementioned events make someone more or less willing to believe in something more than us, I don't know. What I figure is, we're due for a devastating natural disaster. Something on the order of killing a sizable percentage of the planet. God or no God. My money is on Yellowstone.

 

Yeah, that went off track quickly.

 

The Toba Catastrophy Theory is just a theory and I don't buy it along with many others.

 

That said, life sure is a marvel. Now what exactly do you mean, "my money is on Yellowstone" because I don't know what there is there that would be a good bet for a natural disaster.

[Gregory Pratt]

Oh, and there's little evidence that gamma rays caused the Silurian extinctions, either.

[Balta1701]

The Toba Catastrophy Theory is just a theory and I don't buy it along with many others.

 

That said, life sure is a marvel. Now what exactly do you mean, "my money is on Yellowstone" because I don't know what there is there that would be a good bet for a natural disaster.

Yellowstone is what we consider a supervolcano. It sits over a hot spot, a long lived source of volcanism that has produced, within the past 25 million years or so, dozens of monstrous eruptions on the scale of Toba or larger.

 

It has erupted 3 times at hte current site, about 2.0, 1.4, and 0.643 million years ago. The ash cloud from the most recent eruption basically covered the area from Mexico to Washington to Iowa.

 

If it were to erupt on that scale again, it would kill billions. The Ash cloud would have the same effect as a nuclear war; kicking up enourmous amounts of dust and essentially spoiling the harvest for years.

 

Yellowstone is not the only one of these in the world either. It is just the most famous, in part for the hydrothermals, in part because it's in the US and therefore is the best studied.

[Gregory Pratt]

Is there anyone monitoring it to know if/when it'll blow?

[NorthSideSox72]

Yellowstone is what we consider a supervolcano. It sits over a hot spot, a long lived source of volcanism that has produced, within the past 25 million years or so, dozens of monstrous eruptions on the scale of Toba or larger.

 

It has erupted 3 times at hte current site, about 2.0, 1.4, and 0.643 million years ago. The ash cloud from the most recent eruption basically covered the area from Mexico to Washington to Iowa.

 

If it were to erupt on that scale again, it would kill billions. The Ash cloud would have the same effect as a nuclear war; kicking up enourmous amounts of dust and essentially spoiling the harvest for years.

 

Yellowstone is not the only one of these in the world either. It is just the most famous, in part for the hydrothermals, in part because it's in the US and therefore is the best studied.

And Yellowstone isn't the only dormant volcano even in the US that has a history of super-eruptions - Jemez is another example. So there are a few, even in our own backyard.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Is there anyone monitoring it to know if/when it'll blow?

 

 

No sh*t. Sounds like Al Gore has a new project.

 

Though according to the map in that article, if Yellowstone did blow up we could kill two birds with one stone: no more crazy California liberals and no more crazy Texas conservatives.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Gregory Pratt]

My guess is that people monitor them, but I'll wait for the geologist or someone else to confirm that.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Oh, and there's little evidence that gamma rays caused the Silurian extinctions, either.

 

Yes, I'd say the evidence in favor of climatic (big-ass Ice Age) causes is stronger at this point, although the exploding star/gamma ray burst hypothesis is intriguing.

[Balta1701]

My guess is that people monitor them, but I'll wait for the geologist or someone else to confirm that.

They are constantly monitored. But the issue is...no one really understands what it takes to trigger a supervolcanic erupiton, because no one has ever really seen one blow, and no one really wants to.

 

It's clear you need several things; a gigantic magma body, which is under pressure and volatile rich, and a breakthrough to the surface. Yellowstone certainly appears to have an active magma body, but its current behavior is a little wierd. The hydrothermals in that park have been gushing away at a ridiculous rate for the past 100k years, to the point where it would have crystallized the whole body if it wasn't resupplied. There are also traditionally more smaller-scale eruptions in Yellowstone fairly commonly, while there really hasn't been one in the last 70k years. The system as a whole and the triggers are fairly well understood, but where exactly Yellowstone sits on its current cycle is not. But the good news on that one is it is heavily monitored...changes in ground level of a few inches are carefully checked. However, there are other places in the world, i.e. Indonesia, the Philippines, where there are also potential supervolcanoes which aren't monitored nearly as closely on the ground due to a lack of funds.

[Gregory Pratt]

They are constantly monitored. But the issue is...no one really understands what it takes to trigger a supervolcanic erupiton, because no one has ever really seen one blow, and no one really wants to.

 

It's clear you need several things; a gigantic magma body, which is under pressure and volatile rich, and a breakthrough to the surface. Yellowstone certainly appears to have an active magma body, but its current behavior is a little wierd. The hydrothermals in that park have been gushing away at a ridiculous rate for the past 100k years, to the point where it would have crystallized the whole body if it wasn't resupplied. There are also traditionally more smaller-scale eruptions in Yellowstone fairly commonly, while there really hasn't been one in the last 70k years. The system as a whole and the triggers are fairly well understood, but where exactly Yellowstone sits on its current cycle is not. But the good news on that one is it is heavily monitored...changes in ground level of a few inches are carefully checked. However, there are other places in the world, i.e. Indonesia, the Philippines, where there are also potential supervolcanoes which aren't monitored nearly as closely on the ground due to a lack of funds.

 

Does this hold true for all the US supervolcanoes?

[sox4lifeinPA]

When did this thread take a "Joe vs. the Valcano" turn?

[NorthSideSox72]

Does this hold true for all the US supervolcanoes?

Apparently they are trying, but funding is low.

 

[Balta1701]

Does this hold true for all the US supervolcanoes?

There is, as far as I'm concerned, no other volcano in the U.S. which poses the threat of a gargantuan eruption as Yellowstone. There are plenty that could do a lot of local, regional, or even worldwide damage on the scale of the 1815 year without a summer (due to an eruption in Indonesia I believe), but in terms of ones we should actually be concerned about doing worldwide harm on the scale of Toba, Yellowstone is the only one that can really do it.

[Gregory Pratt]

I've learned quite a bit about the world's geographic history in this thread. Thank you.

 

And for the record, I'm still sorting out my religion.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Still, Religious is different than spiritual.

 

I think one could argue that many of the "I'm spiritual, not religious" people are religious, but just don't like being labeled as such.

 

Much like atheists who say "I'm an agnostic, not an atheist".

[Felix]

Much like atheists who say "I'm an agnostic, not an atheist".

There is a huge difference between agnostic and atheist, so you're completely wrong there.

[Rex Kickass]

I think one could argue that many of the "I'm spiritual, not religious" people are religious, but just don't like being labeled as such.

 

Much like atheists who say "I'm an agnostic, not an atheist".

 

I would disagree with that. An atheist generally believes that there is no higher power. An agnostic generally does not know. It's the opposite of a gnostic.

 

The dictionary defines gnostic as

Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There is a huge difference between agnostic and atheist, so you're completely wrong there.

 

There is, but I can attest to the truth of what Crimson is saying. Out of (a possibly misplaced) courtesy to the religious family and friends I grew up surrounded by I continued to profess to be agnostic well past the time when I had known myself that I was an atheist. Unless you are born into atheism, it is an experiential process to get there from the religious space you were born into, and the transition from questioner to doubter to outright unbeliever is for most a continuum rather than an abrupt process.