- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Like man-made global warming?
Religion is MYTH!!!!
- Thread starter Vis
- Start date
I saw Jesus in a time of great need. I wasnt drunk or on anything. I was filled with an almost superhuman strength and fought off the multiple assailants who were attacking me. I've never experienced anything like it. I pray often. I try to remember I'm a sinner like everyone else.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
Dang ole grave robber.
No. You can question AGW all you want but at some point you will have to provide evidence for a counter theory.
So far deniers have provided nada....nada god damn shred of evidence.
Feynman was speaking of religion which is fascistic by nature.
Last edited:
Some of you are truly nuts.....
Well, it was a long, long time ago. No sightings since then. Yeah. I'm truly nuts.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
That Feynman quote is perfect. AGW is exactly the answer that can't be questioned.
To your silly statements about a counter theory - that's funny. Counter theory to what? You all came up with a crap hypothesis. Tons of evidence disproves it.
I have a theory that grass turns purple when the jolly green giant pees on it. You can't deny it unless you come up with a counter theory and evidence.
Last edited:
What evidence disproves AGW? I would love to see it.
What evidence proves it?
Paleoclimate evidence( ice cores, coral reefs, tree rings, etc.)
Almost 200 years of understanding how greenhouse gasses trap and release heat.
Warming oceans, documented sea rise....and on and on....
Now where are your "tons" of evidence.
Let me guess: some fake paper an Exxon financed "scientist" wrote telling us "it's the sun stupid!" and published on watts up with that?
Go ahead show us the nonsense....
Look I understand wanting to believe stuff like that. If it helps you more power to you. I shouldn't have called you nuts, I apologize.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- 29,976
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
The debate on AGW - the real debate - is, "How much is human activity responsible for the warming since the Little Ice Age?" Because make no mistake, the warming started in the early 19th century, well before petroleum, evil oil companies, etc. From the IPCC:
Further, how significant will temperature increases be due to petroleum use? 1 degree C over the next century? 1.2 degrees? 5 degrees? Those are significant differences.
Finally, what effect will reduced petroleum consumption by the United States have over the next 50 years? 0.2 degrees C difference? 0.4 degrees? WHAT? Because guess what, sport, China and India have already very plainly said they are not going to live in 2nd world status by foregoing petroleum and coal, while the Western World reaps the benefits of prior petroleum and coal energy production and use.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
The debate on AGW - the real debate - is, "How much is human activity responsible for the warming since the Little Ice Age?" Because make no mistake, the warming started in the early 19th century, well before petroleum, evil oil companies, etc. From the IPCC:
Further, how significant will temperature increases be due to petroleum use? 1 degree C over the next century? 1.2 degrees? 5 degrees? Those are significant differences.
Finally, what effect will reduced petroleum consumption by the United States have over the next 50 years? 0.2 degrees C difference? 0.4 degrees? WHAT? Because guess what, sport, China and India have already very plainly said they are not going to live in 2nd world status by foregoing petroleum and coal, while the Western World reaps the benefits of prior petroleum and coal energy production and use.
According to Democrats, China and India will forego petroleum products if we give them enough money.....
I accept your apology but i dispute that i want to believe "stuff". When this happened i was in a very bad place. I didn't feel that God was in my life, at all.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Nice condescending passive aggressive non-apology.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I sway between being a deist, agnostic and atheist on a daily basis. In practical terms my belief in God and religion have very little effect on my day-to-day life and decisions. In fact, I purposely try to keep them apart from each other.
I think separation of church and state is one of the most important aspect of our Constitution (more important to me than the 2nd amendment). I kind of believe in as secular a government as possible. That doesn't mean government morality can't line up on occasion with the teachings of a religion (it often does). You just have to be careful that you don't conclude when government morality DOES coincide with a religion, it is acting religious. Nor the opposite.
Secular does not mean amoral. And I wish we would discuss religion more in the context of morality and moral test (with respect to actions) when discussing the law of the land rather than in terms of Christianity.
I think the Religious Right (and I in no way stand in agreement with them on everything) would have much better success arguing their merits on a simple right/wrong moral basis than stating a Religion/book/belief system dictates that moral decision. I don't think that is an effective method of winning an argument. When you imply that someone else has made the right/wrong decision for you (such as the Bible) rather than your own, personal decision or a decision that benefits society as a whole, I fully expect those beliefs to be rejected by a Constitutional, secular, representative government. If you make the argument that a moral decision is what is best for society and morally correct (regardless of religion), then I think there is room for success.
I think separation of church and state is one of the most important aspect of our Constitution (more important to me than the 2nd amendment). I kind of believe in as secular a government as possible. That doesn't mean government morality can't line up on occasion with the teachings of a religion (it often does). You just have to be careful that you don't conclude when government morality DOES coincide with a religion, it is acting religious. Nor the opposite.
Secular does not mean amoral. And I wish we would discuss religion more in the context of morality and moral test (with respect to actions) when discussing the law of the land rather than in terms of Christianity.
I think the Religious Right (and I in no way stand in agreement with them on everything) would have much better success arguing their merits on a simple right/wrong moral basis than stating a Religion/book/belief system dictates that moral decision. I don't think that is an effective method of winning an argument. When you imply that someone else has made the right/wrong decision for you (such as the Bible) rather than your own, personal decision or a decision that benefits society as a whole, I fully expect those beliefs to be rejected by a Constitutional, secular, representative government. If you make the argument that a moral decision is what is best for society and morally correct (regardless of religion), then I think there is room for success.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Nothing you offered is evidence of AGW. Here is the problem with the useful idiots of AGW. Just as I can't disproved that grass turns green when the jolly green giant pees on it, I can't disprove AGW. However, every model you all put forward fails, so any normal scientific investigation would throw away the premise.
BTW, sea level lowered last year.
The issues with the specific studies using Ice cores and tree rings ( im not versed in the coral reef one) is that those studies specifically ignored all data that didn't fit their preexisting theory... the ice core stidies almost universally cut every sample of co2 numbers that didn't align with what fit their scale... not occasionally omitting an outlier can be acceptable... but those studies too often labled every too high or too low grab as contaminated... like there is a reason the AGW favorable studies started refusing to divulge raw data and SOP's ... they would get eaten alive by even moderately unbiased scientists questioning why they did what they did...
