Post Reply
Page 1 of 13  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
6 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2008 - 3:08PM #1
Godman
Posts: 1,123
Abner, if I may I'll use your technique of arguing the trivial.  Your argument is premised on the three following totally, unequivocally false assertions:

1) He claims that atheists cannot have hope.
2) He claims that atheists live in despair.
3) He claims that atheists cannot have a center, that we cannot have ideals.

All three assertions have in common the construction "He claims that atheists ,,,,"  This is a present tense construction so it is a simple matter to see if I were making any such claim at 11:57 on Sunday, April 6th.  I know for a fact what I was doing and I was making no such claims.  I was planting our family garden with my children.  At 11:57 we were putting in Burpee snap peas.  I can provide a picture with a time stamp if I had to.

Furthermore I am a trained social scientist and would never use those overgeneralisations. 

"To me one of the most interesting questions is how the scientist got hysterical compared to the pope. This global warming hysteria must have a rational explanation and it seems the most probable is the atheistic scientist having no God to give them hope, have projected their collective despair onto their computer models, and voila the world is going to end. The only question is have we already passed the tipping point on the upcoming climatic disaster."

If you read the above, the queston at hand is how did the scientists get hysterical relative to the pope.  Then I mention my working rational explanation, hoping the atheists on this board can come up with a competing rational explanation.  Many have.  Mostly the approach has been to say the world is indeed going to end.  Atheists defend the world is going to end belief.

Abner, honestly I have not the time to repond to your straw man arguments.  I have to admit at one point I was concerned that the French atheists were not going to survive.  But shortly after reading Steyn's book, I've been convinced the French will do to the Muslims what they did to the Jews.  This is not going to end well for the Islamists.  The Jews were well intergrated, constructive part of French society, and the majority had no problem turning them over to the Germans.  The Jews were very powerful, too.  The Islamists are not integrated and have little power.  I'd say if any French group is going extinct it will be the Islamists.  Abner before you go off on another of your straw man rants, note the word "if".

I think Mark Steyn's argument is weak.  Like many Jews he is in denial about how complicit the average European was in the Holocaust.  If the Europeans sense of right and wrong allowed them to exterminate the Jews who were integrated and constructive, then they are not going to have much of a problem with a group that is not integrated and routinely trying to terrorise them.

In Europe Nietsche proclaimed God was dead, and the Jews challenged his proclamation.  The Jews didn't fare very well.  I doubt the Muslims will fare any better.  Actually, I expect it to be a lot worse.  My expectation is that the various European populations will stabilise at these or somewhat lower levels.  If I gave you the impression I bought into Steyn's argument, I mis-wrote.

I am indifferent to atheistic reproductive rates.  If they don't want to have children I'm fine with that.  If they can't have children and they wanted children, that's too bad.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 7:51AM #2
Godman
Posts: 1,123
To me one of the most interesting questions is how the scientist got hysterical compared to the pope.  This global warming hysteria must have a rational explanation and it seems the most probable is the atheistic scientist having no God to give them hope, have projected their collective despair onto their computer models, and voila the world is going to end.  The only question is have we already passed the tipping point on the upcoming climatic disaster.

The atheist myth does have some basis in obserable reality.  Temperatures have changed and carbon dioxide levels have increased.  The human population has increased.

Here is a simply paradox in the myth of the many.  Global carbon dioxide levels are going up.  Isn't that good for plants?  Isn't that good for the rain forest and all those endangered rain forest species that we don't know about that are ghoing to miracously cure cancer?

This Easter I'll take solace and hope in a God that affirms life.  I hope the despair of the upcoming environmental tipping point isn't too much for you.

This week end for family movie night we're going to watch yet another Hollywood future dystopia.  The movie's vision affirms our belief in the way Britney Spears affirms a healthy family life.  On Easter weekend I offer my children a choice.  You may chose, the dystopia  of the scientists vision, or the love, truth and service of the Savior's vision.  For me the choice is obvious.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 7:58AM #3
Omarkhayyam
Posts: 4,224
"You may chose, the dystopia of the scientists vision, or the love, truth and service of the Savior's vision. For me the choice is obvious."

Isn't that an interesting unspoken statement?
You believe this myth because doing so makes you feel better.

Personally I like chocolate. But to each his own.:D
This is OZ? I want back to KS.

What was it? Click your heels together 3 times and say - what??
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 8:31AM #4
Seren78
Posts: 84
"Here is a simply paradox in the myth of the many. Global carbon dioxide levels are going up. Isn't that good for plants? Isn't that good for the rain forest and all those endangered rain forest species that we don't know about that are ghoing to miracously cure cancer?"

Godman, i hope you have a good easter and enjoy time with your family.
but i must tell you, the above quote scares me.
you vote, you pollute, and you have no understanding of biology.

maybe one day your god will endorse a basic text on the inter-connections of life on earth and the way that carbon-dioxide absorbs heat and doesn't allow it to reflect back into space off the surface of the earth. 

i'm not going with either of your two options.
i love my earth.  i want to pollute it as little as possible because i love it and all the life on it. 
more than i could ever love any sky god.

xx s.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 9:07AM #5
steven_guy
Posts: 11,748
[QUOTE=Godman;374186]To me one of the most interesting questions is how the scientist got hysterical compared to the pope.  This global warming hysteria must have a rational explanation and it seems the most probable is the atheistic scientist having no God to give them hope, have projected their collective despair onto their computer models, and voila the world is going to end.  The only question is have we already passed the tipping point on the upcoming climatic disaster.

The atheist myth does have some basis in obserable reality.  Temperatures have changed and carbon dioxide levels have increased.  The human population has increased.

Here is a simply paradox in the myth of the many.  Global carbon dioxide levels are going up.  Isn't that good for plants?  Isn't that good for the rain forest and all those endangered rain forest species that we don't know about that are ghoing to miracously cure cancer?

This Easter I'll take solace and hope in a God that affirms life.  I hope the despair of the upcoming environmental tipping point isn't too much for you.

This week end for family movie night we're going to watch yet another Hollywood future dystopia.  The movie's vision affirms our belief in the way Britney Spears affirms a healthy family life.  On Easter weekend I offer my children a choice.  You may chose, the dystopia  of the scientists vision, or the love, truth and service of the Savior's vision.  For me the choice is obvious.[/QUOTE]

Scientists have merely pointed out that global warming is a fact and if we do nothing about it, it will alter the climatic patterns and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere.


I am glad I am not one of your children.

Steven
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 11:12AM #6
Abner1
Posts: 6,391
Godman, your post was entirely opinion and not a smidge of fact - you didn't support your claims in any way.

1) You haven't shown that all scientists who have concluded that global warming is occurring are "hysterical".

2) You haven't shown that all scientists who have concluded that global warming is occurring are atheists.

3) You haven't shown that all atheistic scientists (or all atheists in general) are without hope.

4) You haven't shown that all models that show global warming occurring and having bad outcomes in the future do so out of a projection of despair rather than proper scientific evaluation of the evidence.

5) You haven't shown anything, really - just expressed a bunch of opinions.  Fine, that's your right ... but I don't see why we should take your opinions any more seriously than Joe Blow's opinions that cancer is caused by not praying enough, or that the earth is only 6000 years old because the Bible says so.

And by the way - research has shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide are good for some plants and bad for others.  For instance, poison ivy loves the stuff, but it actually puts increased stress on many trees.  So no, your simplistic and smarmy "Isn't that good for the rain forest and all those endangered rain forest species that we don't know about that are ghoing to miracously cure cancer?" is (as you probably knew) neither true nor respectful.

Oh, and by the way, Britney Spears has nothing to do with atheism - she's a Christian like you.  Hate to break that to you.

> You may chose, the dystopia  of the scientists vision, or the love, truth and service of
> the Savior's vision.  For me the choice is obvious.

I offer them the choice of intellectual honesty and careful evaluation of the truth or of your religious fervor distorting everything to match your beliefs.  For me the choice is obvious.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 11:27AM #7
mountain_man
Posts: 39,296

Godman wrote:

To me one of the most interesting questions is how the scientist got hysterical compared to the pope.  This global warming hysteria ......


What you're asking me to do is trade reality for the christian myth? Why would I want to do anything like that?:rolleyes:

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 11:33AM #8
Wampy
Posts: 280
Oh dear! So many myths and beliefs in so short a thread! Global warming, as presented in the press as a human phenomenon, does not exist. That is to say, there is no particular evidence of it. If all it requires is a few short years of data to make one hysterical, i offer you the fact that since 2000, global avg temps have been in stasis, not rising or falling in any meaningful way. This is despite continued minor increases in CO2 levels. The exception to this data is that four separate global monitoring organizations recorded 2007 as having the greatest single drop in global avg temp yet observed. They all recorded a drop of more than half a degree, which is very significant in comparison with the .5 to 1.5 degree rise that the fear mongering profiteers keep telling you will totally throw the climate into chaos.


CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not smog, it is not particulate, it is NOT pollution. As oxygen is for us, so CO2 is for plant life.


If you use climate data of more than just a few years, you will find that we live in a time of a regularly spaced warm period that should be coming to an end before long as a matter of climate cycle. Presumably you will be wishing for global warming before long as food production is limited, as growing seasons are shortened, and cooler temps require more fossil fuels to provide heat for us all. It is not doom and gloom, it is just how it is. Most of the apocalyptic doom and gloom usually comes from those who believe in gods, not science. But then, "global warming" is not science and is not so simply because Al Gore says so. The scientific data Al presents in his trillion dollar propaganda epic is erroneous and does not reflect climatological data. His obsessions about CO2 are not proven by the climate record and have not been proven by what we have seen in the actual data over the last several years.


Much like all the other religious movements, global warmingism is based on a myth, a faulty conclusion, and a group of elites who are hoping to scare you into giving them money to keep them comfy. Like most every other religion, it is all about money, power, and control. Climatology is a science, global warming is a religion.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 11:39AM #9
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833
And your source citations to which we may refer to verify your statements, Wampy, would be just what?

I'd be very interested in examining the scientific data that disproves Al Gore's conclusions documented in An Inconvenient Truth. Where might I find that in particular?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2008 - 11:59AM #10
Wampy
Posts: 280
While I will be happy to work on finding you links to the relevant data sets, perhaps you will enjoy a lecture given by Prof. Bob Carter at an Austrailian Climate conference in 2007.  His lecture is presented in four parts, the videos linked in order below....

Part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Part two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

Part three:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

Part four:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 13  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook