AGW and belief in God

Ralph said:
There is a difference in being a good steward of the earth and replacing God by making a pagan idol of the earth to be worshiped. The earth is to serve man, not the inverse. And the arrogance to suggest that man can destroy what God has created is unacceptable as truth. There is no factual basis for Global Warming...its all conjecture, speculation and opinion....or as many on the left declare as the ultimate position....there is a consensus. They replaced Global Warming with a new buzz word for a reason, today its man made Climate Change.


What does a consensus prove? Nothing it simply means that many individuals have the same opinion. The general consensus among the top men of science at one time was of the opinion that the earth was the center of the Universe and the Sun moved around the earth. A consensus does not make one right.....a fact needs no consensus just a presentation of the objective testable evidence that concluded such as a fact of science. 4 decades ago the consensus among these same (wink, wink) leading scientists that depend upon Government grants to stay wealthy....was the consensus that the earth would be in another ice age by the year 2000.

Again....there is a difference, and it takes a lazy person to accept everything they hear as truth without using their own God given intellect to research the matter before blindly falling down and worshiping an ideology.
Click to expand...

Don't ever quote me again you oblivious drunken fool.
 
Rune said:
Don't ever quote me again you oblivious drunken fool.
Click to expand...

No 1st amendment rights? Laugh My Ass Off I enjoy the gnashing of teeth and hissssssssssssing.;)

And just how do assume to stop me from quoting YOU? Just how does a cyber ass kicking go down? Censorship?
 
sear said:
"(essentially cave men) who needed simple guidance to survive." R #214

Lot's of people need lots of help.
Your explanation doesn't explain why it turned into an enduring industry, the 2nd oldest profession in the world.

I'm not seeing a lot of practical guidance there: - don't eat the yellow snow -

I understand it's possible that paradoxically the religious mumbo jumbo was intended to enhance the credibility, the authority of these books.

BUT !!

Ockham's Razor:
The religion bidness hasn't changed all that much over the millennia. The religious parisites prey on, exploit the desperation of the needy and ignorant.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
source unknown, but sometimes attributed to Seneca the Younger (c.3 BCE - CE 65)

Religion is a tool for manipulating the masses.

Have you forgotten the forehead-slapping realization of the title character (played by Steve Martin) in the movie The Jerk?
Working a venue at the carnival midway, The Jerk suddenly realizes: "IT'S A PROFIT DEAL!!"

We can't know with metaphysical certitude if the PURPOSE of Biblical religion was manipulation and control.
What we can verify is who benefits.
Who gets to keep the $money from the collection plate?

The fact is, we may not all be as articulate as Epicurus.
But though we may not be able to put it into words as succinctly, we have a fundamental grasp of it:

“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

PP makes the following valuable contribution:

"It (sears'post) is a clear and obvious comment on bible literalists." R #211

"thus rendering it irrelevant to all of those people who are not bible literalists......which includes about 80% of Christians..." PP #211

There are two ways to interpret the Holy Bible.

a) As literal truth, the 6,021 year old cosmos. Or:

b) Allegorically.

As literal truth, it is a pattern for living.

Once interpretation is introduced, the sky's the limit.
Click to expand...

Religion is the opiate of the masses
Television is the religion of the 20th century.
Internet is the television of the 21st Century.
 
Ralph said:
No 1st amendment rights? Laugh My Ass Off I enjoy the gnashing of teeth and hissssssssssssing.;)

And just how do assume to stop me from quoting YOU? Just how does a cyber ass kicking go down? Censorship?
Click to expand...

You don't get 1st Amendment rights against ordinary citizens. Your protections are from Congress. Now STFU!!
 
Dick from the Internet said:
If you argue that the flood story is literal truth then, of course, you are going to be challenged to support that. Plenty of Christians say it is not meant as literal truth and I have NEVER gotten into a debate with them about it.
Click to expand...
???....you are currently in a debate with one who says it is not meant to be the literal truth........are you really this clueless?......
 
sear said:
"thus rendering it irrelevant to all of those people who are not bible literalists......which includes about 80% of Christians..." PP #211[/b]

There are two ways to interpret the Holy Bible.

a) As literal truth, the 6,021 year old cosmos. Or:

b) Allegorically.

As literal truth, it is a pattern for living.
Click to expand...

you're an incompetent fool who doesn't know how to use the quote function but your error is too big to ignore......

there are many genres in the Bible and each needs to be understood in context......to say there are only two ways to understand it is to refuse to understand it....
 
Dick from the Internet said:
So Noah is just a fictional character and the flood story is merely an allegory? That is not what you have claimed.
Click to expand...

I do not believe in a literal 40 days of rain, a flood that raised water levels over the Himalyas or the need to have 37,000 varieties of beetle on a boat......apparently you are clueless about what literalism actually means......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I do not believe in a literal 40 days of rain, a flood that raised water levels over the Himalyas or the need to have 37,000 varieties of beetle on a boat......apparently you are clueless about what literalism actually means......
Click to expand...

I have made my meaning quite clear. You have engaged in an equivocation fallacy switching between "literally" (the word I literally used), "literal interpretation" and "literal truth" because you're dishonest and sloppy.

I said...


I don't think any part of the flood story was ever supposed to be taken literally.

In this context the word "literally" clearly means and could be replaced with "as if it actually happened." The flood story was meant to be taken as an allegory. The "any part" clearly does not agree with your exception. None of it happened.
 
44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif


you're an incompetent fool who doesn't know how to use the quote function

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?77527-AGW-and-belief-in-God/page17

And I don't smell too good too!
 
Rune said:
Would a logical person choose not to believe in God?
If there is no God very nothing lost.
If there is a God enternal salvation.

The same is true if every single solar cell fights AGW or not.

Yet you fools put your faith in the very small minority of paid shills at risk of losing the Earth .
Click to expand...

I spotted a thread started by Rune and mused to myself, "What sort of new epic level of retardation could this possibly be?"

So I clicked, I read, I lol'ed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top