AGW and belief in God

Dick from the Internet said:
It is not a fact that every culture had a flood story
.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....I suppose there might be one or two that don't.......but it doesn't change the fact I am right.....

I don't think any part of the flood story was ever supposed to be taken literally unless I am arguing with a Christian
Click to expand...
then you think its an automatic win for your argument........it isn't......

That's you and you were the one adding to and contradicting the bible to support your literal interpretation
Click to expand...
so you base your conclusion that I insist on a literal interpretation on the fact I contradict a literal interpretation?......./brillig!

then do so and stfu.
Click to expand...
am I the one who started this argument?.....#181
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude, I've explained Leviticus to you idiots a dozen times......in short, two different legal codes......the Levitical codes for sacrifices and purification, and the Mosaic Code or Ten Commandments and the rules derived therefrom.......Christianity teaches us that Christ has eliminated the need for sacrifice or personal purification.....thus no more Levitical Code.....the words of Christ tell us that it is up to God to judge the hearts of men, thus no more stoning for violations of the Mosaic Code........however the Mosaic Code was affirmed by Christ to the standard by which we choose our actions........now, that makes 13.......the next time you tell me I need to justify Christianity to you I can tell you I've already explained it to you 13 times.......
Click to expand...

Good job except for the lies.
Almost thanks.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the authors of the OT also used different words to say it was wrong to fuck your mother than those they used to say it was wrong to eat red berries (which they never said by the way).....that is how we can tell which prohibitions were part of the purification ritual and which things God decreed were forbidden life choices......the only problem is that when these words were translated eventually into English, "abomination" was used for both......
Click to expand...

Didn't you just claim you are not a literalist?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....I suppose there might be one or two that don't.......but it doesn't change the fact I am right.....
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The fact that many cultures have flood stories does not prove anything. It not at all surprising, because floods happen (not worldwide) and idiots like you continue to claim it is a literal act of God. That does not make any of them the Bible's flood story.


PostmodernProphet said:
I don't think any part of the flood story was ever supposed to be taken literally (added by pimple) unless I am arguing with a Christian


then you think its an automatic win for your argument........it isn't......
Click to expand...

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.

PostmodernProphet said:
o you base your conclusion that I insist on a literal interpretation on the fact I contradict a literal interpretation?......./brillig!

am I the one who started this argument?.....#181
Click to expand...

You don't contradict the literal interpretation. You just argue that not all the details were provided.

EDIT: You did contradict the point about the flood being worldwide. But the point here is that you think the flood happened, that Noah built an ark and loaded animals, etc. You do not argue that the flood story is simply allegory.
 
Last edited:
"(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.
 
Mission update:

My best friend's son is a diehard CAGW proponent and has decided to forgo having children to "do his part". His mother, my best friend, has asked me to help her understand why I'm skeptical and if I can help her know if her son is making a wise choice. We've been emailing a conversation for a few weeks and the Dr. Gates whistleblowing at NOAA has sparked a bit of debate between us. The son emailed that the major climate records all agree very closely and I had to link him to the information that they all use the same data so the fact that they align is not much proof of anything. The discussion shifted to the pausebuster paper and I emailed that I didn't see the reasoning behind adjusting buoy temps to the biased ship inlet temps. He emailed me back that the buoys are not adjusted. I had to link him to the ERSSTv4 paper where it states clearly that buoys are adjusted towards ship temps. Right there in the fucking paper! He hasn't emailed back. He's probably on skepticalscience looking for anything that refutes the notion. He will find I'm right and he was misinformed. Will it change his perspective? Most likely not. He's an actual scientist employed in the molecular engineering field, and I'm just an ignorant tradesman who gets his info from denier sites (not really, I like the real sources).
 
It takes a Christian to believe a global flood story with no evidence and deny global warming with actual observational science, bullet proof physical science basis and overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. How dumb.
 
#233

faith (fâth) noun

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

What I find amusing (and potentially cataclysmic to the human race) is that they're willing to believe metaphysical stories and accept them as truth, BUT !! when confronted with a scientific consensus supported with vast tracts of corroborating and overlapping data, that is for the objective mind irrefutable; that's where they manifest their doubt.

It's quite an "interesting" standard of truth.
 
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...
It's Occam's razor!
PostmodernProphet said:
that which makes it absurd in your mind is your assumption that every detail must be understood literally or rejected.....you ignore the fact that virtually every culture in the world has a story of the same event with different details.......
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
dude, I've explained Leviticus to you idiots a dozen times......in short, two different legal codes......the Levitical codes for sacrifices and purification, and the Mosaic Code or Ten Commandments and the rules derived therefrom.......Christianity teaches us that Christ has eliminated the need for sacrifice or personal purification.....thus no more Levitical Code.....the words of Christ tell us that it is up to God to judge the hearts of men, thus no more stoning for violations of the Mosaic Code........however the Mosaic Code was affirmed by Christ to the standard by which we choose our actions........now, that makes 13.......the next time you tell me I need to justify Christianity to you I can tell you I've already explained it to you 13 times.......
Click to expand...


Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Rune said:
What is the strawman, cunt?
If we are taking about saving the planet everybody is obligated to pay.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Since I was discussing the Old Testament.....
 
sear said:
#233

faith (fâth) noun

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

What I find amusing (and potentially cataclysmic to the human race) is that they're willing to believe metaphysical stories and accept them as truth, BUT !! when confronted with a scientific consensus supported with vast tracts of corroborating and overlapping data, that is for the objective mind irrefutable; that's where they manifest their doubt.

It's quite an "interesting" standard of truth.
Click to expand...

Sears finally unroots the entire point of this thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top