Evangelist Oral Roberts, who rose from tent revivals to found a multimillion-dollar organization and an Oklahoma university bearing his name, has died. He was 91.
If only you had donated more money to his church, maybe God wouldn’t have taken him from us at such a young age.
PRESIDENT OBAMA – PLEASE don’t attend the funeral! PLEEEEZZZZZZZZ!
I will be received by a much-younger Paul Newman-or Steve McQueen, either/or.
Hope you are right, for your sake.
-h
Oral Roberts died? I hadn’t really noticed he was still alive.
Cry4turtles
I will be received by a much-younger Paul Newman-or Steve McQueen, either/or.
Yum! Two of my faves-at any age. Also, a mature Harrison Ford. But unless I get my libido back after death, we might as well be playing cards!
Mark Holland
If you are so anti-xian and don’t believe in the god of Christianity, why do you believe in Satan? I’m confused.
Get in line…
Priceless!
Had a great worship celebration last Sunday! The Holy Spirit was present and people’s lives were changed. Christmas is just a couple of days away! What a season of joy! I cannot wait to exchange gifts with the people I love to commemorate the greatest Gift to mankind. The precious Son of God, sent to offer salvation to a fallen world! What amazing love!
-hugh
Too bad none of those folks you believe in exist.
– “So, “deeming” someone you disagree with as “intolerant” justifies your own intolerance of them and what they believe?”
::: As hypocritical as it may sound, the only people we cannot tolerate are the intolerant. And this isn’t a matter of disagreement here because we have no problems with the beliefs themselves, just what people do because they have them, 9/11 being the most powerful modern example I can think of.
– “You’ve been “bullied” by Christians?—or could it possibly be that you’re misconstruing that with their defending their Constitutional right to practice their faith? And by the way, Christians, by definition, don’t “look down their noses at anyone not of their faith.” We’re called to share our faith with those like you.”
::: Yes, we are bullied. “Become a Christian or burn in Hell!” is bullying. “Atheists are not citizens/good people/moral/intelligent” is bullying. You treat us with disdain for not being like you, which is what the expression “looking down one’s nose” implies: a self-claimed betterment over others. In other words, arrogance.
– The only anger we show is towards those who are attempting to deny us our Constitutional right to practice our faith. We don’t “hate” non-believers, we pity them—that’s why we want to share our faith with them.
::: And we have a constitutional right to privacy and freedom FROM religion. Insurance salesmen have the right to sell insurance, but you’d be telling them to fuck off when they’ve interrupted dinner for the umpteenth time with a phone call or door knock. Respect is a two way street, and until you show us some, why should we sugar coat our aggravation?
– “Ok, then could you please put
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
in it’s proper context by explaining what Kevin Trenberth really meant by it?
No, (have you?) but the “quote mined/cherry picked” ones are quite self-explanatory—it doesn’t take a conspiracy-theorist-whacko to fabricate an intentional “mis-reading” of their content.
Really? Then why does Trenberth think it’s a “travesty” that his data doesn’t fit his desire?—or that NASA had to admit it was wrong about 1998 being the hottest year on record and changed it to1934 instead?—or that temperatures have actually dropped over the past decade?”
::: The short of it: the answer’s right in that bit you quoted. He’s angry that the results their tools and equipment provide aren’t coinciding with what the data should reflect as per continuing research and is venting his frustration that he has equipment not allowing him proper study. As to the rest, try some youtube on for size.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg – watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo – watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY – watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4 – Feel free to investigate the rest of these channels of these vids regarding climate change. They’re incredibly informative.
– “Uh no. It’s foolish to jump to unconfirmed conclusions that have an untold negative economic impact on the well being of the entire species—it’s downright idiotic to assume that a tiny sampling of an enormously complex and poorly understood system like global climate is, in fact, correct.”
::: Modernizing our energy infrastructure and energy use would be an economic BOON. Nevermind the clear health and environmental benefits of using so-called Green energy sources, and furthermore the fact that oil, natural gas, and coal will run out one day.
– “Yes, self-defense is an inalienable right.
You obviously haven’t read many of the old threads here…oh, but that’s right, you seem to have trouble with confusing your subjective interpretation of what you read with what is objective reality.”
::: When you stab something with a spear, you’re supposed to use the sharp end, not the blunt end. You’re pretty good at arguing without making points =) If it’s not relevant to the conversation, don’t talk about it. Otherwise, say something constructive and not something akin to crimson colored fish.
– “So, if Jesus could invalidate it, then wouldn’t that, by definition, invalidate him?—do you always analyze things by circular reasoning?”
If Muhammad said the Koran was bullshit, would that invalidate Muhammad? If Krishna said the Baghavad Gita was bullshit, would that invalidate Krishna? If Charles Darwin said The Origin was bullshit, would that invalidate Darwin? I simple use Jesus because he’s the Christian god. If your god said your holy book was wrong, how would that invalidate your god? If the author falsifies his own authoring, that doesn’t make the author suddenly not exist. And are you suggesting something like, “God wrote the bible which the bible says he wrote” isn’t circular reasoning?
May I suggest you try using “blockquotes” to make quoted text easier to differentiate from your own? To do it, surround the text you’re quoting with blockquote “tags” like this:
<blockquote>Text to be blockquoted.</blockquote>
When posted, it looks like this:
(don’t forget the backslash in the closing tag).
You’re right, that is hypocritical—doesn’t that bother you?
Are you serious? Have you not read the thread topics Silverman posts and what other atheists think about Christianity here?
That’s a distinction without a difference.
I don’t understand—defending ourselves against those who are at war with us is a “religious” thing to do?
While I agree that some Christians do engage in that kind of rhetoric, the fact is, the Bible calls us to share our faith with respect: Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect- 1 Peter 3:15
I disagree. What you interpret as “disdain” from me is my measured and reasoned (though sometimes sarcastic) response to the disdain and arrogance that atheists show me here.
Oh dear… it’s a poor “scientist” who has to resort to blaming the quality of his equipment because he’s not getting the results he wants from it…besides, wasn’t that same (or even inferior) equipment used to collect the data that supposedly established this “trend?”
Thanks, but I’m pretty up to date on all the so-called supporting “data” purporting a dramatic change in an enormously complex and poorly understood system. It seems that now, even the ultra-liberal BBC isn’t buying it.
To who?—the carbon “brokers?”—but more importantly, what viable “modern” energy sources are you referring to?
Not in my, or my children’s lifetime. Are you unaware of the vast untapped reserves there are of each?
I am? What points have I failed to make?
I generally don’t. Only when the thread topic is so lame that it draws one or two posts do I use it to try to elicit worthy discussions—like climategate.
Uh, yeah—Muhammad dictated the Qur’an…
That isn’t what I meant. If Jesus suddenly reappeared and denounced the Biblical account of a Jesus, then one of the two would be an imposter—not non-existent. It sounds like you’re acknowledging that Jesus actually existed, am I correct?
Block quotes, eh? Didn’t know the appropriate code for these boards. Doumo arigatou.
Of course not. Would you rather we tolerated intolerance? “Oh, he hates you because you’re black? A woman? Have an accent? Drive a non-American car? I can tolerate that!” LOL, please =P
There’s a difference between the Christianity scorned here and the Christianity we support. I like to put it this way: One’s a religion, and one’s a faith. Faith guides you in life. Religion leads your life for you. Faith says, “Jesus loves all, and so shall I.” Religion says, “Only we deserve Jesus’s love.” Faith says, “Be good, and you’ll feel God in your life.” Religion says, “Feel God in your life, or you’re evil.” Faith is friendly, tolerant, and helpful to all regardless of beliefs because their faith says that they ~should~ be. Religion is cruel, hateful, and destructive to all except of their own beliefs because their religion ~demands~ they be. Faith is open minded to the differences of others. Religion makes you drive passenger jets into buildings. If I may be so bold as to make this claim: with the way you react to this blog and the way you treat us, you’d be of the religious Christianity. And that’s the kind we don’t like. So, if you took offense, you’re welcome. We meant it =)
You clearly misunderstood me. If a Muslim shared with me his belief in Allah, I’d give him a thumbsup but respectfully tell him I do not have that same belief. If things ended there and then, more power to that muslim. But… if he then told me that I MUST believe in Allah or be punished? I’d flip him the bird and tell him to shove his Koran up his ass. Again, there’s a HUGE difference between having a belief and acting on that belief against the will of others. If the religious never acted on their beliefs, New York City would still be home to the twin towers. This is why America was founded with a separation of church and state and why atheists are so vocal and, as you’d describe them, hostile and offensive.
Wow… You clearly DO NOT understand. If my previous quote responses don’t make it click in your head, then you never will.
Well, regardless of “who started it” so to speak, you sure as heck do not speak with gentleness let alone any ounce of respect on these boards. None of the Christians whom I’ve read responses of have shown any effort to adhere to that verse, you included.
SOMEtimes sarcastic? You SOMEtimes make a comment that has no baring on any arguments being put forth by either side and all you actually make are pure flames. If you can’t be honest with yourself, how do you expect any of us to take you seriously?
Tell me, if your thermometer always told your the outside temperature within the margin of error of 1 degree Fahrenheit, then proceeded to buy a new thermometer, and now you’re getting readings within a 10 degree margin of error, would you not be upset? When observations of others, tests by others, experiments by others, and by you previously all well coincide with each other, and then suddenly your newest experiments, tests, etcetera are not providing results akin to what previous data predicted, would you not think your equipment may be to blame?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses keep in heat from the sun. The industrialization of civilization has lead to a vast amount of man made CO2 to enter the atmosphere. We know that the El Nino/La Nina cycle on earth affects global temperatures, as do cycles of the sun among various other less significant factors. We also know that as we enter a La Nina, which means colder weather due to colder oceans, global temperatures should be dropping accordingly. We are unreasonably warm by comparison, and El Nino is also far warmer than it has been. The culprit, it has been discovered, is the excess of CO2 increasing the greenhouse effect.
I just summed up climate change in one paragraph for you. You really need to let go of your biases and preconceptions and really critically think about all this. That way, the only thing you have to work with are the bare boned facts that have been known prior to global warming ever being a public issue. And these days, we know far more facts and the facts are far more understandable. These facts say that global warming (more accurately described as climate change as this can cause dramatic cooling, as well) is happening.
Biofuels, wind energy, and solar energy are a big three. There’s also hydroelectric energy (you know, dams), geothermal energy, as well as nuclear fission and, hopefully in the very near future, fission’s far superior and cleaner cousin, nuclear fusion. (Apologies if I flipped the terms around) Investing in these forms of energy guarantees new jobs, modern jobs, better jobs, safer jobs, cleaner jobs, as well as provide the PERFECT opportunity for America to reclaim its title as the earth’s manufacturing center that created the middle class (of which has been slowly destroyed over the years as we’ve lost so much of our manufacturing power and infrastructure). If that wouldn’t be an economic boon, I don’t know what would.
And, with perhaps the exception of natural gas, these are not clean burning, no matter how good our technology becomes. Wind, solar, fusion, and to a far greater extent than coal or oil, biofuels are all much cleaner forms of energy. And best of all, these won’t pollute the air, causing many known health and environmental problems. With any luck, within your children’s lifetime we’ll see the end of smog and a huge drop in respiratory disease due to a change in our energy sources from coal and oil to solar and wind et al.
So far, the vast… VAST majority of your comments either have no points because they’re nothing but insults and flames, or any points you intended to make are lost in a sea of, well… insults and flames. Debate demands mutual respect between both parties and an understanding that one shouldn’t take certain word choice seriously enough as to diminish the validity and effort of real debate unless it’s clear the other person wishes only to insult your character and position instead of rebut your argument. If your opponent is not offering you that mutual respect, just drop the debate =P Be a good Christian and turn the other cheek!
Climategate is not a worthy discussion because it was an intentionally timed effort by climate change denialists to disrupt the validity and importance of the climate talks in Copenhagen. Three emails of thousands quotemined with at-face-value surprising and harmful comments that are cleared up and made innocent by a thorough reading of said emails do not suddenly make decades of legitimate research, plenty of which was well established before climate change became a topic of discussion, illegitimate.
Don’t ignore the point I made. So he had a ghost writer. He’s still the author. He doesn’t suddenly become invalid if he said the Koran as we know it today was false and wrong.
I believe a historical Jesus person existed, but I do not believe the biblical Jesus existed for the exact same reasons the Greek Heracles never existed. No one who wrote anything about the life of the biblical Jesus was actually there to document his life. If there was, we’d only have one gospel and not four (why not have just picked one, anyway? They all contradict each other…) and the historical Jesus person would fit FAAARRRRR better alongside the biblical one. For the record, I’m quite sure that there was some person who existed who could be considered the founder of a religion for many of the religions today, even though we may lack any historical evidence for some of them. That doesn’t somehow validate their particular affiliated holy books, however. You, for whatever reason, chose Jesus as opposed to Mohammad, Zoroaster, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Confucious, and sooooo many others. More power to ya, I don’t care which ya pick or why. Point still remains that if the person responsible for their particular “bible” said that their bible is in fact wrong, that doesn’t change the fact that they were responsible for it if not outright authored it, and could then explain what’s wrong with it.
You’re welcome.
Interesting… Are you familiar with the concept of “compartmentalization?”
First, you’re misconstruing “tolerance” for acceptance in your application of it to Christians. And second, regarding your question, isn’t that exactly what your asking Christians to be of you?
That’s a remarkably accurate perception of the differences—I’m impressed. It’s rare that an atheist actually understands that here. However, given how little of all I’ve ever posted here that you’ve actually read:
indicates just how little you really know about me and how much you falsely assume to be true of me.
Maybe because what you’ve just described is precisely the difference between belief and faith—a difference I’ve articulated on this blog many times.
And this is where your description (and perception) departs from reality. A Muslim, if unsuccessful in converting you, is called by Muhammad to kill you—a Christian, on the other hand, is called to love you in spite of your poor choice.
Ok, my apologies, I misunderstood what you meant—it sounded like you were equating Bush’s retaliation to the 9/11 attacks as a religious fanaticism.
Yes, but the Constitutional intention there was not the twisted, anti-religious fascism that modern atheism has successfully co-opted it to be.
While I’m guilty of not being as gentle as I should, respect, particularly simple, basic respect, on the other hand, is something I do maintain for everyone I converse with here. If you’ll notice, I do not engage in, or return callow, schoolyard epithets.
Yes, sometimes. Is sarcasm invariably pejorative to you? In case you haven’t noticed, my sarcasm is directly proportional to the level of disrespect being shown to me.
Examples please?
That’s a rather subjective assertion.
I’ve been nothing but completely honest with myself here. I’d say your visceral hatred for what I believe in coupled with my indelicate, politically incorrect delivery is what prevents you from objectively evaluating me and what I have to say.
Absolutely, but surely you’re not seriously asserting that that was the case here. Our ability to accurately measure atmospheric temperatures is not technically challenging and we’ve been doing it—accurately—for well over a century.
Apparently, you are serious… you’re starting to sound like a conspiracy theory whacko.
Really? Thanks for the update.
…which pales in comparison to what natural volcanic eruptions produced at the end of the Cretaceous.
“Unreasonably?” You’re kidding, right? We’ve been freezin’ our butts off for the past 3 years—or haven’t you noticed?—maybe if you’d actually visit some of my links…?
No, the “culprit” is an enormously complex and poorly understood, dynamic global climate system that is far more driven and affected by its primary heat source (i.e. the sun) than anything human beings can ever do to it.
Yes, I-I had absolutely no idea how it all worked… I’m eternally indebted to you for my unmerited tutelage.
Yes, “critical thinking” is evidently not my forte… Have you ever considered that you need to stop assuming every Christian you blog with here is by default, a benighted hayseed—lacking his full complement of teeth?
And these bare-boned “facts”… are they verifiable, repeatable, open for public scrutiny—open for public interpretation—or are they under the strict purview of the elite, materialist “scientists” with a completely objective desire and pursuit of the truth—completely devoid of any anti-capitalist, socialist agenda and worldview?
Yes, and the public has no reason not to trust the stewardship of those “facts” to objective, virtuous “experts” like Al Gore, Phil Jones and Michael Mann…
Yes, “global warming” can mean anything the “experts” want. Hey, buddy, here’s a little secret they obviously don’t want you to know: the climate always has and always will be in a constant state of flux.
Uh, biofuels… don’t they contain carbon too? And is there really enough wind and do we really have the space and cloudless skies to harvest enough of those energy sources to supply our needs? Like I said, get real.
Really? I had no idea what that meant…
But seriously, we can’t build any more dams because the animal rights, tree-hugging whackos won’t stand for it.
Ok, so like people in Little Rock are gonna drill down to the Moho to tap into it?
…but there’s the tree-huggers…
And what if that’s still decades away? What’re we supposed to do until then—put up windmills in everyone’s backyard?
Uh, no, aside from the fact that they’re impractical and insufficient to meet our needs, it guarantees more government regulation, intrusion into the private sector, and destruction of private wealth.
Have you ever worked in the private sector?
Yes, and if Uh-bama gets his way, I’ll be branded a major source of pollution by merely having to exhale.
There you go again…which “biofuels” do not contain carbon?
I asked for specifics and you’re just repeat yourself.. Wanna try again?
Really? Is that why you opened this conversation by referring to me as an “idiot?”
I wasn’t, I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the example.
Huh? Muhammad never claimed to be divine—and his Qur’an’s “validty” speaks for itself—you can’t compare him to the claim the Bible makes of Jesus Christ.
Hmmm. That’s not what the Bible says…
What?!?—So there can only be one eyewitness to a historic event in your opinion?
Uh, for variegated perspective?
They do?—they all end differently?, have different main characters, and took place in different locations?
I don’t understand what you mean by that.
Maybe because it makes the most sense…is grounded in historic fact…can withstand scrutiny…and is the only one that’s internally consistent?
Really?
Well, too bad history isn’t an empirical science, huh?
Since when did tolerance mean acceptance? Tolerance suggests mutual respect. I do not have to accept your beliefs, nor you mine. That was NEVER the case. Tolerance demands, however, that we respect each other’s rights and freedoms to hold those beliefs. Take a moment to think about what I am saying next time, because I’m tired of you shoving words into my mouth and completely misrepresenting me and my position.
I have watched you and the other apparent Christians that frequent this board with confrontational posts all doing the same things: Deny outright the claims of the opposing side simply because they think their opponent is wrong without thought or analysis, refuse to acknowledge valid arguments and evidence that refutes them, turn what the others say in a general or even specific sense not directed at them into an offense directed solely at them when they were clearly not the intended target of the perceived offense, demand evidence and then ignore it when presented, act with authority without evidence, ignore challenges made to their points by moving the goal posts or changing the subject or using sarcasm/insults/etc., and overgeneralizing their opponents’ position by building strawmen and otherwise attempt to diminish their opponent’s argument without rebuttal. The fact that you are so stringently adamant in your particular beliefs despite what proves you and others wrong (and I’m not talking religious views here, I mean basic reality stuff) inclines me to think that you are not of the “faith” descriptor but of “religion”.
Wuh? What are you talking about? Faith is contingent on belief and vice versa. If you do not believe in it, you have no faith in it. If you have faith in it, you believe it. They’re one and the same. Faith is just a more metaphysical and spiritual way of conveying the same meaning.
Actually, it’s the Hadith that demands Muslims to kill apostates. The Koran itself says nothing of killing non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslim (and I’m pretty sure it’s got nothing about killing apostates, either). In fact, it’s non-Jews (or I guess in your case, non Christians) that are an exception to God’s rules time and time and time and time again as he kills, or has others kill in his name, innocents whose only crime was not being Jewish and believing in him. Oh, and BTW, Uganda wants to pass a death sentence for homosexuals because their Christian affiliates from the USA demonize it. What was that about Christian love despite choice again? After all, you claim homosexuality is a choice, right? Remember what I said about acting with authority without evidence? And that goes for both the Christian love thing as well as the homosexuality being a choice thing…
Actually, considering he considered the wars a crusade and used biblical paraphernalia among the troops, I very easily could, which is actually… right on point. If it weren’t for him being pulled by strings of oil companies and feeling pressured to impress daddy, I’d be inclined to believe his whole purpose for Iraq and Afghanistan was a religious retaliatory crusade against Islam.
Remember when I said you were overgeneralizing and putting words into my mouth?
Remember when I talked about being honest with yourself before anyone here can take you seriously?
Just in this response, or over this whole blog? Something tells me I’ll hit a character limit if I had to fit this response AND a list of every example I can find just from this particular blog post alone into just one comment response.
Remember what I said about outright denial of an opponent’s position despite evidence, and what I said about overgeneralizing?
Remember what I said about outright denial of the opposing side, of moving goal posts, and of strawmen? Either he’s working in a more fledgling aspect of weather and climate sciences or his instruments were faulty or both. It happens. Now, do you want to refute the point or insult the example intended to portray said point? Oh, yeah! Remember what I said about sarcasm and making attempts to diminish the opposing view without rebuttal?
Remember what I said about sarcasm and insulting the other’s position without a rebuttal?
Remember what I said about sarcasm?
Remember what I said about moving goal posts? We do not live in the Cretaceous. We live NOW. Right NOW, CO2 levels are reaching a point of greenhouse effect that is causing ice caps to melt and causing oceans to heat up. Right NOW, we’re suffering from some of the most devastating hurricanes in recent history due to that extra heat. Right NOW, we’re witnessing rising ocean levels that, given time, will rise high enough to make thousands upon hundreds of thousands of livable space to be underwater. Right NOW, climate change is happening because man-made sources of CO2 are contributing to a tilt in the relative “balance” of the current period (of which is not the Cretaceous, if I may reiterate).
My use of the term warm is misleading, and I apologize, because global warming itself is a misleading term since the whole climate change umbrella leads to more extremes on both ends. “We” is also a relative term. This is the first time my area’s gotten a proper snowfall in December in a few years. We had a remarkably mild summer. Couple years prior? And for a good many prior still? I distinctly remember some scorching summers as well as some winters where even the lows had trouble going under freezing and weather so mild we’d be in t-shirts and shorts in the middle of December and January on some days. But, to stick to short-term memory and rely only on your experiences relative to your geographic location is rather insulting to climate science and the current trend of global warming because it’s ignoring numerous other factors. Keep in mind, while I might be experiencing a drought and atypical 90 degree weather, somewhere else on the globe someone’s getting pounded with a lot more than average rain and unseasonably colder weather. It’s “Global” warming, not “within 20 square miles of my house” warming.
Remember what I said about outright denial despite evidence and moving goal posts? The sun, being one of the factors, will continue to be better understood over time. Thing is, right now, there’s major correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. Here’s a fun fact, btw: Venus, because of its intense cloud cover of greenhouse gasses (one in particular being CO2) is actually hotter than Mercury despite the distance difference. And furthermore? If it weren’t for that ridiculous concentration of greenhouse gasses on Venus, it’s far enough away from the sun that it could have become (if it weren’t at some point) earth-like and supported life, perhaps even intelligent life capable of inter-stellar travel like we’re growing into. Heck, if Mars still had an atmosphere worth bragging about, it, too, could be (and most definitely once was) life bearing and earth-like while we’re on the subject, but back to the topic at hand.
Remember what I said about sarcasm and diminishing without rebuttal? Funny thing, though, because if you already knew how it all worked, you wouldn’t be so adamantly against the idea of climate change and global warming.
Remember what I said about general commentary being taken as personal attacks, and about sarcasm, and about shoving words into my mouth with overgeneralization?
I have no clue what you’re even trying to say here. “Public interpretation” stands out, though. Science isn’t something to be interpreted, it’s something to be understood. You don’t interpret history, or mathematics, or spelling. Science is no different. “The sky is blue because of the gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere” can’t be interpreted, only understood. “The standard number describing the force of acceleration by gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s” is nothing that can be interpreted. “Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom make a water molecule” sure as hell can’t be interpreted any other way than H2O makes water. “High contents of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect” also cannot be interpreted any differently. Science can only be understood. This is why there’s only one essential “science” behind the many phenomena of the natural world. As a point of reference, something that DOES require interpretation is religion. Why else would humanity have gone through surely millions of different forms of religion, or why Christianity alone has over 30,000 different sects and denominations? Nevermind the variety of Abrahamic religions, as well!
Whatever you disdain or distrust for those men is does not illegitmize good, real science, regardless of what they have or have not misconstrued, exaggerated, or ignored. Might as well not trust a mathematician because he doesn’t show all his work or takes shortcuts that still lead to the same conclusion.
If it’s a secret, then why do they make it an effort to make such knowledge public, such as how the sun and the earth both have cycles that effect the earth’s temperature, and then ALSO talk about green house gasses? And if men with Phd’s in earth and climate sciences are not the experts, I’d love to know who qualifies, because it surely isn’t you or me, and I’m inclined to believe them over you.
They’re still an option and one that should be considered, and I never said they weren’t somehow completely clean. Also, where do you get off telling me about how the sun causes the earth to heat up and then say we can’t harvest its energy for electricity and fuel? You do realize there are sky scrapers today and in the works that will be nearly if not entirely self powered by solar panels integrated into the building, right? If we lack the room, we’ll find ways to make it, and technology is always improving. And improving it is, as we’re on our way to cars fueled only by water. The future is looking amazing.
Remember what I said about insults and sarcasm without making any form of rebuttal?
Remember what I said about you not making points and only insults that distract from the debate? I’m inclined to take my own advice and drop this because you’re not making a genuine effort to debate respectfully whatsoever with all the reminders I have to make for you.
For consistency’s sake… Remember what I said about not making points and only insults that hurt the debate?
It really isn’t. In fact, if we had a government that put science and knowledge on the forefront of its budget priorities list, we might have had it already. It’s a real shame that America has fallen far from its leadership in scientific, technological, and medicinal discoveries. With any luck, once Obama can focus on rebuilding America’s energy grid and investing in new energy technologies we’ll see some real progress within the next 5 years and start weening off of oil, et al.
If people believed that when we started industrializing, we wouldn’t be on our computers right now. You’re making baseless claims now. Remember what I said about speaking from authority without evidence?
Why would it matter or somehow compromise the validity of a statement of fact? New technologies will lead to new jobs, and if America jumps at the opportunity, we will bring back our manufacturing sector from the dead.
Remember when I talked about sarcasm and gross overgeneralizations?
I think the amount of times I’ve needed to give you reminders in this response alone speak for themselves.
Actually, YOU brought that up. Remember what I said about diminishing the validity of the debate? My idiot comment wasn’t make during any actual debate between us. If you can’t drop it for purpose of debate, you compromise the foundation of your position with worthless filler.
How is “Divinely inspired illiterate writes holy book by dictating an angel of God” that significantly different in divine “validity” from “Son of God in book written by God”? The validity of both books speak for themselves.
The Bible has a lot of things that it doesn’t say. Yet, for some reason, people claim it does anyways. And, well, the gospels indeed were not written by anyone who knew Jesus during his life time and were written after he died and resurrected and reascended.
Remember what I said about moving goal posts and shoving words into my mouth?
Umm, if we really wanted varied perspective and not just four retellings of the same basic story, wouldn’t one of the gospels have been written by a Roman with Roman biases? And another by a non-Christian Jew with Jewish biases? When four perspectives are all telling a story from the same eyewitness testimony, the only differences would be in their particular way of telling the story, and any differences in what was purported by the eyewitnesses. It’s like asking four Lord of the Rings nerds to retell The Hobbit from beginning to end from memory; some things will be different because each will remember certain things better or worse and some will emphasis or skim over certain things out of personal preference, but in the end it’s about Bilbo helping Thorin and co. get the dwarf’s treasure back from Smaug and which point he then heads back to Hobbiton with Sauron’s ring not knowing its true nature.
Remember what I said about moving the goal posts? And shoving words down my throat?
Remember what I said about speaking from authority without evidence and outright denying the opposing view despite evidence? The Bible Is NOT: grounded in historic fact; able to withstand scrutiny; internally consistent. It also does not make any sense. I couldn’t even finish Genesis, it was so ridiculous. Besides, there are others here with far more knowledge about the Bible than me who have pointed out where the Bible fails at historical fact, fails at scrutiny, fails at consistency, and is utterly nonsensical, yet when presented with their argument… Remember what I said about denying despite the evidence? And insults? And moving goal posts? And perceiving insults? And building strawmen?
Certainly relies on it, though, or we never get the full picture.
You’re more than welcome to waste your time responding to this, but I likely won’t respond to whatever you may post. You’re clearly dead set in your personal views and no amount of rebuttal and no amount of evidence will change your mind. Besides, given the numerous times I’ve had to give you reminders throughout this final response, I’m going to take my own advice and drop the debate because you’re not sharing the same respect for it as I am.
Unfortunately, you say you won’t continue this conversation, so be it—but given all that you said that was demonstrably wrong, I feel compelled to correct them for the record.
Since atheists have been trying to shove the man-made “global warming” hoax down the country’s throat—and are attempting to lower my standard of living and deprive me of my right to consume natural resources that I can pay for; since atheists have been trying to shove the legalization of homosexual marriage down the country’s (in general) and Christian’s (specifically) throat; since atheists succeeded in making abortion the state sanctioned sacrament of their religion; since atheists have singled-out and systematically targeted any form of pubic Christian worship as a violation of a non-existent clause in the Constitution.
Theoretically, yes, but in reality, that’s only expected when it suits the purposes of moral relativists. I can “tolerate” homosexuals doing what they want to each other as long as it’s in private, but the atheist expectation of me to accept the legalization of same-sex marriage isn’t for the sake of “tolerance” or “mutual respect,” it’s a wanton act of moral war. There’s not an ounce of respect for my side of that issue by yours. Likewise with abortion and the never ending crusade against Christians and Christianity by ACLU-backed atheists.
Ok good, so can you honestly now say you respect my non-acceptance of those issues?
I neither shoved words in your mouth nor did I misrepresent you. You were the one who accused me of being “intolerant.”
Do you really think I’m here just to gainsay without the ability to back up what I say?
You assume that just because you think you’re right about an issue automatically makes what you say a “valid” argument?
I don’t “ignore” your evidence—I point out it’s weaknesses and use it to undermine your assumptions.
Like where?
I don’t intentionally ignore challenges—I don’t have time to address every bit of minutia thrown at me here. And if pointing out the fallacies and weaknesses of evidence is “moving the goal posts” then brother, you’d better think twice the next time you are asked for such.
Oh, so your standard of proof is objective, universal and immutable, huh?—no criticism of it from dolts like me can ever move your goal posts…
Wow, you swerved into it then claim you can’t see the forest for the trees. Try this: belief is cheap—anyone can say they believe something is true, but faith (in order for it to properly be faith) must be acted on. Are you willing to die for your atheism?—if so, then you have faith in it—if not, then it’s just a belief.
Wrong: if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.- Qu’ran 2:191
It’s a sovereign nation, they can do what they want despite it being contrary to what Jesus taught.
Right.
The “authority” is the Bible, not me; the evidence is clear: there is virtually no evidence for a genetic predisposition for sexuality, and those who exhibit bisexual behavior have long been acknowledged to “choose” with whom they wish to satisfy their desires. Like a vast array of other conditioned behaviors, human sexuality is ultimately an individual preference.
Yes, only us rightwing fundies are guilty of “acting with authority without evidence,” or “over-generalize,” or “aren’t honest with ourselves”…
Yes, I’ve managed to completely persuade myself that I’ve never returned callow schoolyard epithets here…
Just one will do.
Again, it seems only people like me resort to “over-generalizations” or “outright deny an opponent’s position despite evidence,” or use “sarcasm and insult the other’s position without a rebuttal.”
This is sad. I make an easily verifiable fact claim, and you think your trite, hackneyed little accusations really are sufficient to refute it.
Oh PLEEEEEEASE. What an incredibly lame excuse—measuring surface and atmospheric temperatures is a “fledgling aspect of weather”—and you say I’m the one who’s not honest with himself?…
I REFUTE THE POINT and pour on the much deserved derision—as if you’d not do the same to me! Your hypocrisy and pompous self-righteousness is really wearing thin.
Yep, remember what I said about hypocricy?—at least I’m upfront with my sarcasm.
I wasn’t moving goal posts (and your constant whining doesn’t prove that I am), I was pointing out that the global climatic system can handle massive influxes of CO2 without plunging into “irreversible” greenhouse warming.
…like they’ve been known to do for the past half-billion years—it’s a cyclical thing, driven primarily by the sun. Go look it up.
Yeah, this past season was a real doosie…
Uh huh, so much so that Al Gore had to lie through his teeth about it.
Neither you, nor Al Gore, nor Phil Jones nor Michael Mann have any reliable, repeatable, or conclusive scientific proof of that.
Nothing can create cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer…
Like common sense and real, objective science. What’s insulting is how these anti-capitalist, “climate change” charlatans are given carte blanche to preach their junk science by the main-stream, lap-dog, sycophant media with no pretense of their leftist agenda and bias.
Yeah, because that seems to be the only response you can give to anything I say.
Uh, no, it’s a well known fact that higher CO2 levels follow prolonged periods of warming… but alas, that’s just an “outright denial despite evidence, and a moving of goal posts”…
Oh joy, another pedantic demonstration of your “superior” intellect…
Oh please…stop! My sides are splitting… not the ol’ unequivocal, “Martian meteorite” claptrap theory—based on the gas content of a pore space no bigger than the head of a pin!!!
Ah HA!!! You finally, come right out and say it—for anyone with half a brain, the issue is settled; the science is irrefutable; there can be no debate and anyone who dares question it must be an idiot. WHAT AN ELITIST SNOB…(by the way, that wasn’t sarcasm—that was righteous indignation).
Oh right—even when the evidence is inconclusive, it’s to be understood, not interpreted…help me Lord.
We most certainly do interpret history. Do you think the Islamo-fascists view 9/11 through the same “objective” lens as the west?
You clearly have a very poor concept of science and how it’s used both politically and technically.
…when enough facts are available—otherwise it must be interpreted.
What? Their work is beyond reproach, inscrutable, not subject to criticism?
What will it take to demonstrate to you that that “conclusion” is not universal among climate scientists?
…or that their net derived energy is economically viable or ecologically friendly…
Uh, ‘cause if it were so, we’d have done it by now… solar cells are cheap—and again, it gets cloudy too often over the places that could use it.
Yes, it’s up to us, and we’re up to the task…
that require as much energy to strip the hydrogen from the oxygen as the hydrogen can provide to the car…now that’s a viable, eco-friendly solution.
…it’s so bright, I gotta wear shades…
Oh please. If you can’t handle a terse, accurate and yes, sarcastic, response to overly optimistic, Pollyanna assertions, then this ain’t the place for you.
Yes, the good ol’ government is the answer to all our needs—yep, with the efficiency of the Post Office, and the compassion of the VA, good ol’ Uncle Sam can do it better than anybody.
Wow, you really are naïve.
Self-righteous platitudes are a poor excuse for not being able to provide proof of an accusation.
Oh, well, that certainly justifies it then.
Uh, one claims authority from a man, the other from the creator of the universe—and the historic actuality of Jesus Christ supports that claim?
But it absolutely does say that those who wrote about Jesus Christ were actually there to document his life.
Oh, so Matthew and John—you know, the apostles “did not know Jesus during his life time?”
How pathetic. You can’t even answer a straight-forward question without hiding behind your worn-out “moving the goal posts,” excuse.
It was. It’s call the Gospel According to Mark.
Surely you’re not this naïve, or ignorant—it was too: the Gospel According to Matthew.
They don’t; John’s perspective is distinct from the synoptics—yet they all concur on who Jesus was and what he did.
Oh, so now speaking for myself is “speaking from authority”—let me guess, it’s because I’m “not honest with myself.”
Yes, because you, by virtue of “speaking from authority without evidence and outright denying the opposing view despite evidence” hath proclaimed it so!
Given your demonstrated ignorance and naïveté in so many other subjects, I’m not at all surprised. Maybe if you were to first attempt to read it in the historic and cultural context in which it was written, who knows, maybe it would?
A little judicious editing seemed called for there.
Not true. My mind has been changed many times regarding these topics precisely because of the nature of the evidence. If there’s anyone here whose closed his mind, it’s you.
Interesting thread, but I do wish the believers would come up with some new, and more reasonable arguments.
JCC
It is perfectly clear that you are so submerged in your own beliefs, assumptions, and ideals that you are either unable to or flat out refuse to consider, perceive, or examine opposing view points. Your little response has again spoken for itself. Nothing I, or anyone, says or shows you that would support our side and denounce your own has ever made you reconsider your positions and become more skeptical of them. Even when my side would admit to its faults, you treat that as an opportunity to make things out to be as if we only have faults and ignore the merits of our argument. You then blatantly ignore the faults of your own side and claim only merits of it. You are completely unable to acknowledge the merits and faults of both sides, seeing only our flaws and only your strengths. And, time and time and time again, instead of trying to argue points made, you do in fact automatically gainsay and continue to as we try to show more evidence, provide more examples, and reword our position to try and make it more clear for you. Each time, we’re made fun of, insulted, and treated to pointless sarcasm.
You are impossible to debate with because you walk into them feeling like you’ve already won. You don’t want debates, you just want attention and to make fun of the opposition because you’ve been raised on an “absolute” truth rather than a pursuit of truth. I can only hope, for your sake, something clicks in your head and you realize how foolish you’ve been and can face your fears of being wrong. If climate sciences and evolution are discovered to be incorrect, I’ve lost nothing, because the validity of those sciences does not effect who I am. If you discover your Christianity to be false, you’ve lost everything, because your Christianity represents everything that you are. That’s a very sad, pitiful fate to look forward to. No wonder you act the way you do because of how much fear you feel, not only of your god, but of being wrong.
Good bye and good luck.
That was Mabus. I spammed him.
Whoops, now no one knows what this comment alludes to.