Ye Religion Thread

[DWxchzrles]

Read through their first paragraph on the 'about' page - to me they are nothing more than lobbyists who want reduced regulations so a few can get richer.

[haunted]

lmao haunted..i stopped reading after this paragraph.

"Besides the fact that earth is the warmest it has been in thousands of years, maps are being changed due to the melting of anarctica and greenland, many places are breaking all-time high temperature records, and the ride in temperature is directly proportional to the rise in carbon emissions, I will get a little more specific with the evidence."

hahahahha..

I'm glad you found facts that are all completely backed by the scientific data funny.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

I would suggest reading that COMPLETELY.  A lot of interesting articles.

Unlike you, I showed the courtesy of reading your source of information. Maybe this is a joke by you or something, but an opinionative conservative lobbyist group site is obviously not an accurate source of information. Lobbyist groups are one-sided non-funded political groups that try to influence legislation in favor of their own ideology.

lob

[reaper]

Which is the bigger accident?

  1. A singularity appearing out of nowhere and exploding into the Universe as we know it.
  2. A signularity always existed, then exploded into the Universe as we know it.
  3. A supernatural being appearing out of nowhere and creating our Universe.
  4. A supernatural being always existed, then created our Universe.

Dammit, man.    You can't first claim 1. and 2. are too improbable to believe, and then substitute them with 3. and 4. and pretend you've solved the "probability" problem.  If you are so worried about probabilities, there's no way 3. and 4. are more probable than 1. and 2.

If you want to believe in 3. and 4., that's your business.  But don't try to claim you believe in 3. and 4. because 1. and 2. are too improbable to believe in!!!!!

Hello??  Is this thing on???     


Regards,

quadz

I believe in god, i'll leave it at that : ).  like i said, it's my theory this universe was unlikely to form life.  since chance isn't an adqeuate explanation for me, and i believe in god (because of evidence), i will consider god's existance likely.  it was funny how in "a brief history of time" hawking ends the book saying "now what place is there for god".   he was referring to the possibility that the universe exists forever with no need for supernatural interference.  that's fine, he can believe what he wants; although this belief doesn't have supporting evidence, like say evolution. he himself refers to this concept as "a vague proposal".  i'm not sure if he was referring to the progress of natural explanations and/or his no boundary proposal - where time would exist before the big bang.  I have never said, god exists because the earth is big, or god exists because he has to make the sun move.  there is no "strong" rational argument to say there is no need for a god.  for any complete explanation you need some faith, or maybe you believe in a vague theory.  i think the evidence for a god is much stronger than any other explanation that would discount god.

Insert Quote
Pretty much what I've been trying to say for the last 40 pages or so.

I wish I could borrow reaper's account name to say "god exists and he's incomprehensible" to just get it out of the way. It's always nice to escape rational argument by decreeing by fiat one's claim.

yeah that is how i feel, except I wish we knew more about god, so we could show it's reasonable god exists.

Unlike you, I showed the courtesy of reading your source of information. Maybe this is a joke by you or something, but an opinionative conservative lobbyist group site is obviously not an accurate source of information. Lobbyist groups are one-sided non-funded political groups that try to influence legislation in favor of their own ideology.

well it goes both ways of course, i certainly wouldn't trust the IPCC.  management actually altered the scientists reports after they went home before a major presentation - to show global warming was more likely.  it was funny, i was reading USA TODAY yesterday, and there was an article about global warming.  Delaware's state climatologist said he doesn't believe humans are causing global warming, and the government basically told him to shut his mouth.   i don't know, but maybe we should look into these IPCC reports, especially when the former director of the National Academy of Science says global warming does not exist.

it's interesting how Dahang says: the earth has never warmed this fast, and this warming is directly correlated with greenhouse gas emission.  this just isn't true, there's no reason to think what's going on isn't natural.  there just isn't enough CO2 produced to warm the earth.  you want me to produce evidence that your claim is bullshit, but you've showed me no valid evidence

[deft]

glad tim at least got my joke

[haunted]

In my post I said that there was a probability of you joking, didn't know though.


REAPER: ALL YOU SAY IS THAT OTHER PEOPLES' CLAIMS ARE BULLSHIT. I PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR 100% OF MINE, AND NONE OF THIS REPORT WAS ALTERED. IT'S REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE UN FROM THE MANY SCIENTISTS CONDUCTING THIS GLOBAL EXPERIMENT. I JUST PROVED THAT MINE ARE TRUE, SO INSTEAD OF JUST DISMISSING IT AS BULLSHIT LIKE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL IDIOT, POST SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CONTRADICTS IT. Oh wait, you have no evidence for your claims

[reaper]

REAPER: ALL YOU SAY IS THAT OTHER PEOPLES' CLAIMS ARE BULLSHIT. I PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR 100% OF MINE, AND NONE OF THIS REPORT WAS ALTERED. IT'S REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE UN FROM THE MANY SCIENTISTS CONDUCTING THIS GLOBAL EXPERIMENT. I JUST PROVED THAT MINE ARE TRUE, SO INSTEAD OF JUST DISMISSING IT AS BULLSHIT LIKE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL IDIOT, POST SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CONTRADICTS IT. Oh wait, you have no evidence for your claims

there is a 20 percent chance we are warming the earth.. wait no!... let's make that 40 , or 90!.

[metaL]

congrats reaper, on posting links of somebody's opinion, hell, i'd believe your opinion over his, but you can't spell half the words in the english language.

[reaper]

congrats reaper, on posting links of somebody's opinion, hell, i'd believe your opinion over his, but you can't spell half the words in the english language.

umm, those would be facts, the sources are actually noted in Cricton's book. sorry i'm not an expert on spelling, nor do i give a fuck - spell check works fine.  I just read the actual IPCC report released to the United Nations,  if I was a politician I would tell them to come back with better information.  The report shows nothing about the likelyhood of humans warming the earth, most of it's content is about greenhouse emissions, and their claims of these gases warming the earth can be easily shown to lack veracity.

[DaHanG]

like i said, it's my theory this universe was unlikely to form life.  since chance isn't an adqeuate explanation for me, and i believe in god (because of evidence), i will consider god's existance likely.  [

[reaper]

There is no evidence for god. Every argument for his existence has a logical flaw - Argument of first cause, argument from design, any aspects of a morality argument, the ontological argument, the natural-law argument, etc. If you want to interpret certain things as evidence then you

[jägermonsta]

The earth has changed temperatures for billions of years. What 'people' are doing has very LITTLE effect. Sure it probably has a minor effect but nothing enormously drastic that people should be all worried that the changes happening are our fault... To me people should give up on this save us from global warming hippie shit and realize we can't do anything about what earth does. It will shake us off like a bad case of flees when it feels like it. We have no major effect on the earths changes.

[metaL]

[quote author=j

[deft]

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2DA2-1

Next is a discussion on a book I heard about. I haven't read it yet but the conversation is interesting enough:

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/UnstoppableGlobalWarming.pdf

[DaHanG]

fortuantley for me, i've never said "god needs to move the sun" or any of the above arguments to support my belief in god.  where is the evidence?  i suppose there is no scientific evidence, although there is no scientific evidence that disproves god, or shows that god is unnecessary

Arguing for the lack of negative evidence is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. That whole approach is unscientific. What would be counter evidence to the flying spaghetti monster? This is one of the weakest arguments one can present.

i'll address the first link from the webpage:
As can be seen from the blue curve, temperatures have been less variable during the last 10 000 years. Based on the incomplete evidence available, it is unlikely that global mean temperatures have varied by more than 1

[quadz]

[quote author=j