On Sep 11, 4:42Â pm, Shrikeb...@
gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 11, 8:43Â am, ComandanteBanana
yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>> This is what my logic tells me: Atheists believe in SCIENCE AND
>> EVOLUTION, which is why they are Atheists.
>
> Some, on the other hand, believe in envirofundamentalism.
What's that, I don't think we should run the world based on ignorance.
However I believe it should the PRIORITY #1 of the world. Not the
world against terror, exploring Mars, etc.
>
>> And so science is also
>> telling us of a clear and unequivocal connection between HUMAN
>> POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING.
>
> Actually, only software climate models are telling
> us much of anything. Â Either that or post hoc,
> ergo propter hoc. Â Take your pick. Â But as Richard
> Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
> Science at MIT puts it: software climate models
> are like Ouija boards.
Something like 90%% of scientists agree with the connection. The
remaining 10%% must be part of the Republican Party. (I don't have the
exact numbers).
>
>> It is then the case that those who do NOT believe in Global Warming
>> (yeah, there are many out there) are the same sheep who happen to
>> believe in God.
>
> Did you determine this scientifically? Â Or is it just some
> foregone conclusion that you hold on faith?
It seems like a pretty accurate prediction that people that vote for
the Republican Party, don't agree with Global Warming --or don't want
to make it a priority anyway.
>
>> Of course, this belief comes quite handy for their
>> polluting SUVs. Why have any moral qualms
>
> Moral qualms? Â Kind of a religious concept, don't you
> think? Â I'm reporting you to atheist central, as a
> probable religious worm.
There's ethics outside of religion, but you find no relief in going to
church to confess.
>
>> about it if there's no
>> Global Warming?
>
> Well, empirically, there has been global warming. Â The
> cause is not so easy to be so certain about.
Sure. How about if Global Warming is set by God to punish humankind
one more time...
Just kidding. ;)
>
>> Well, this is, like science, only a THEORY,
>
> It isn't even a theory. Â I suppose you could say it's
> a hypothesis. Â In the same sense that any other
> conjecture you pull out of your ass is a conjecture.
Less or more realistic than the idea of God? That sounds like wishful
thinking.
>
>> so it remains true until
>
> Interesting understanding of the philosophy of science
> you have here.
Less than the selective use of science Christians do. Like, how do we
know there's been climate change before if it isn't mentioned in the
Bible?
>
>> we find many Atheists who do not believe in Global Warming.
>
> Actually, it seems that envirofundamentalists have
> just replaced one for of apocalyptic faith for another
> one. Â It's always the end of the world, and the sinners
> (in their SUVs) are to blame. Â What would Jesus
> drive? Â A Panzer V.
This is based on CAUSE AND EFFECT (the garbage you put in is the
garbage you get), not the insignificant act of eating the forbidden
fruit.
>
>> If they do
>> is because they are trying to blend in with the sheep. ;)
>
> Not a single True Scotsman.
Wasn't the cloned sheep from Scotland?
