On Sep 11, 3:19Â pm, ComandanteBanana
yahoo.com>
wrote:> 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,
It's faith-based environmentalism.
> I don't think we should run the world based on ignorance.
So does that mean that you oppose scientifically
illiterat leftards making hysterical claims based
on their own misapprehension of AGW in the
press?
> However I believe it should the PRIORITY #1 of the world. Not the
> world against terror, exploring Mars, etc.
"Belief" is the key word in the above.
>>> 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).
Yes, of course you don't. I don't think those
exact numbers exist. Where is that poll?
You want to give a link? Or is this another
faith-based foregone conclusion?
>>> 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.
Again, your lack of any commitment to empiricism
is daunting. Also, it makes no difference who the
skeptics are. The only question is, who has the
more scientific attitude: the skeptics or the true
believers.
>>> 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.
Actually, Hume observed a while back that Ought
is orthogonal to Is. Never the twain shall meet.
Normative Oughts are always metaphysical. I
guess it all depends on what you definition of
"religion" is. But belief systems are at the root
of all ethics and morality. Maybe you just don't
want your belief system to be tainted by the epithet
"religion."
>>> 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. ;)
In environmentalist circles, She is called Gaia.
>>> 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.
Did I make any comparison to the idea of God?
Actually, though, it is about equally as faith-based
as the God conjecture.
>>> 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?
Now, you seem to be operating under the faith-based
premise that I am an Xtian instead of an atheist.
>>> 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.
Well, Xtians have their own version of CAUSE AND
EFFECT. The problem is that the outcome of even
a deterministic chaotic system does not lend itself
to prediction through simplification. Hence software
climate models really are like Ouija boards. You can't
assume they are accurate unless your faith is strong.
>>> 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?
And Allah will smite all the Scots for their
vanity, until there are no True Scotsmen
left. For only Allah is allowed to mess with
sheep's reproduction that way. And She is
a jealous god.
