# Where do religious folk who are climate deniers reconcile this?



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).

Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


----------



## Rambunctious (Oct 5, 2019)

Peer reviewed computer modeling...suspect to many....we believe a God powerful enough to create us this planet and the universe would not make it so easy to destroy...a few hundred years of us and the world can't take it?...the whole idea is laughable at best that us puny humans can save the planet if we all change the way we live...the way they tell us to live....no thanks I need more than a computer model to do that....


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 5, 2019)

Rambunctious said:


> Peer reviewed computer modeling...suspect to many....we believe a God powerful enough to create us this planet and the universe would not make it so easy to destroy...a few hundred years of us and the world can't take it?...the whole idea is laughable at best that us puny humans can save the planet if we all change the way we live...the way they tell us to live....no thanks I need more than a computer model to do that....



If it's laughable that man could destroy the world after just a few hundred years, why do you think he caused a flood to kill everybody and everything except just a few people and animals? How many hundred years do you think it was between what you think was the creation, and what you think was a world wide flood?


----------



## peach174 (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...



You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.

Through faith you will.


----------



## Thunk (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling



By definition..."peer-reviewed" is NOT science! 

Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat. 

Science is PROVABLE! You create a valid test and every time you run it, you get the same results...if somebody else runs the exact same test...THEY get the same results...THAT is science! 

Not to mention...why wont they tell me what their evidence is? 

I keep hearing how all scientists agree...the science is settled...the argument is over...and yet they wont even tell me the nature of their so called "science". 

Phooey on that!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


Many skeptics do not deny the greenhouse effect. They object to how the issue is politicized and hyperbolized in order to reach a desired political and social effect desired by the IPCC and it's daddy, the UN itself. It's all a question of degree being claimed by NGOs and governmental entities.

And I would say, and many respected physicists and other scientists, would consider all of the cosmos as real tangible proof of God.


----------



## RodISHI (Oct 5, 2019)

Many articles on Orbital Climate Change if one takes the times to look.

How do the Milankovitch cycles affect climate change? | Socratic

www.duncansteel.com › wp-content › uploads › 2014/09 › EOaCCC
[PDF] *Earth's Orbit and Contemporary Climate Change - Duncan Steel*
Contrary to the supposition of many, apsidal precession _occurs_ quite quickly, shifting ... is the fact that _perihelion_, in its 21,000-year precession cycle, was _aligned_ ... the same day-of-year on the preceding orbit, and _so_ the solar power to the ... globally-averaged temperature, the effect of _Earth's_ shifting orbital _axis_ is greater in.



2 Kings Chapter 20
 20:8
And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What _shall be_ the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?
20:9
And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?
20:10
And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 5, 2019)

Climate denier?
What a retarded description of someone.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 5, 2019)

Thunk said:


> By definition..."peer-reviewed" is NOT science!
> 
> Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat.
> 
> ...


Agreed. "Peer reviewed" means a group of scientist all agree something is "right" but that isn't the same as proving scientifically a theory is actually demonstrably true. The flat earth example and an earth-centric "solar" system are good examples of peer reviewed so called science.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...



Life itself is proof God exists.  Science cannot explain the creation of life from lifeless elements.  Scientists have absolutely no clue how to create even the simplest life form artificially, much less explain how it would be created in nature.

Climate change has been going on since long before humans were around.  Do humans have a negative impact on the environment?  Yes.

Does that mean I am going to buy into a bunch of Marxist garbage in a supposed attempt to “fix” the environment?  No.


----------



## Thunk (Oct 5, 2019)

Even if man made climate change was real...there ain't jack we could do about it (short of mass suicide). 

Stop using coal, oil, and nat-gas?  Well then we'd have no food...hell there wouldn't be a single item in any store. No heat or AC...no way to cook unless we cut down trees (GASP)! 

No running water if we didn't pump it up into the water towers...and guess what those pumps run on?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

theHawk said:


> Life itself is proof God exists.  Science cannot explain the creation of life from lifeless elements.  Scientists have absolutely no clue how to create even the simplest life form artificially, much less explain how it would be created in nature.
> 
> Climate change has been going on since long before humans were around.  Do humans have a negative impact on the environment?  Yes.
> 
> Does that mean I am going to buy into a bunch of Marxist garbage in a supposed attempt to “fix” the environment?  No.



Yeah, there does seem to be this train of thought that all these scientists are after money. What a load of phooey. Anybody who thinks that doesn't know scientists.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

peach174 said:


> You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.
> 
> Through faith you will.



Exactly. Faith. And it just so happens if you are born in Israel, your God is the only one. If you are born in Saudi Arabia, allah is the one and Mohammad the prophet. And if you are born in the Bible Belt Jesus is the one yadda, yadda yadda. You do realise a lot - and I mean an absolute shitload - of allegories surrounding Christianity for example such as the virgin birth and turning water in wine etc - are from other religions preceding Christianity. You do know that right?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

Thunk said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling
> ...


Fair enough. Take out peer-reviewed and just leave modelling. Plenty of examples of modelling having proven to be working.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 5, 2019)

The 'climate' always changes.  'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.   Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible.  Sounds like a religion to me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> ...



Interesting POV. I don't think it is the climate scientists who have politicised it. It is the rabid right in the US that has. They think it is some sort of conspiracy theory from the UN etc, which is laughable.

The cosmos is not tangible proof of a god at all. I know a shitload of scientists.  A couple are muslims and christians. Vast majority are atheists. I find it inexplicable that those with a religious bent can't believe scientific reasons for the evolution of the cosmos, but when you apply the same principles to 'where did god come from', the answer is 'he's always been there'. I can't think of a bigger cop out than that.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> The 'climate' always changes.  'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.   Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible.  Sounds like a religion to me.



You make fair points. To counter them though I would make these points:
1) Those that know that man made climate change is happening have never denied that the Earth's climate changes over time with or without the help of man. In fact, almost all scientists agree it does. What concerns them, is the pace it is happening is not within norms.
2) When different scientists model climate change in different parts of the world and come to similar conclusions then I think it pertinent to listen.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Interesting POV. I don't think it is the climate scientists who have politicised it. It is the rabid right in the US that has. They think it is some sort of conspiracy theory from the UN etc, which is laughable.


Well you can believe the IPCC and all their revolving predictions of doom or you can try to find a reputable climatologist who will back their Chicken Little propaganda (millions will die, NY under ten feet of water, polar bear become extinct, etc.)
I find that Bjorn Lomborg strikes a happy medium, more or less. Bjørn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune



> The cosmos is not tangible proof of a god at all.


A guy named Albert Einstein disagrees and
and a more modern voice,  physicist Michio Kaku, echos much of what Einstein said (not that they are the only two voices).
World Famous Physicist Says He’s ‘Found Evidence That God Exists’
If you believe nothing is without a source it's only common sense.




> I know a shitload of scientists. A couple are muslims and christians. Vast majority are atheists. I find it inexplicable that those with a religious bent can't believe scientific reasons for the evolution of the cosmos, but when you apply the same principles to 'where did god come from', the answer is 'he's always been there'. I can't think of a bigger cop out than that.


Obviously God is not constrained by what governs and accounts for the rest of the universe and is outside your ability to understand.
It's very difficult to conceive of a being like God. It's even more difficult to believe the universe, all the billions of stars, planets, etc and the laws that governs it all,  just happens to exist...like a Sears washing machine that just happens to sit on the backside of Mars.


----------



## Leo123 (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > The 'climate' always changes.  'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.   Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible.  Sounds like a religion to me.
> ...



When it comes to Earth's climate, we really don't know the 'norms' because there is no measuring stick provided that monitors the whole Earth.  Only humans establish climate 'norms' based on an inadequate population of data that is enhanced by human-created climate models.

The 'models' are human created and therefore are biased toward human activity.  The extent to which humans can affect the Earth's climate is unknowable. 

Climate around the world should be monitored completely objectively without the presumption that humans are affecting it.  That way we can perhaps at least try to predict the worst climate changes which would be ice ages or an expanding Sun.

We are just starting to study the climates of other planets which can give us some insight as well.


----------



## 22lcidw (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > The 'climate' always changes.  'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.   Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible.  Sounds like a religion to me.
> ...


Most of those scientists do not get their degrees and jobs without climbing aboard the Prog Socialist Globalist agendas. And most pollution is separate from any climate change/cooling/warming/ or whatever is made up next to blame humans for it if it exists at all.


----------



## Thunk (Oct 5, 2019)

What is the solution to climate change? 

What do the politicians pushing climate change want to do to combat it? 

If you don't know I will tell you...they want to tax the living shit out of us by taxing all forms of energy (even higher than they're already taxed). 

So how will that solve the problem??? 

It wont...but it will sure make those politicians richer!


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...







Modeling is not data.  Non scientists can't seem to understand this simple fact.

Computer models are FICTION.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> . It's even more difficult to believe the universe, all the billions of stars, planets, etc and the laws that governs it all,  just happens to exist...like a Sears washing machine that just happens to sit on the backside of Mars.



Really? No, i find it much more difficult to believe some omnipotent being went 'abracadabra'. Especially when said being is made from several other previous religions. Plus I find it strange that the vast majorities of believers of any god in particular happen to be born in a particular place where they have been taught by their forebears that their particular incarnation is the 'true' one god etc etc.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Modeling is not data.  Non scientists can't seem to understand this simple fact.
> 
> Computer models are FICTION.



And yet time and time again (not talking climate change in particular here) scientists model certain things and say "in five years time such and such will happen if this, this and this occurs." And lo and behold, it happens. Accidental maybe? Lucky?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 5, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> [
> 2) When different scientists model climate change in different parts of the world and come to similar conclusions then I think it pertinent to listen.


Most of those scientists do not get their degrees and jobs without climbing aboard the Prog Socialist Globalist agendas.[/QUOTE]

I think there is a conspiracy theory section on this board somewhere. Please keep you comments to those threads. Ta


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2019)

Sounds more like AGW alarmist extremists who rely on propaganda in lieu of objective scientific observation tend to be mostly atheistic in keeping with Marxism.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...




Not really into switching religion  
I was born Christian I'll die a Christian 

Watermelons cult of con artists......no thanks


----------



## 22lcidw (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I think there is a conspiracy theory section on this board somewhere. Please keep you comments to those threads. Ta[/QUOTE]
It still is the truth. Now lets pray that the Chinese get to the moon before our Prog socialist nasa does.


----------



## satrebil (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...



I'll give you several reasons why climate change is complete and utter bullshit. 

1) According to your "science" the last ice age ended approximately 15,000 years ago. What ended it, smartass? Humans and their campfires? Or was it the natural progression of our planet's climate cycle?

2) Carbon taxes. Your climate change proponents rant, rave, and froth at the mouth about climate change, yet at the same time unite strongly behind carbon credits, which is essentially a government permission slip stating "yeah, you make a lot of pollution, but if you pay us enough money we'll let you do it anyways." Liars. 

3) Coastal property. Throughout the entire world, coastal property is being developed like mad. Tell me something, genius... if the oceans are going to rise and the coasts are going to be wiped out - who the FUCK would finance this? You really expect me to believe that banks would front untold billions of dollars in the face of a GUARANTEE that it's going to be wiped out in a decade's time? Moreover: Insurance companies - one of the most cutthroat & profit driven industries on the planet. In 2008, in my locale, there was a *500* year flood. The river swelled and wiped out a bunch of houses, something that has never happened in my towns 150+ year history, causing insurance companies to pay through the nose. Beautiful, high end, $400,000+ upper middle class homes. Guess what happened? Even on a *FIVE HUNDRED YEAR FUCKING FLOOD* they won't insure these properties under standard homeowners insurance anymore, *nor will the banks finance them. *If you want to sell one of these homes now you need a cash buyer who's willing to pay an exorbitant premium for flood insurance. Yet you would have me believe these same insurance companies, who spend millions of dollars investigating their investments, are going to insure multi-billion coastal dollar developments that are assured to be destroyed before the policy nets them a profit? 

And if #3 is not proof enough for you, then ask yourself why the Obama's - climate change 'champions' that they were - just bought a $15 million mansion on a fucking island in Martha's vineyard that's a mere *3* *FUCKING FEET* above sea level: What is my elevation?

This is what is called common sense. If you pulled your head out of Rachel Maddow's ass for 2 seconds, it might just click to you.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


My cousin through marriage is an Ecological Engineer.
Climate Change is real and will be perceived by humans in the US within the next 500 years.
It won't affect us but will be perceived.
Now stick it up your ass.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Sounds more like AGW alarmist extremists who rely on propaganda in lieu of objective scientific observation tend to be mostly atheistic in keeping with Marxism.



more conspiracy shit, nothing to back it up..


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Indeependent said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> ...



????


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

satrebil said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> ...



1) I reiterate YET again. Nobody is saying that the earth doesn't go through warming and ice ages. Everybody on both sides agree it does. What those that know what damage man made climate change is doing to the planet know, is that it is happening at an alarmingly faster rate than has naturally occurred before.

2) Those carbon credits are trying to get people to reduce their emissions. If they do, then the less they pay. Sounds good to me. And lookie, it reduces the pollution in the air. Only a complete whackjob would not be happy about that.

3) No, I don't think those companies will insure those houses.
Climate change could slash $571b from property values, study warns

oh, and an FYI, I never once seen a programme with Rachel Maddow in it. Seen the odd sound bite but know little about her other than she seems to cause neocon whackadoodles to go into meltdown, which suggests she's pretty intelligent.


----------



## satrebil (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.
> ...



Gosh, I sure do love it when the atheists try to tell us what our religious texts REALLY say. Read closely, dumbfuck, because I'm about to educate your stupid ass: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are *ALL* what are called Abrahamic religions, and *ALL* have the same God - whether he's referred to as God, Allah, or Yahweh. 

But here's the differences, and clearly what you *DON'T* know:

1) You bring up Israel. Most Jews do not believe in Christ - aka *CHRIST*ianity. Of the entire world population of Jews (estimated at 14.5 million) only about 350,000 are "Messianic Jews" who could be considered 'Christians'. (Messianic Jews – Facts & Truth about Israel) If you had the foggiest fucking clue what you were talking about, you might know that it was Jews who killed Christ by labeling him a false Messiah, thereby typically positioning Christianity and Judaism at odds with eachother. 
2) In Islam Jesus is considered a prophet as opposed to the Son of God, and therefore a minor figure in the grand scheme of Abrahamic religion. Islam is definitively *NOT* Christian. 
3) In Christianity, which encompasses Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Protestants, and a host of other smaller sects - Christ _*is*_ the Son of God and divine in his own right. 

Next time you decide to go off on an anti-religious tirade try knowing what the fuck you're talking about first.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> Climate denier?
> What a retarded description of someone.



What they really mean to say is 'climate heretic'.

They're getting the stakes ready.


----------



## Indeependent (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


In about 100 years, NYC's temps will go from (-5 to 95) to (0 to 100)...how brutal.
And that presumes that production of end use materials doesn't use even less energy that it currently takes to produce a bag, carton or plastic container.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

satrebil said:


> you might know that it was Jews who killed Christ



But we got off on a technicality.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

satrebil said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



FFS. You totally missed my point. And you have taught be nothing I didn't already know. Jaysus....


----------



## satrebil (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



1) Bullshit. Tell me, brainlet, what was the temperature in your locale on 10/6 in the year 1316? How about 6589 BC? Oh... you don't know? Then shut the fuck up. You don't have a goddamn clue what "man made climate change" is doing because there's not enough recorded data to tell you one way or the other. At BEST we've only been recording it for 200 years, which is but an infentismal spec in the grand scheme of things. 

2) Let me know when those "carbon credits" apply to China or India who are not subject to nor give a fuck about our feel good nonsense. 

3) What you 'believe' is irrelevant. The developments are happening. Local Perspective

And you failed to answer why the Obama's bought a $15 million mansion 3 feet above sea level. Do explain.


----------



## DOTR (Oct 6, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> Climate denier?
> What a retarded description of someone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Cite models that show the dire predictions made about catastrophe just a few years ahead...... Cite the Models that show the sea rise in 100 years and then explain why they can not get one right for 10 years but we should believe the 100 year model..... Cite the model that show runaway heat in 100 years then explain how they can not even predict what the heat will be world wide in 10 years and explain why we should believe the models. Better yet just cite the model where scientists can plug in the KNOWN temperatures and conditions for say the last 20 years and then show that computer model can model the world wide global conditions over that period using the claims they say are settled.


----------



## satrebil (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



I missed nothing. You tried equating the world's major religions and I kicked your ass and handed it to you. You didn't even know that "God" is one and the same to most all of us. Better luck next time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > The 'climate' always changes.  'Climate Change' is nothing but a term that can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.   Talk about faith, 'Climate Change' advocates also operate on faith that climate models (created by humans) are infallible.  Sounds like a religion to me.
> ...


Go back to 1900 and cite for us the prediction of how much the earth would warm. Then show us that in 2000 that was WAY off.


----------



## DOTR (Oct 6, 2019)




----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds more like AGW alarmist extremists who rely on propaganda in lieu of objective scientific observation tend to be mostly atheistic in keeping with Marxism.
> ...


Conspiracy? You mean AGW alarmism? You can’t define a non-existent.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Life itself is proof God exists.  Science cannot explain the creation of life from lifeless elements.  Scientists have absolutely no clue how to create even the simplest life form artificially, much less explain how it would be created in nature.
> ...



Really,

Pray tell....tell us what we should know.

I work with many of them.

They live in the clouds.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


Well There is physical evidence that the Bible is accurate. But there is a dark sinister being that is preventing the truth from coming out.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Modeling is not data.  Non scientists can't seem to understand this simple fact.
> ...







And they are always wrong.  Go figure.  Read any climatology "study" and they will say "we used a simple model"..

So, how good is that simple model?  Let us compare those simple models with the most complex models on the planet.  Namely computational fluid dynamics models as used in Formula 1 racing.

They cost tens of millions of dollars to buy, and cost millions to operate.   They are working with very few variables.  They are designing new aerodynamic parts for the race cars 24/7, and they design thousands of parts every week.

Out of all of those parts two or three warrant manufacture and testing in a wind tunnel.  Of those tested parts one in 1000 actually gives a benefit.  That is a success rate far below 1%.

So you think that a simple model, run by grad students is going to give you meaningful information?

Get real.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...




No, they don't use modeling methods that work...since they can't reproduce even past climate changes......but do go on......

No...it is science...the science does not support man made global warming.......the models are flawed...the old, garbage in, garbage out issue......


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> > By definition..."peer-reviewed" is NOT science!
> ...




Remember when Red Meat was bad for you?   Or eggs........or coffee....... they can't even come to a consensus on that.....with the limited factors they have to deal with with Red Meat and human biology.....


----------



## Pilot1 (Oct 6, 2019)

The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want.  It is an income and wealth redistribution hoax and scam.  When people tell me the "debate is over, and "the science is settled" it becomes OBVIOUS.  

Science is NEVER settled, and they don't want debate because they are hiding lies and a hoax.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want.  It is an income and wealth redistribution hoax and scam.  When people tell me the "debate is over, and "the science is settled" it becomes OBVIOUS.
> 
> Science is NEVER settled, and they don't want debate because they are hiding lies and a hoax.




I'll start to get interested when the high priests of the man made global warming religion stop buying mansions on the coast, give up their private jets, and start driving smart cars...as their only automobiles......not their 30th kept next to all of their gas guzzlers..........


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Thunk said:


> Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat.


Another deplorable shows his scientific and historical illiteracy.

_*We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years*

We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years

Long before anyone circumnavigated the globe or went into space, the ancient Greeks had figured out that the Earth is ball-shaped, rather than flat_​


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

westwall said:


> And they are always wrong. Go figure. Read any climatology "study" and they will say "we used a simple model"..


How small a strawman do you need to build in order to defeat it? Note that observed global temperatures are in the predicted range.






_Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25b with the HadCRUT4.6 global temperature time-series and uncertainty (black). The CMIP5 model projections are shown relative to 1986-2005 (light grey) and 2006-2012 (dark grey). The red hatching is the IPCC AR5 indicative likely range for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period, with the black bar being the assessed 2016-2035 average. The blue lines represent other observational datasets (Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST). The green axis shows temperatures relative to 1850-1900 (early-industrial period)._
Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And they are always wrong. Go figure. Read any climatology "study" and they will say "we used a simple model"..
> ...




Yeah....sell it to left wingers...they are dumb enough to believe you....


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want.


Dead right. It's a global scam adhered to by nearly every government and scientific agency on earth merely in order to get rightard yanks to pay for climate scientists' lunch. They'd like sushi.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

Where I live, the average temperature goes from below freezing in Jan to a hundred in July.

Not in 50 years, but in six months... and, somehow, we've been able to survive as a community for nearly 200 years.






I'm not sure anyone is going to notice another degree in a human lifetime.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > The man made climate change alarmists use flawed and corrupted science to get the outcomes and conclusions THEY want.
> ...




Of course you stupid moron, they are in it for the POWER.

Just how stupid are you?


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

westwall said:


> Of course you stupid moron, they are in it for the POWER.


They'd like sushi, thanks. And they'd like you to tip the server as well.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Where I live, the average temperature goes from below freezing in Jan to a hundred in July.
> 
> Not in 50 years, but in six months... and, somehow, we've been able to survive as a community for nearly 200 years.
> 
> ...


Won't be noticeable...


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Where I live, the average temperature goes from below freezing in Jan to a hundred in July.
> ...



Trying to grow cows without grass and water?  Did he learn ranching at Berkeley?


----------



## SweetSue92 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...



I'm so stung by your moniker of climate denier that I am unable to process this post

Just kidding I laughed out loud. I'm being honest. Right out loud


----------



## SweetSue92 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.
> ...



WHOA....wait a minute, this is groundbreaking.

I never heard that. Anyone else ever heard that???

Dang. I might have to rethink the entire thing

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

I don't notice a thing here.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Trying to grow cows without grass and water?


He didn't notice it was gone.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> I don't notice a thing here.



From Israel to China ... deserts are turning into gardens ...


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Trying to grow cows without grass and water?
> ...



That's a pretty stupid farmer?  Was he taking instructions from the government?


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


I'm an atheist.

Us reasonable and rational people think the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis is unsupported by any compelling scientific evidence presented by even it's most vocal proponents.

It's just another typical doomsday cult scam.

The world will end in a cataclysmic doomsday catastrophe if you don't give me money.    


So fuck off. I'm not buying it.

Why do you?


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> That's a pretty stupid farmer?


What was there to notice?


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> From Israel to China ... deserts are turning into gardens ...


That's still a desert. Even I can notice that.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > From Israel to China ... deserts are turning into gardens ...
> ...



A desert where people aren't dying ... imagine that.  People are growing food and gardens in places where it's warm.

There might be hope for our species after all.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> I'm an atheist.


And a conservative?


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> A desert where people aren't dying ... imagine that. People are growing food and gardens in places where it's warm.


Depends on where they can steal water from. But if you want to pretend that a 1 °C rise in global temperature is not noticeable, who am I to interfere with your religion.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an atheist.
> ...



Is your perception of the world really that myopic and narrow?  That would explain a lot.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > A desert where people aren't dying ... imagine that. People are growing food and gardens in places where it's warm.
> ...



So, it's your assertion that a one degree change in temperature will cause all water and grass to disappear?  And you're accusing _*me *_of being dogmatic?

Please tell me you aren't asking to be taken seriously.


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an atheist.
> ...


No. I'm very liberal.


----------



## jknowgood (Oct 6, 2019)

Flagellum, body cannot live without it, shaped like a cross and cannot be. Just created.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...



Lol....you present this as if there are a handful of "deniers". Most people are deniers you dope....doy....the public has known about the 97% for a decade. Voters dont give a shit!!

Most climate crusaders are matrix dwellers who fail to properly assess the landscape. The science doesnt matter for dick unless it transcends it's own field. It doesnt.....which obviously makes the majority deniers by definition. Duh 

Climate change action is not at all on congress' radar. For 20 years now.....doesnt have to be. The voters dont care!!

Ive watched the bobblehead climate nutters ramble on and on and on and on about " the science" for 10 years in here! Hasnt moved the football a single yard on climate change action. And they still take bows in front of their billboard!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed computer modeling...suspect to many....we believe a God powerful enough to create us this planet and the universe would not make it so easy to destroy...a few hundred years of us and the world can't take it?...the whole idea is laughable at best that us puny humans can save the planet if we all change the way we live...the way they tell us to live....no thanks I need more than a computer model to do that....
> ...



Well s0n.....best get started building that emergency ark! Post up some pics when you finish so we can help name it.....something like....

*SS I'm So Hysterical*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.
> ...




Exactly  faith that's why AGW is a cult/religion, you have to have faith in no data.


.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Really? No, i find it much more difficult to believe some omnipotent being went 'abracadabra'. Especially when said being is made from several other previous religions. Plus I find it strange that the vast majorities of believers of any god in particular happen to be born in a particular place where they have been taught by their forebears that their particular incarnation is the 'true' one god etc etc.


That's all you laying your preconceived notions and cultural biases on God. Religion is man's doings. Nature is God's.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet time and time again (not talking climate change in particular here) scientists model certain things and say "in five years time such and such will happen if this, this and this occurs." And lo and behold, it happens. Accidental maybe? Lucky?


Your anecdotal tales don't contain much fact in them. In fact, there is none.
If we put any faith in computer generated models we would have evacuated the coastlines years ago waiting for the rising ocean levels that were predicted to inundate them.

The polar bear population is growing when they were predicted to become extinct.


One of the world's great advocates of global warming theory recently bought a big fancy mansion in Cape Cod sitting right on the ocean. He apparently doesn't think his home will be underwater in a matter of a few years, or anytime, really..


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2019)

What you have in this thread are:

1) People who tend to the hysterical.

2) People who do not tend to the hysterical

In the real world, far less people tend to the hysterical which is precisely why there has been no climate action.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Life itself is proof God exists.  Science cannot explain the creation of life from lifeless elements.  Scientists have absolutely no clue how to create even the simplest life form artificially, much less explain how it would be created in nature.
> ...




You dont have a clue, their is a few threads on grant money already, you have so called scientists in unrelated fields signing a piece of paper and getting grant money.


.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you stupid moron, they are in it for the POWER.
> ...







Take a look at the green new deal.  It returns the general population to serfdom.  We don't get to have cars, no homes, just small apartments,  mo international travel etc. Etc 

The ruling elite though, they get all of that with no problem. 

You need to wake up.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > You will never get the experience to know that there really is a God if you only go looking for evidence.
> ...



Yes all of them are based on one creator.
If you accept him you will find him, no matter how you honor him.

Yes to the 2nd part I do know about that.
Did you know the Hebrew's blood line dates back to Adam and Eve?
All of the preceding religions are substitutes from Adam and Eves God, the creator.
They turned away and worshiped paganism, a false religion which took many of Adam and Eves offspring to turn away from the creator.
They used the teachings of Adam and Eve's original teachings of how to worship of the creator and then they incorporated it into their own distortions of pagan worship.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 6, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...



Cute remark, but it doesn't answer the question, does it?


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > From Israel to China ... deserts are turning into gardens ...
> ...






It's only been a few years!


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Your question doesn't merit a response


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 6, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


What is your question?


----------



## Death Angel (Oct 6, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Peer reviewed computer modeling...suspect to many....we believe a God powerful enough to create us this planet and the universe would not make it so easy to destroy...a few hundred years of us and the world can't take it?...the whole idea is laughable at best that us puny humans can save the planet if we all change the way we live...the way they tell us to live....no thanks I need more than a computer model to do that....
> ...


Why is that question so important to you? There are timestamps in the bible that answer the question. You reject it anyway, but the time was about 1,500 years.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 6, 2019)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



That's fine. In your case, the answer probably wouldn't merit reading anyway.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 6, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Post #3


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 6, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...



It was a response to #2


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...




Religious people do not deny climate change.
They know about why it's happing in the Bible.
Hint: It is not about fossil fuels.
It's about the world turning from God and becoming lawless.
But no one wants to hear or believe that.
Same thing happened when Noah warned them about the flood.
They would not believe it until it was too late.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> ...



The greed involved in the fossil fuel industry caused us, for one nation, to abandon building fuel efficient or electronic transportation and this is what has caused climate change. Greed is ungodly and the manner in which nations have put in lawless governments to control the resources increased the godless behavior. And now we face the penalty.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

satrebil said:


> I missed nothing. You tried equating the world's major religions and I kicked your ass and handed it to you. You didn't even know that "God" is one and the same to most all of us. Better luck next time.



I know all three are Abrahamic tenets. And all three see themselves as different. If they didn't they'd see themselves as the same. They don't you moron,...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...



Was it being discussed in 1900?


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


Lol
It’s the Christian thing you would not understand


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > I missed nothing. You tried equating the world's major religions and I kicked your ass and handed it to you. You didn't even know that "God" is one and the same to most all of us. Better luck next time.
> ...


There is but one creator and he is called many different names.


----------



## daveman (Oct 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > Climate denier?
> ...


*Professor calls for execution of “climate change deniers”*


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Belief in man made global warming is pure arrogance... fact


----------



## whitehall (Oct 6, 2019)

Proof that "climate change" is a religion to the radical left.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> That's all you laying your preconceived notions and cultural biases on God. Religion is man's doings. Nature is God's.



nature is nature's. There is no such thing as god.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Lol....you present this as if there are a handful of "deniers". Most people are deniers you dope....doy....the public has known about the 97% for a decade. Voters dont give a shit!!
> 
> Most climate crusaders are matrix dwellers who fail to properly assess the landscape. The science doesnt matter for dick unless it transcends it's own field. It doesnt.....which obviously makes the majority deniers by definition. Duh
> 
> ...




Do you believe in god?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > satrebil said:
> ...



I don't think of the universe as a creator. It just is...


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> > Before columbus it was "peer-reviewed science" that the earth was flat.
> ...


And you nutters think you chose your own gender... lol


----------



## Death Angel (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Lol....you present this as if there are a handful of "deniers". Most people are deniers you dope....doy....the public has known about the 97% for a decade. Voters dont give a shit!!
> ...


Did you mean to axe if he believes in God?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Belief in man made global warming is pure arrogance... fact



And yet scientific modelling PROVES otherwise.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



??? Axe?? What does that mean??


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



What nation had abandoned fuel efficiency?
Not the USA
We are merging and cooperating with natural gas, cleaner burning coal, wind and solar.

Energy.gov
Today, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the selection of 35 projects totaling $73 million for bioenergy research and development (R&D). Funded through the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, these projects will help reduce the price of drop-in biofuels, lower the cost of biopower, and enable high-value products from biomass or waste resources.


DOE Announces Intent to Issue New Funding Opportunity for Tribal Energy Infrastructure Development
there are more listed and these are just the recent ones .


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Yes all of them are based on one creator.
> If you accept him you will find him, no matter how you honor him.
> 
> Yes to the 2nd part I do know about that.
> ...




They're great stories, but there is no proof of God.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Belief in man made global warming is pure arrogance... fact
> ...


Lol
There is climate change, it’s just not man-made… Fact


----------



## daveman (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Belief in man made global warming is pure arrogance... fact
> ...


You mean the models written by people with a vested interest in "proving" a certain predetermined conclusion?

What, exactly, do you suppose they prove?


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


Political correctness makes people fucking retarded


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Rustic said:


> There is climate change, it’s just not man-made… Fact



Much more knowledgeable people than you disagree. I'll go with those who actually study it as opposed to some neocon denier on a messageboard. Thanks for your input on the thread though....


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

daveman said:


> You mean the models written by people with a vested interest in "proving" a certain predetermined conclusion?
> 
> What, exactly, do you suppose they prove?



Yeah, it's a massive conspiracy theory by all those scientists all over the world. They just happened to come to the same conclusions.

Do you believe in a god? Any god?


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes all of them are based on one creator.
> ...



There is when you accept him.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Political correctness makes people fucking retarded



Nope. In my experience the fucking retards just vote for Trump, deny man made climate change, usually believe in a god, think Obama is Muslim and was born in kenya....I could go on.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There is climate change, it’s just not man-made… Fact
> ...


Like these?








Shut the fuck up… LOL


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> There is when you accept him.



yeah, well when you and I bite the dust one of us is going to be disappointed. I doubt it'll be me...


----------



## daveman (Oct 6, 2019)

Remember, kids, atheists are smarter than all these people.

You don't even have to ask them.  The atheists will tell you.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Political correctness makes people fucking retarded
> ...


Lol
Political correctness has made you fucking retarded, when will you understand that “hope and change” was a load of shit believed only by fucking retards like yourself?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

daveman said:


> Remember, kids, atheists are smarter than all these people.
> 
> You don't even have to ask them.  The atheists will tell you.



Being smarter than most of the neocon Trump lovers on this board isn't exactly hard....


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> nature is nature's. There is no such thing as god.


Your opinion is noted. I wonder where your proof is, however.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Political correctness has made you fucking retarded, when will you understand that “hope and change” was a load of shit believed only by fucking retards like yourself?



I'm not a huge fan of Obama's. Thought he was an average president. Was too indecisive a lot of the time. In saying that he's a 1000 times better than the pathetic fat pig in the WH at the moment. Which doesn't say much about US politics at the moment.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > nature is nature's. There is no such thing as god.
> ...



Well using you man-made climate deniers supposed standards, where's the empirical evidence of a god. No opinion involved. Fact - there is no proof of god's existence. Just belief....which is fine.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Political correctness makes people fucking retarded
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Political correctness has made you fucking retarded, when will you understand that “hope and change” was a load of shit believed only by fucking retards like yourself?
> ...


Lol
There would be no Trump if there was no Obama… karma a bitch


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Oct 6, 2019)

Man Made Global Warming is actually man made mass hysteria designed to empower corrupt left wing politicians


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> So, it's your assertion that a one degree change in temperature will cause all water and grass to disappear? And you're accusing _*me *_of being dogmatic?


No, I accuse you of misrepresenting my position.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Man Made Global Warming is actually man made mass hysteria designed to empower corrupt left wing politicians


Lol
Just like gun control and healthcare, this climate change bullshit is all about control, it’s just another way to grab power by socialists/fascists...


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

westwall said:


> Take a look at the green new deal.


As though a political scheme is reason to deny that observed temperature increases have stayed within predicted range.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at the green new deal.
> ...


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



We started working on electric cars in the 70's due to the embargo but stopped. No doubt this was due to the  oil lobby. So we could have had battery powered cars 25-30 years ago or at least hybrids.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > There is when you accept him.
> ...



I know for a fact that it won't be me.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes all of them are based on one creator.
> ...



There is plenty of proof. It's called planet earth.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

daveman said:


> Remember, kids, atheists are smarter than all these people.
> 
> You don't even have to ask them. The atheists will tell you.


I will cast my lot with Newton, Einstein, George Washington Carver, Michio Kaku and their like.
There is a reason why Communist authoritarian societies made Christianity, and other religions, if not illegal then certainly strongly discouraged.
Intolerant, full of hubris, smugly superior. It's what atheists have in common with other authoritarians.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



no you don't.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Intolerant, full of hubris, smugly superior.



Sounds like every religious person I've come across in my life...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> There is plenty of proof. It's called planet earth.



As proof of a god?? Um, no. There is no verifiable proof that a god created the Earth. Only belief/faith...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Intolerant, full of hubris, smugly superior.
> ...




Yeah we know those atheists, the new religion. 

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > There is plenty of proof. It's called planet earth.
> ...



It's more then faith and belief.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > There is when you accept him.
> ...



I don't support Trump but I do believe in God. If things go your way, we're just gone and that's it. But if things are as we believe, you have serious problems. And since none of us has died and came back to tell us what it is like, it's probably not wise to be so sure of what's going to happen.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...




This President is keeping his promise of doing it all in order to find even better cheaper energy efficient fuels.
I love that he got rid of Bush's stupid ,(more pollution with mercury)energy efficient light bulbs. 
I hate those bulbs.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

bear513 said:


> [
> Yeah we know those atheists, the new religion.
> 
> .



Atheism is not a religion


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Hell yes it is.


.


----------



## 22lcidw (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


The next logical step after gasoline powered engines was hybrids. But the powers that be went to electric also. If we vested our energy on hybrids they would be most of the autos sold today. Also I really do not trust the system as W. Bush pushed hydrogen powered vehicles and as soon as the Progs took over they nixed it. I wonder what lobby did that with the Progs in charge?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> I don't support Trump but I do believe in God. If things go your way, we're just gone and that's it. But if things are as we believe, you have serious problems. And since none of us has died and came back to tell us what it is like, it's probably not wise to be so sure of what's going to happen.



Fair enough. Each to his/her own


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



If you believe in God, you reject Donald Trump.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Hell yes it is.



you guys crack me up. You think you get to decide what is what. You're like those guys that try and sell chicken bacon, or the vegan shop near where I live sells 'chicken' sandwiches. I asked them if it was real chicken (I was being facetious) and they said 'no, it tastes like chicken'. Then I said, 'well it ain't chicken then is it?'. They just looked at me. I know you are Trump lover, and he is the inventor of fake news, but you don't get to call something a religion just because you feel it is. There are no churches, no meetings, no discussion of doctrine, and there sure as shit no tax breaks. So, no, there in no religion called atheism.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Yeah we know those atheists, the new religion.


It's an unreasoning, absolute belief in non belief. Forgive them, they know not what they believe in.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah we know those atheists, the new religion.
> ...



um actually we do. We don't believe in a god


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Sounds like every religious person I've come across in my life...


Then you should know you are absolutely no better or different than the people you choose to demonize.
Isn't self awareness great.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Yawn. Republicans were in power for 6 out of the 8 years Bush 2 was in office. And Bush 2 was an oil man.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like every religious person I've come across in my life...
> ...



I'm not demonising anybody. Isn't stereotyping beyond you?
And I am better than some as are you, as some are better than me and you...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> um actually we do. We don't believe in a god


What you know is you don't believe in an all powerful source of creation. What you don't know is whether your belief
is remotely correct or not.

At least as a believer in a creator I have evidence all around me every time I look up to the skies. Whereas you and your ilk?
Not so much.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



It's because I do, that I voted for Trump,  just like the millions of other Christians did in this country,but you would not be able to understand why.
The Christians came out in droves including religious faiths of seclusion that never vote, but they did this  last time.
We know what was at stake if the left had won in 2016.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > um actually we do. We don't believe in a god
> ...



Of course my belief is correct. There is no evidence at all of a god existing. Only belief. However, what I believe in is all around me. 

Interesting. I see the evidence all around me that nature is the 'creator', whereas you and your ilk? Just archaic dogma invented by humans to explain the unexplainable.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I'm not demonising anybody. Isn't stereotyping beyond you?
> And I am better than some as are you, as some are better than me and you...


I've dealt with atheists for decades. If you truly don't think you beliefs make you superior then you are truly a unique specimen of your kind. 
I realize many Christians have a superiority complex also but there is nothing in the atheist credo that requires humbleness and humility they way Christianity stresses it (I am not a Christian, per se, by the way).


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Of course my belief is correct. There is no evidence at all of a god existing. Only belief. However, what I believe in is all around me.
> 
> Interesting. I see the evidence all around me that nature is the 'creator', whereas you and your ilk? Just archaic dogma invented by humans to explain the unexplainable.


Did nature "create" itself? That's a neat trick.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I've dealt with atheists for decades. If you truly don't think you beliefs make you superior then you are truly a unique specimen of your kind.
> I realize many Christians have a superiority complex also but there is nothing in the atheist credo that requires humbleness and humility they way Christianity stresses it (I am not a Christian, per se, by the way).



I think all people believe their beliefs are superior vis-a-vis they have them in the first place


----------



## 22lcidw (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


And Progs killed the Hydrogen initiative. Oil or not.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Did nature "create" itself? That's a neat trick.



As opposed to some omnipotent being going 'abracadabra'? That is more believable? At least there is verifiable proof of evolution in some instances. Not one shred of evidence of a god.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I think all people believe their beliefs are superior vis-a-vis they have them in the first place


The difference is I haven't accepted on faith what I was told in Sunday school. I have reasoned and questioned and observed everything for myself with a heavy dose of skepticism.

*I find the idea of an almighty creator absurd but I find the idea of a universe that just happens to exist under a uniform set of laws and governing principles for no apparent reason at all even more absurd. *
*....me*


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...




God created everything including nature, a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself.
We aren't the 3rd planet from the sun by accident.
Nature itself reveals the creator.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > 22lcidw said:
> ...



Republicans had 6 years to make it happen and didn't. Progs didn't kill anything.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



Both Bushes were progressives.
Just like McCain was and his daughter is.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Did nature "create" itself? That's a neat trick.
> ...



While you and I don't agree relative to the existence of a creator, the fact is that you were born with just as much right not to believe as we do to believe. These "Christians" here don't seem to get that they will not get anyone to find god by condemning them. The choice to believe or not is on you, because I have to stand before God on my account and not yours


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > 22lcidw said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I think all people believe their beliefs are superior vis-a-vis they have them in the first place
> ...



I'm the same in the fact that I've questioned and observed etc. See, I don't see the universe as something that just happened for no apparent reason. I think there is a set of principles and it took billions of years for things to happen. I find the idea of a creator beyond absurd.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> While you and I don't agree relative to the existence of a creator, the fact is that you were born with just as much right not to believe as we do to believe. These "Christians" here don't seem to get that they will not get anyone to find god by condemning them. The choice to believe or not is on you, because I have to stand before God on my account and not yours



Bingo...


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



McCain's daughter is on video tape saying it herself.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Yes I do just like all believers.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Yes I do just like all believers.



No, you believe. You don't know for a fact. Nobody does. If it is fact, show your god to me. And please, no cop out about how i have to believe in him for him to show himself to me.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I don't really care. You support Trump, a man who operates by lying and keeping people confused. Those are the tools of satan. Jesus has said you can tell a man by his fruits. So like I said, if you believe in God you reject Trump. I see you haven't noticed the increases in storms since Trump began.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

A rain forest tribesman who one day finds a bicycle (that has washed down the Amazon), that he has no idea at all what such a thing could be would naturally, logically and with good reason think this thing was designed and made, for some reason he can't possibly fathom, by a superior being.
He would of course be correct though he would have no way of knowing there was no deity involved.

That makes him much smarter and superior to you to who sees the whole universe around you and sees no point, purpose or reason for it at all. It's just there because it's there. Period.

You have the yearning seeking mind of a Doberman Pinscher.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



I have not seen any condemning here in this thread.
God gives humans the right to choose to believe or not to believe.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



The media has not reported fairly about what this man has done for this country in almost 3 years.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> No, you believe. You don't know for a fact. Nobody does. If it is fact, show your god to me. And please, no cop out about how i have to believe in him for him to show himself to me.


I surmise. I Intuit. I logically deduce and empirically infer. You are intellectually dead so how can anyone show you anything?

You don't want to know and you don't want to use your sense of reason, if you have one at all.
You only believe in what you can hold in your hand or be shown.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



That is a lie Trump has told. The media did not implement Trumps policies. Trump is a godless man and you support him for godless reasons.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > No, you believe. You don't know for a fact. Nobody does. If it is fact, show your god to me. And please, no cop out about how i have to believe in him for him to show himself to me.
> ...



I gotta say that this is a pretty fair assessment. Gump, you have asked that God be shown to you in order to prove his existence.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> I don't support Trump but I do believe in God. If things go your way, we're just gone and that's it. But if things are as we believe, you have serious problems.


As has the vast majority of the world if Christian doctrine is to be believed.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Both Bushes were progressives.
> Just like McCain was and his daughter is.


The party is filled with them like a bad diner is filled with cockroaches. 

Trump's  greatest accomplishment has been to wake people up to the slow usurpation of America by globalists and MItt Romney-type scum. 
Guys like Bush and Romney can't wait for America to truly die so they can loot and exploit it like a spoiled heir goes to bed every night hoping the old man will be dead by morning so they can start to greedily take what they don't deserve or didn't help build.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...



You can look it all up at any of the government websites.
The media has not reported his policies faily - period.
Don't have a clue as to why you think media makes policies.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> At least as a believer in a creator I have evidence all around me every time I look up to the skies.


I suppose you feel better having invented something to cover your fear of the unknown.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> *I find the idea of an almighty creator absurd but I find the idea of a universe that just happens to exist under a uniform set of laws and governing principle for no apparent reason at all even more absurd. *
> *....me*


Fear of the absurd, then.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> A rain forest tribesman who one day finds a bicycle (that has washed down the Amazon), that he has no idea at all what such a thing could be would naturally, logically and with good reason think this thing was designed and made, for some reason he can't possibly fathom, by a superior being.
> He would of course be correct though he would have no way of knowing there was no deity involved.


Oh. We're not created equal?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> I suppose you feel better having invented something to cover your fear of the unknown.


I didn't invent the concept of the cosmos. And neither did Albert Einstein who also intuited God based on the reality of the cosmos.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Fear of the absurd, then.


I don't fear what is out of my hands anyway. Where do you get this "fear" crap?


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I surmise. I Intuit. I logically deduce and empirically infer.


You invent.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oh. We're not created equal?


I feel like you are trying to stir something up but aren't quite sharp enough to pull it off.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> You invent.


On the contrary, sharp guy. I invent nothing.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I don't fear what is out of my hands anyway. Where do you get this "fear" crap?


Your inability to accept we don't know.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I feel like you are trying to stir something up but aren't quite sharp enough to pull it off.


You clearly implied a bicycle manufacturer is superior to an Amazonian.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I didn't invent the concept of the cosmos.


No, that it is due to a creator. An invention for which you have no evidence.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> You clearly implied a bicycle manufacturer is superior to an Amazonian.


With regard to manufacturing this piece of machinery he obviously is. You strike out again, shit stirrer.
It seems like I am making you mad and I get that a lot with atheists. I wonder why?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Your inability to accept we don't know.


I'll be happy to hear anyone who has a better hypothesis than a super intelligent being is responsible for all  of creation.
Got one?  But I won't accept the universe exists just because it does. Nothing that we know of or can point to "just exists".


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> No, that it is due to a creator. An invention for which you have no evidence.


Creation is evidence of a creator. Just like a bicycle is evidence of a bike maker.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> With regard to manufacturing this piece of machinery he obviously is.


But then he is inferior with regard to making fire from two pieces of wood or making a blow pipe.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Creation is evidence of a creator.


You don't know that. Stop being so scared.


----------



## cnm (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Got one? But I won't accept the universe exists just because it does. Nothing that we know of or can point to "just exists".


You're too scared to accept 'We don't know'.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> But then he is inferior with regard to making fire from two pieces of wood or making a blow pipe.


You mean the bicycle maker, I assume? Yeah. He is. So what?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> A rain forest tribesman who one day finds a bicycle (that has washed down the Amazon), that he has no idea at all what such a thing could be would naturally, logically and with good reason think this thing was designed and made, for some reason he can't possibly fathom, by a superior being.
> He would of course be correct though he would have no way of knowing there was no deity involved.
> 
> That makes him much smarter and superior to you to who sees the whole universe around you and sees no point, purpose or reason for it at all. It's just there because it's there. Period.
> ...



I used to be a police man. I once asked a dog handler why they didn't use Doberman's as police dogs (we use German Shepherd's) because I thought them more ferocious and more likely to make an offender think twice about doing something stupid. He said they had thought about using them, but they were too smart. They point blank refused to attack anybody with a firearm.

At the end of the day, the Amazonian tribesman, if he so wished, could be shown the source of the bike and how it was made.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> You don't know that. Stop being so scared.


You don't know otherwise either and of the two theories, creation without a creator and creation that necessarily needs a creator, your view makes about as much sense as chocolate filled rat poison candies.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> You're too scared to accept 'We don't know'.


You're repeating yourself. I assume that of the few ideas you have you've already run out of steam. That's unfortunate.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I used to be a police man. I once asked a dog handler why they didn't use Doberman's as police dogs (we use German Shepherd's) because I thought them more ferocious and more likely to make an offender think twice about doing something stupid. He said they had thought about using them, but they were too smart. They point blank refused to attack anybody with a firearm.
> 
> At the end of the day, the Amazonian tribesman, if he so wished, could be shown the source of the bike and how it was made.


It's my illustration and we haven't gotten to the end of the day. I could choose lots of different ways to illustrate my point.

The point is people, not atheists, can't conceive of something that has no source or serves no purpose. What thinking component therefore do atheists lack?
And why do they fear the concept of a supreme being?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > No, you believe. You don't know for a fact. Nobody does. If it is fact, show your god to me. And please, no cop out about how i have to believe in him for him to show himself to me.
> ...



What is logical about believing in a being that goes abracadabra and suddenly everything is there? I am intellectually curious. Just because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't mean I am not curious of the world. To say so like you did, is intellectually vacuous.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> [
> 
> Trump's  greatest accomplishment has been to wake people up to the slow usurpation of America by globalists and MItt Romney-type scum.
> Guys like Bush and Romney can't wait for America to truly die so they can loot and exploit it like a spoiled heir goes to bed every night hoping the old man will be dead by morning so they can start to greedily take what they don't deserve or didn't help build.



You should have said from the outset you were a conspiracy theorist. Would have saved us both a lot of wasted time.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I'll be happy to hear anyone who has a better hypothesis than a super intelligent being is responsible for all  of creation.
> Got one?  But I won't accept the universe exists just because it does. Nothing that we know of or can point to "just exists".



I could actually believe a superior alien race might have something to do with it (although, currently knowing what we know about the time/space it is almost impossible), but not some omnipotent being. That is ridiculous.

As to your point - why, yes, it is called evolution.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I used to be a police man. I once asked a dog handler why they didn't use Doberman's as police dogs (we use German Shepherd's) because I thought them more ferocious and more likely to make an offender think twice about doing something stupid. He said they had thought about using them, but they were too smart. They point blank refused to attack anybody with a firearm.
> ...



Fear the concept of a supreme being? Hell, no, I would love there to be one. Seriously. That would certainly put a lot of questions to bed. 
And I think I could more likely than not blow any illustrative point you have out the window.

As cnm said, it seems you fear the unknown so therefore have to make up some superior being to explain things when all I see is billions of years of chemical reactions. 

As for Einstein, so he thought there was a god (apparently according to you). And? He is but a mere mortal.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> What is logical about believing in a being that goes abracadabra and suddenly everything is there? I am intellectually curious. Just because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't mean I am not curious of the world. To say so like you did, is intellectually vacuous.


Oh, breaking out the atheist memes now? Classic. Mockery is always a real good way of winning a debate (in junior high).

Sorry if I can't conceive of something that covers the existence of everything we all know, see and experience.
Did you read my other posts on the matter? Come up with a better explanation and I'll change my views.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> You should have said from the outset you were a conspiracy theorist. Would have saved us both a lot of wasted time.


You call it a conspiracy. Not me. It's just the elite jealousy regarding their set up.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I could actually believe a superior alien race might have something to do with it (although, currently knowing what we know about the time/space it is almost impossible), but not some omnipotent being. That is ridiculous.
> 
> As to your point - why, yes, it is called evolution.


Didn't you hear? Evolution has been debunked by Charles Darwin's own measuring stick. 
Read Dr. Stephen Meyer on the matter. It's called science.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > What is logical about believing in a being that goes abracadabra and suddenly everything is there? I am intellectually curious. Just because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't mean I am not curious of the world. To say so like you did, is intellectually vacuous.
> ...



Mockery? You mean comparing me to a Doberman wasn't?

Unlike you assertion of a god, at least there is scientific evidence of evolution.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 6, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Fear the concept of a supreme being? Hell, no, I would love there to be one. Seriously. That would certainly put a lot of questions to bed.
> And I think I could more likely than not blow any illustrative point you have out the window.
> 
> As cnm said, it seems you fear the unknown so therefore have to make up some superior being to explain things when all I see is billions of years of chemical reactions.


Yes. He's said that over and over so I guess that makes it so despite
my own knowledge of my own feelings on the matter. But I guess you think you know better.



> As for Einstein, so he thought there was a god (apparently according to you).


Not according to me. According to Einstein himself. He believed in the God that Baruch Spinoza spoke of. Crack a book and see.



> And? He is but a mere mortal.


And what are you? An exceptional omniscient being? No.....that would make you God, in all likelihood. Yes, he is but a mortal with a few insights and knowledge you will never ever match or even begin to know of. It's one of the the insights that makes me think I am on the right track, unlike atheists.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I could actually believe a superior alien race might have something to do with it (although, currently knowing what we know about the time/space it is almost impossible), but not some omnipotent being. That is ridiculous.
> ...



I think it's called pseudoscience (my bold)
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia

* Meyer for ignoring much of the fossil record  and instead focusing on a later stage to give the impression that all Cambrian life forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. *_In contrast, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' were typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history*.* He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that* Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist*, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore *he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the God the gaps argument:* 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design._

This is all I need to know about Meyer.

_Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the *puesdoscientific and philosophical principle of intelligent design*. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the *intelligent design movement.*_


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> And what are you? An exceptional omniscient being? No.....that would make you God, in all likelihood. Yes, he is but a mortal with a few insights and knowledge you will never ever match or even begin to know of. It's one of the the insights that makes me think I am on the right track, unlike atheists.



your appeal to authority is noted.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 6, 2019)

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Actually retard it was 4 of 8 years. Get your facts straight and of those 4 he never had more then 51 senators.


----------



## The Purge (Oct 6, 2019)

Why many of us doubt man made climate change.....just another form of communism...we will control you!


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 6, 2019)




----------



## IM2 (Oct 7, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > 22lcidw said:
> ...



They controlled the white house and house for 6 years. That's 2 out of three parts of governing. That looks like control to me.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 7, 2019)

The Purge said:


> Why many of us doubt man made climate change.....just another form of communism...we will control you!


Many of us don't. Only a few doubt.


----------



## The Purge (Oct 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Why many of us doubt man made climate change.....just another form of communism...we will control you!
> ...


Yes, the ones that can't critically  think!

There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts in letter to the United Nations
6 days ago · The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization ... Global warming has not increased natural disasters. 6


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> your appeal to authority is noted.


I'm sorry. Dos it bother you that I give more credence and have more confidence in the insights and opinions of one of earth's greatest minds than some garden variety atheists who, as far as I know, have NO special insights, genius, knowledge, etc.? 
Why would I not put more value on the views of Einstein, or other brilliant minds, than yours or any other atheist whose entire "insight" is the power of disbelief?

It would be absurd if I did otherwise.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I think it's called pseudoscience (my bold)


I don't think I was specific enough. I asked for you to come up with an explanation for the existence of the universe and you said yes, it's called evolution.

The universe is NOT explained by evolution. I don't know how to put it more succinctly. Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of galaxies, the laws that govern them, black holes, etc.

Evolution purports to account for variations among living organisms but not everyone accepts Darwin's theories. It certainly doesn't explain our universe itself.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Many of us don't. Only a few doubt.


But many of us believe the issue of global warming has been politicized and greatly exaggerated in order to
extract control over people and governments and achieve a massive redistribution of wealth between the developed and un- developed third world.


----------



## satrebil (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > I'll be happy to hear anyone who has a better hypothesis than a super intelligent being is responsible for all  of creation.
> ...





Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Let's play a game, Grump. 

What is this?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > your appeal to authority is noted.
> ...



Einstein was a fantastic physicist. Doesn't make him an expert on god or lack thereof Ding.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's called pseudoscience (my bold)
> ...




I agree you were no specific enough. 
Of course evolution explains some aspects of the universe. Not all though. Chemical reactions explain the rest.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

satrebil said:


> Let's play a game, Grump.
> 
> What is this?
> 
> View attachment 283354



No idea. Please enlighten me Oh Wise One...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Einstein was a fantastic physicist. Doesn't make him an expert on god or lack thereof Ding.


As I already said this rare genius had special insights and knowledge that set his opinions apart from most other people that have ever lived. It doesn't make him right but it does mean the likelihood that's his views are right are much much higher than yours, let's say, without malice.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I agree you were no specific enough.
> Of course evolution explains some aspects of the universe. Not all though. Chemical reactions explain the rest.


Evolution has obvious flaws. Evolutionary scientist admits theory's major flaws
It's a good theory but by no means a complete one.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I agree you were no specific enough.
> ...



I agree.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > There is plenty of proof. It's called planet earth.
> ...


Kinda sounds like you unquestioningly believing scientists.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Grump's gonna tell God He's STOOpid when he meets Him.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


The God in Whom I place my faith is love.

Your false god is hate.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Did nature "create" itself? That's a neat trick.
> ...


What do you think evolution is?  It's an attempt to explain the differentiation of species.

It is not, however, an attempt to explain the origin of life or of the universe.  

It never fails.  Ask an atheist where the universe came from, how life started, and they invariable shout EVOLUTION!!


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


You think your god is going to be tickled that you told people they have to hate Trump because of him?

That's not God.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I do just like all believers.
> ...


You understand nothing of the nature of faith.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I used to be a police man. I once asked a dog handler why they didn't use Doberman's as police dogs (we use German Shepherd's) because I thought them more ferocious and more likely to make an offender think twice about doing something stupid. He said they had thought about using them, but they were too smart. They point blank refused to attack anybody with a firearm.
> ...


I've got a theory about that.

Militant atheists get angry at believers not because they think we're wrong, but they're afraid we're right -- and they can't tolerate the idea of a power greater than themselves.

Cnm insists believers are afraid.  He's projecting his own fear.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> I've got a theory about that.
> 
> Militant atheists get angry at believers not because they think we're wrong, but they're afraid we're right -- and they can't tolerate the idea of a power greater than themselves.
> 
> Cnm insists believers are afraid.  He's projecting his own fear.



Are you the only one in your family that believes in a god?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> You understand nothing of the nature of faith.



I totally understand faith. Just don't tell me your faith is fact.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> [
> 
> It never fails.  Ask an atheist where the universe came from, how life started, and they invariable shout EVOLUTION!!



You tell me. Where did the universe come from?


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > And what are you? An exceptional omniscient being? No.....that would make you God, in all likelihood. Yes, he is but a mortal with a few insights and knowledge you will never ever match or even begin to know of. It's one of the the insights that makes me think I am on the right track, unlike atheists.
> ...


"I'll go with those who actually study it as opposed to some neocon denier on a messageboard."

But it's okay when you do it, huh?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> I've got a theory about that.
> 
> Militant atheists get angry at believers not because they think we're wrong, but they're afraid we're right -- and they can't tolerate the idea of a power greater than themselves.
> 
> Cnm insists believers are afraid.* He's projecting his own fear.*


I have to agree. I extend that to all atheists, in my opinion. The idea that some supreme being may be judging you and your every act (though I personally don't believe in that sort of God) frightens and depresses the crap out of atheists, who want no one ruining their fun.
It's an extremely juvenile mind set, in my view.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > your appeal to authority is noted.
> ...



Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

Look like one of Earth's greatest minds thought like me when it comes to a god (my bold)

*Personal God*
Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions often describing this view as "naïve"and "childlike". In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "*The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."*

Prompted by his colleague L E J Brouwer , Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book _Choose Life_, a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "*The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childis*h. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

*It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly*. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

In his book _Ideas and Opinions_(1954) Einstein stated, "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests." In December 1922 Einstein said the following on the idea of a saviour, "*Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.*


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> "I'll go with those who actually study it as opposed to some neocon denier on a messageboard."
> 
> But it's okay when you do it, huh?



But they have actually studied it.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a theory about that.
> ...


Two of my four siblings are atheists; the other two are Christian.  I was an atheist until I was 29.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You understand nothing of the nature of faith.
> ...


If you ask people to provide proof of the things they have faith in, no, you don't understand faith at all.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Look like one of Earth's greatest minds thought like me when it comes to a god (my bold)


I already said Einstein was very specific about not believing in a "personal God".
I did mention he preferred the God of Baruch Spinoza didn't I? Yeah. I did.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


It was created by God.  I don't know how, or how long it took Him, or in what manner He chose to arrange for the transition from non-existence to existence.  

I'll ask Him when I see Him.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I've got a theory about that.
> ...


Indeed.  However, I have met quite a number of atheists who are respectful of others' faith, and who ask questions out of genuine curiosity.  I was one of them, when I didn't believe.  

However, those are in short supply, especially in this thread.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > "I'll go with those who actually study it as opposed to some neocon denier on a messageboard."
> ...


But you haven't.

So you insist other people believe them...because you take their pronouncements on faith.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Look like one of Earth's greatest minds thought like me when it comes to a god (my bold)
> ...



And yet that was quoted in 1930, 25 years before he died. People change it seems. And his definition is god is a lot different from the majority of Christians or other religious folk on these boards.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> So you insist other people believe them...because you take their pronouncements on faith.



Apples and oranges.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I have no problem with faith at all. I have an issue with those passing off faith as fact. Two different things....look up in your local Websters. Nowhere in any thesaurus or dictionary do I see the word faith as a synonym for fact or vice versa. Words have meanings.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> It was created by God.  I don't know how, or how long it took Him, or in what manner He chose to arrange for the transition from non-existence to existence.
> 
> I'll ask Him when I see Him.



Fair enough


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> Indeed. However, I have met quite a number of atheists who are respectful of others' faith, and who ask questions out of genuine curiosity. I was one of them, when I didn't believe.
> 
> However, those are in short supply, especially in this thread.


I agree again. In my personal experience there are a lot more a-hole atheists than the other sort but I admit that may be due to meeting most of them online, which as you know, magnifies the a-hole factor almost as a rule.

I had a friend in the Navy who was an atheist and we had many, way too many, respectful conversations about our positions.

Religion and politics...rarely does anyone change their basic views on the matter I congratulate you on changing your your views. It's the sign of an open mind.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So you insist other people believe them...because you take their pronouncements on faith.
> ...


Not really.  Your priests say things you don't really understand.  You insist everyone else must believe them, and must change their way of life to fit your dogma.  

It's an absolutely direct correlation.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. However, I have met quite a number of atheists who are respectful of others' faith, and who ask questions out of genuine curiosity. I was one of them, when I didn't believe.
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I'm well acquainted with the meanings.  I wonder if you are.  You keep demanding proof of God.

Faith precludes proof.  Proof of God would render faith meaningless, and utterly negate Man's free will. 

Let's have a thought experiment.  In this experiment, God created the universe 10 minutes ago, in its current state as of 10 minutes ago, with all the "evidence" it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this?


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > It was created by God.  I don't know how, or how long it took Him, or in what manner He chose to arrange for the transition from non-existence to existence.
> ...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet that was quoted in 1930, 25 years before he died. People change it seems.


Wow! That was lame.

If there was a later Einstein statement (Hey everybody. You know what I said about God and Spinoza and all? Well....guess what? I changed my mind!) it would be a massive atheist's talking point I would  have had shoved in my face over and over again endlessly.  

Look, Einstein, Newton, Kaku, Erwin Schrodinger, etc. There are* lots* of very bright scientists who somehow don't find the idea of God absurd. Just accept it. 




> And his definition is god is a lot different from the majority of Christians or other religious folk on these boards.


So is mine. I firmly believe in God anyway but don't pretend to know anything about him.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> Not really.  Your priests say things you don't really understand.  You insist everyone else must believe them, and must change their way of life to fit your dogma.
> 
> It's an absolutely direct correlation.



There is actual evidence of evolution, climate change (whether you believe it manmade or not). There is tangible proof of things. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever of a god. None. Just faith. Again, that is fine. I have nothing against that. As long as it is not legislated into law or harms others, you can believe whatever you want.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

daveman said:


> I'm well acquainted with the meanings.  I wonder if you are.  You keep demanding proof of God.
> 
> Faith precludes proof.  Proof of God would render faith meaningless, and utterly negate Man's free will.
> 
> ...



It's not up to me to prove or disprove if it is your contention. Science is being proven all the time, whether it be Isaac Newton and gravity, or the aerodynamics of an aeroplane. 

Again, you can believe whatever you want to believe. I've always seen the "you have to have faith, you don't need proof of a god" as a cop out. What does man's free will matter anyway? There is no free will under god. There are strings attached.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> [.
> 
> If there was a later Einstein statement (Hey everybody. You know what I said about God and Spinoza and all? Well....guess what? I changed my mind!) it would be a massive atheist's talking point I would  have had shoved in my face over and over again endlessly.
> 
> ...



Um, if you read his later thoughts on the matter (which I even bolded for you), he seems to have rethought his idea(s). Whether they were that far from his original thoughts, I don't know.
Oh, I agree that they don't find the idea of a god absurd. Doesn't mean I don't though.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Not really.  Your priests say things you don't really understand.  You insist everyone else must believe them, and must change their way of life to fit your dogma.
> ...


AOC's Green New Deal would certainly harm people.


----------



## daveman (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm well acquainted with the meanings.  I wonder if you are.  You keep demanding proof of God.
> ...


I'm not making that contention; it's a thought experiment.  You need to think.

Looks like you're not interested, though.  Too heavily emotionally invested in your atheism, looks like.  

You claim to understand faith, but you keep proving you know nothing about it.

Of course there is free will under God.  You choose to believe in Him, or you don't.  He's made very clear the consequences of either choice.  It's completely up to you.   

If a mugger holds a knife to your throat and demands you wallet, do you feel generous for giving it to him?  No.  You had no choice  Free will was removed from the equation.

If you drop a handful of cash in a busker's guitar case on the street, do you feel generous for giving it to her?  You should.  You exercised free will to be charitable; you gave something you had to someone who didn't.  You didn't have to, and unless she gives you an IRS form, you won't get any tangible benefit from the gift.  

Get it?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 7, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Um, if you read his later thoughts on the matter (which I even bolded for you), he seems to have rethought his idea(s). Whether they were that far from his original thoughts, I don't know.
> Oh, I agree that they don't find the idea of a god absurd. Doesn't mean I don't though.


You should take another swing at the T-ball. You have yet to mention anything about Albert Einstein's religious views
that I haven't already mentioned myself.
He doesn't believe in a personal God (check). He doesn't believe in standard Christian dogma (check).
He doesn't believe in religious denominations (check)

I haven't seen anywhere Einstein modified his religious views.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Many of us don't. Only a few doubt.
> ...


I don't agree with that assessment.  Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.


----------



## Yousaidwhat (Oct 8, 2019)

cnm said:


> I don't notice a thing here.


Before?

Before what?

After?

Climate change?

Pollution?

Other factors?


----------



## satrebil (Oct 8, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > Let's play a game, Grump.
> ...



Just take a guess.


----------



## 22lcidw (Oct 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > IM2 said:
> ...


Then by that logic as we are blended into world government and Prog socialism it will be necessary for the people to be equal with each other two ways economically. To take from the privileged employment domestically to give to others and that includes those who are the poorest of the poor in our nation. And to take the wealth of the United States and give to the poorer nations of the world to up their living standards. Now get that by the fiefdoms first. Law Enforcement/corrections/judicial fiefdom is just one who needs to have their salaries, benefits, pensions lowered and entertainment/media/ political fiefdom as another who needs to have their wealth taken and redistributed. There are other fiefdoms but all Americans need a lower standard of living. You must attack those fiefdoms and others outside your realm and that includes your own background. That is what war is!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> I don't agree with that assessment. Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.


An overly simplistic view not supported by history and facts. Look at India. Are they worse off due to colonialism.
Or better off?


----------



## IM2 (Oct 8, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't agree with that assessment. Besides the so called developed nation are such because they have taken from the so called undeveloped ones.
> ...


No. It's the correct conclusion based on 30 plus years of study. Yes, India is worse off due to colonization. India was a wealthy nation before the Raj and they have had to rebuild themselves as a result of that occupation.


----------



## IM2 (Oct 8, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



You are ignorant to how US wealth has been  made.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> No. It's the correct conclusion based on 30 plus years of study. Yes, India is worse off due to colonization. India was a wealthy nation before the Raj and they have had to rebuild themselves as a result of that occupation.


Got any supporting documentation?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 8, 2019)

IM2 said:


> You are ignorant to how US wealth has been made.


It's been made in many ways. You think because you allege something it becomes fact?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 8, 2019)

satrebil said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > satrebil said:
> ...




Read and learn. Let go of your ignorance.
The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?


----------



## daveman (Oct 8, 2019)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Hey, Grump, you can ignore this post...but that doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 8, 2019)

daveman said:


> I'm not making that contention; it's a thought experiment.  You need to think.
> 
> Looks like you're not interested, though.  Too heavily emotionally invested in your atheism, looks like.
> 
> ...



Your god comes with strings attached. Doesn't seem like a very nice god.

Doesn't seen to me like 'free will' when there are strings attached. When it comes to your god it seems the first example with the mugger is more true than the latter example.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 8, 2019)

"True" in what regard?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 8, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> "True" in what regard?



A 'knife' being held to the throat. "Believe in me, or else". What a lovely god.
And why does this god need to be worshipped? Massive ego, no?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 8, 2019)




----------



## satrebil (Oct 8, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Took you long enough to reverse image search that.

Funny how you bring up "ignorance". There's not a soul on earth that would look at a robotic hand and not realize that someone built it, yet you would look at your own hand and claim it's "random chance".

What you are seeing with things such as the flagellar motor is clear evidence of nano-technology - you just refuse to accept it.






Yep - ^that^ *totally* looks like random convergence to me. Not designed at all.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 8, 2019)

satrebil said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > satrebil said:
> ...



Um no. Read my link. It's all scientifically explained. Pretty simple really. And no, it took me all of five seconds to research it.


----------



## satrebil (Oct 8, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Oh yeah, great link there guy... did you actually read it?

Quote: 

_"Proof of the flagellar motor's 'reducibility' — that it's component parts can function elsewhere — comes in the form of the injectisome; another fabulous molecular machine found in bacteria. This needle-like complex is used by disease-causing bacteria to punch holes in the host's target cells.

The protein machinery used to assemble the proteins that make up the punching needle is identical to that used to assemble the 'propeller' part of the flagellar motor — the filament and hook of the motor. In addition, nine core proteins of the flagellar motor share common ancestry with injectisome proteins — the genes that code for them are so similar they have clearly come from the same genetic ancestor.

In fact, the flagellar motor contains a wealth of other evidence pointing not to intelligent design, but to its evolutionary origins."_

So, the author claims it's evolution because it can be reduced down to smaller components that are seen elsewhere performing other tasks. Well no shit Sherlock, I could say the same thing about nuts and bolts on a fucking airplane*.* The logic this author and you are promoting here is "airplanes have nuts and bolts, and lawnmowers have nuts and bolts that perform similar functions but in different capacities, therefore the nuts and bolts clearly evolved." You dare speak of* ignorance? *

The lengths you atheists will go to deny what's staring you right in the face is truly astounding.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 8, 2019)

satrebil said:


> Quote:
> 
> _"Proof of the flagellar motor's 'reducibility' — that it's component parts can function elsewhere — comes in the form of the injectisome; another fabulous molecular machine found in bacteria. This needle-like complex is used by disease-causing bacteria to punch holes in the host's target cells.
> 
> ...



That's not what he is saying at all. It would be more true to say he is saying, here's aeroplane. This one has plastic seats, this one has polycarbonate seats. Very similar and evolution has had an impact. Your example is like saying riding a bike is the same as driving a ferrari. Sure, you can steer both, and they both have wheels. That's about it. The author of the link is being a lot more succinct than you are.

So your God, as well as going abracadabra and making shit up from nothing decides to make this little bacteria machine that swims up and down our body. For what purpose? what is the point of him doing that? he doesn't need to do that. All he has to do is make us immortal. Why not do that instead? 

The lengths you god-botherers will go to try and make shit up to try and prove an unprovable point is absurd. You know, if god did exist, why go to all that trouble to 'prove' his/her existence by leaving little clues that you think he has left like the flagellar motor. Why not just go, 'here I am' instead of playing silly little games.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> A 'knife' being held to the throat. "Believe in me, or else". What a lovely god.
> And why does this god need to be worshipped? Massive ego, no?


That's religion at work again. Not God per se. Religion is the domain of people.
And it's religion that says God needs to be constantly worshiped and praised. 

How do I know? Because not all religions claim God should be worshiped in the same way.

WE say believe in God or else. WE require prayer. Religion is culturally based and every 
religion has it's own source story and version of God, or multiple Gods even. 

Like many atheists you conflate God and religion.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Like many atheists you conflate God and religion.



Well, that's your definition (ie there is a difference between god and religion). That being said, I would suggest that since it is the religious who set these standards, they are the ones guilty of conflating god and religion.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...




Climate Deniers don't actually believe what they say.
They are pretty sure that the climate IS changing and that global warming is, indeed, happening.  The reason they SAY they do not believe it is because they WANT it to happen......

they WANT global warming to raise the sea levels to drown everyone in the lower lands....


that is why so many of them live in the mountains.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Climate Deniers don't actually believe what they say.
> They are pretty sure that the climate IS changing and that global warming is, indeed, happening.  The reason they SAY they do not believe it is because they WANT it to happen......
> 
> they WANT global warming to raise the sea levels to drown everyone in the lower lands....
> ...



ooookayyy....


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not making that contention; it's a thought experiment.  You need to think.
> ...


You want to be rewarded for no effort on your part?

How childish.


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > "True" in what regard?
> ...


Yup, I called it.  You can't tolerate the idea of a power greater than yourself.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

daveman said:


> Yup, I called it.  You can't tolerate the idea of a power greater than yourself.



Where does my querying why a 'power' wants those to worship him or her unconditionally on pain of eternal hell (which by the way isn't even mentioned in the bible) seems like something/someone you would want to follow unconditionally? 

And you said it. It's all about power. Is that a good thing?


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


Again...no understanding of faith.

An immortal being in a universe governed by entropy would be proof of a creator.


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> ...


Ummmm...no.


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, I called it.  You can't tolerate the idea of a power greater than yourself.
> ...


When I chose to believe, it wasn't through any threat of hell.  It was due to the chance to spend eternity with someone who loved me utterly.  

God loves us, and wants to show us in person, through all time.


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

I'm well acquainted with the meanings. I wonder if you are. You keep demanding proof of God.

Faith precludes proof. Proof of God would render faith meaningless, and utterly negate Man's free will.

Let's have a thought experiment. In this experiment, God created the universe 10 minutes ago, in its current state as of 10 minutes ago, with all the "evidence" it's billions of years old built-in, with the light from distant stars created in transit, and us with all our memories of a lifetime in place.

Now...how could you disprove this?​I've been presenting this thought experiment to militant atheists for years now.  None has ever responded rationally to it.

Thing is, I could well be wrong about God.  And I'm okay with that.  

But militant atheists can never admit they might be wrong.  They state categorically there is no God.

They're remarkably closed-minded.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

daveman said:


> Again...no understanding of faith.
> 
> An immortal being in a universe governed by entropy would be proof of a creator.



No, no, no, no, no.....faith is easy to understand. Very easy. You have faith there is a god. Good for you. I don't. Shrug...

How about the creator just pop his head up and say "here I am". The nature of faith, as you describe it, is a big cop out. And something invented by the religious in order to cover up what should really be an easy thing to do - show yourself.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

daveman said:


> God loves us, and wants to show us in person, through all time.



Fair enough. I haven't seen him/her yet.


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Again...no understanding of faith.
> ...


you:  OF COURSE I UNDERSTAND FAITH

you:  GOD SHOULD PROVE HE EXISTS NEENER NEENER HA CHECKMAET SKY BUDDY BELEEVERS

I've wasted enough time on you.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

daveman said:


> [
> you:  OF COURSE I UNDERSTAND FAITH
> 
> you:  GOD SHOULD PROVE HE EXISTS NEENER NEENER HA CHECKMAET SKY BUDDY BELEEVERS
> ...



not as much time as you've wasted on believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster it seems..


----------



## daveman (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


LOL!  You're not nearly as clever as you believe.  Matter of fact -- you're pretty dumb.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Well, that's your definition (ie there is a difference between god and religion).


Okay, Fair enough, if that's your opinion.

But stop and ask yourself why Catholicism isn't the same as Shinto Buddhism if  there is no difference between God and religion. Or why Mormons don't believe the same thing as Hindus or Muslims. Or why Jews are different from Wiccan Pagans.

You'd have to be the king of denial to say religion itself isn't a man made construct that changes radically from culture to culture. God made the universe, both macro and micro.
But man has made the religions he lives under and what sort of God that is contained and described within all those different religions.



> That being said, I would suggest that since it is the religious who set these standards, they are the ones guilty of conflating god and religion.


 I would agree but that doesn't change what I say.

There is only one God, presumably. How come they are dozens and dozens of different religions? list of religions in the world - info.com - Search The Web Web Search


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

daveman said:


> LOL!  You're not nearly as clever as you believe.  Matter of fact -- you're pretty dumb.



Says the guy who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 9, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Says the guy who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...


Stay highbrow and classy with your tiresome atheist cliche memes. It makes you seem so impressive and credible.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Okay, Fair enough, if that's your opinion.
> 
> But stop and ask yourself why Catholicism isn't the same as Shinto Buddhism if  there is no difference between God and religion. Or why Mormons don't believe the same thing as Hindus or Muslims. Or why Jews are different from Wiccan Pagans.
> 
> ...



On your first point, fair enough. I'm not going to debate you on that because I agree with most of what you say.

As for your last point, well, I wouldn't know because I don't believe. I think with regard to the monolithic religions you are right (and that includes the Mormons). As for the rest, wouldn't have a clue.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 9, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Says the guy who believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
> ...



Says the guy who doesn't seem to be taking into consideration the reason I said what I did in my post you are quoting....


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 10, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> On your first point, fair enough. I'm not going to debate you on that because I agree with most of what you say.
> 
> As for your last point, well, I wouldn't know because I don't believe. I think with regard to the monolithic religions you are right (and that includes the Mormons). As for the rest, wouldn't have a clue.


A clue about what? The religions themselves are irrelevant. The point is so many different religions exist and they are all culturally tied to the societies they came from. 

Therefore I say again, religion itself is a human construct. They ALL believe their God has given them special recognition and blessings. They can't all be right. In fact, in theory only ONE of them can be right though that's very unlikely.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 10, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Says the guy who doesn't seem to be taking into consideration the reason I said what I did in my post you are quoting....


I'm not a scholar on your exchanges with other posters. I just know hoary cliched atheists memes are an anathema to productive thought and conversation.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Oct 10, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Says the guy who doesn't seem to be taking into consideration the reason I said what I did in my post you are quoting....
> ...




"I just know hoary cliched atheists memes are an anathema to productive thought and conversation."

and I know  old, trite, cliched christian memes are an anathema to productive thought and conversation.

"I have faith" is NOT productive thought or conversation.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 10, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> "I just know hoary cliched atheists memes are an anathema to productive thought and conversation."
> 
> and I know old, trite, cliched christian memes are an anathema to productive thought and conversation.
> 
> "I have faith" is NOT productive thought or conversation.


It could be. That depends on the context and what is claimed. Calling someone's God a "flying spaghetti monster" is counter productive and disrespectful no matter what you think of the concept of God.

If you want to simply lob thought bombs at each other keep up the name calling. It makes atheists look so mature and thoughtful.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It makes atheists look so mature and thoughtful.



And makes those with a religious bent....?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Says the guy who doesn't seem to be taking into consideration the reason I said what I did in my post you are quoting....
> ...



You are no scholar, yet take the time to take issue with my post without addressing why I posted what I did. Why was that particular post 'anathema to productive thought and conversation'. Context matters.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 10, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> And makes those with a religious bent....?


That's called the tu quoque fallacy. Someone else's name calling does not erase your own.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 10, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> You are no scholar, yet take the time to take issue with my post without addressing why I posted what I did. Why was that particular post 'anathema to productive thought and conversation'. Context matters.


If you have a good reason for dragging out the tired old flying spaghetti monster b.s. I haven't heard it and I don't think
there is a good reason in tit for tat childishness.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Someone else's name calling does not erase your own.



Never said it did. However, I do take umbrage with somebody chastising my online behaviour but then gives somebody else (who happens to agree with said person taking umbrage POV) a free pass. It doesn't do anything to add to your credibility. It's like Joe hitting Bob in the face, then Bob hitting back, and Joe whines, "why did you hit me?". For every action there is a reaction.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 10, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Never said it did. However, I do take umbrage with somebody chastising my online behaviour but then gives somebody else (who happens to agree with said person taking umbrage POV) a free pass. It doesn't do anything to add to your credibility. It's like Joe hitting Bob in the face, then Bob hitting back, and Joe whines, "why did you hit me?". For every action there is a reaction.


I guess you didn't catch on but I didn't read the other person's posts ("not being a scholar of your posting record" or words by me to that effect).
I only read yours and that tired old flying spaghetti monster jazz which I've always disliked because it sticks out like a sore thumb and it's designed purely to mock someone's valued personal beliefs (regardless of how you feel about them).

I admit to hitting back after I've been hit but I never go lower than the other person. He or she sets the tone. No free pass given.


----------



## Flash (Oct 10, 2019)

I don't deny the climate.  I just ridicule these environmental wackos that believe in this silly ass AGW bullshit scam.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2019)

Flash said:


> I don't deny the climate.  I just ridicule these environmental wackos that believe in this silly ass AGW bullshit scam.



Hold onto your guns. Change is coming...


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I guess you didn't catch on but I didn't read the other person's posts ("not being a scholar of your posting record" or words by me to that effect).
> I only read yours and that tired old flying spaghetti monster jazz which I've always disliked because it sticks out like a sore thumb and it's designed purely to mock someone's valued personal beliefs (regardless of how you feel about them).
> 
> I admit to hitting back after I've been hit but I never go lower than the other person. He or she sets the tone. No free pass given.



Well maybe you should have read them to give context.

I mentioned the flying spaghetti monster because he was mocking my beliefs...if you had read that you would have seen why I reacted the way I did.


----------



## daveman (Oct 10, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!  You're not nearly as clever as you believe.  Matter of fact -- you're pretty dumb.
> ...


Hey, did you see that list I posted on the first page of this thread of Christian thinkers in science and technology?  You know, the one you pretended wasn't there?

Now you get to explain how you're smarter than all those people.  Or sputter self-importantly.  Yes, that's far more likely.  

HINT:  "Being an atheist" is not an accomplishment.  Stop putting it on your resume.

You don't comprehend this, but you say as much by ignoring posts directed at you than you do with what you do say.


----------



## daveman (Oct 10, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


It wouldn't be, if that's all I said.

But it wouldn't.  

I was defining faith for you.  You claimed you completely understood it, then proceeded to prove you didn't.  

If you were interested in productive thought or conversation, you'd listen to people, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching LA LA LA LA LA.


----------



## daveman (Oct 10, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you didn't catch on but I didn't read the other person's posts ("not being a scholar of your posting record" or words by me to that effect).
> ...


LOL!  The whole OP is mocking the beliefs of people of faith.

Don't be a hypocrite.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2019)

daveman said:


> Hey, did you see that list I posted on the first page of this thread of Christian thinkers in science and technology?  You know, the one you pretended wasn't there?
> 
> Now you get to explain how you're smarter than all those people.  Or sputter self-importantly.  Yes, that's far more likely.
> 
> ...



Didn't see the list. And even if I did, all you are doing is appealing to authority. And all those people are doing is believing - having faith. They have absolutely no proof that proves their POV. And that is the thing that cracks me up and point of this thread. Noecons bury their head in the sand and want 'empirical' proof of man made global warming but when it comes to a god, there is cop out after cop out. "oh, it's all about faith" yadda, yadda, yadda...ppffftt. Piss weak excuse. At least there is data to back up the climate change debate.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 10, 2019)

daveman said:


> LOL!  The whole OP is mocking the beliefs of people of faith.
> 
> Don't be a hypocrite.



It is questioning, not mocking.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Oct 11, 2019)

daveman said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




it doesn't matter what he said.

since there is no proof or evidence of any god all he really has is "i have faith".

Atheists have given LOGICAL REASONS for why they disbelieve and conservatives have, to a man, reduced it to "you can NOT prove"


----------



## anynameyouwish (Oct 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > "I just know hoary cliched atheists memes are an anathema to productive thought and conversation."
> ...




"It could be. That depends on the context and what is claimed. Calling someone's God a "flying spaghetti monster" is counter productive and disrespectful no matter what you think of the concept of God."

you must be a conservative.
I never called "someones' god" a "flying spaghetti monster"

someone long ago created the "flying spaghetti monster" and called it a "god"

So when I reference GODS I quite often include examples of gods who are NOT the christian god.



"If you want to simply lob thought bombs at each other keep up the name calling. It makes atheists look so mature and thoughtful."


Kindly tell that to the conservative christians who lob bombs at everyone else.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 11, 2019)

First of all, learn how to properly format your posts. It's difficult for people to figure out where my post ends and yours start. 
Next, if you don't use the hoary old flying spaghetti monster insult then good for you. I wish more people would drop this
divisive trolling.

Christians should also treat others as they wish to be treated. Having said this I doubt many people will listen.


----------



## Third Party (Oct 11, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


First, no one denies climate. Second, no one denies the climate is always changing. Third, don't lump all "sky is falling" skeptics into one group. Your models are also used to predict the stock market-how's that going? I have my own thoughts about climate change that would differ from another "climate theory dissenter".


----------



## peach174 (Oct 11, 2019)

God is pure spirt and energy.
You can't find him with physical proof.
You find him within your soul.

When you believe that he's real, that he died on the cross for our sins Gods energy enters you to build a relationship with him he is our Father, our Creator.
When you accept him you feel that energy and guidance.


----------



## daveman (Oct 11, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!  The whole OP is mocking the beliefs of people of faith.
> ...


Horseshit.  You're not the first asshole atheist I've dealt with.  You can't hide what you're doing.


----------



## daveman (Oct 11, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...


You know what's also logical?  "You can't prove a negative."

You believe there is no god...but you can't prove it.

You take it on faith, in other words.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 11, 2019)

daveman said:


> You know what's also logical?  "You can't prove a negative."
> 
> You believe there is no god...but you can't prove it.
> 
> You take it on faith, in other words.



I put god in the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Man made constructs. So using your logic you believe in Santa Claus. Interesting...


----------



## daveman (Oct 11, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You know what's also logical?  "You can't prove a negative."
> ...


Wrong.  Using YOUR logic, I should believe in Santa Claus.

You really _suck_ at logic, by the way.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 11, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I put god in the same category as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Man made constructs.


 There's that inflammatory tendency to mock religion again.
You can't help yourself, can you.

So why should anyone feel sorry for you when you whine about atheism being disrespected? 



> So using your logic you believe in Santa Claus. Interesting..


WTF!! What is logical about that?
YOU are the one equating the idea of a supreme being with Santa Clause...not anyone else (your fellow juvenile acting
atheists notwithstanding). Don't be absurd.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 11, 2019)

daveman said:


> Wrong.  Using YOUR logic, I should believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> You really _suck_ at logic, by the way.



I think you suck at posting and logic. My logic: there is evidence of man-made global warming, none whatsoever of a god, ergo, there is no god. I apply the same logic to Santa. In other words, you have it arse backwards.

Edit: Actually, we're both right. Using my logic I don't believe in a god or Santa. But yes, the evidence of a god is the same as there is of there being Santa. So I do wonder why you don't believe in both.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> YOU are the one equating the idea of a supreme being with Santa Clause.



Um, that's right. That is my point. Well done...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 11, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Um, that's right. That is my point. Well done...


That says more about you than any connection between Santa Clause and God.
Do you also think Albert Einstein or Erwin Schrodinger can't distinguish between
Santa Clause and God...because there really is none? You try to mock others and wind up sliming yourself. Good work!


You must be weakening because before you denied any disrespect on your part to those with religious leanings.
You don't really give a crap if you are seen as an inflammatory troll anymore, do you.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> [
> That says more about you than any connection between Santa Clause and God.
> You must be weakening because before you denied any disrespect on your part to those with religious leanings.
> You don't really give a crap if you are seen as an inflammatory troll anymore, do you.



I'm trying to make a point by illustrating it. I'm trying to get Dave to show me what the difference is.
If we were talking in real life, these questions would be put in a matter of fact way. I can do condescending, but I'm not being so in this instance. Unfortunately typing doesn't do nuance. Trust me, I'm not mocking him, I'm trying to get him to give me logic.

Up until a certain age kids believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny etc. Then they realise it's not true. I'm the same with a god. I was born into an Anglican family. But I soon started questioning the whole god thing. I realised the only reason I believed because I was scared not to. I was told of all the bad things that would happen to me if I didn't. Then one day, I thought, 'what a crock of shit and it's a real shitty reason to believe in something'. Started doing some digging and came to my own conclusions. Thing is, I can argue all day about the logic of my conclusions. Religous folk can't. They only have belief. And that's fine, but I find it ironic that belief is enough for them, but when it comes to man-made global warming, and the evidence is in, these same people say 'there's no evidence' even though there's a trove of it. It's not lost on me the vast majority of nay sayers are white, conservative, US, Christians.


----------



## daveman (Oct 11, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  Using YOUR logic, I should believe in Santa Claus.
> ...


I've explained basic concepts to you all throughout this thread.

Your usual response:  NUH UH UR DUMB


----------



## daveman (Oct 11, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I've given you logic.  Your refusal to acknowledgement is your problem, not mine.

You have never talked anyone into abandoning their faith.  You will never talk anyone into abandoning their faith.

Apparently, that makes you angry.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 12, 2019)

daveman said:


> I've given you logic.  Your refusal to acknowledgement is your problem, not mine.
> 
> You have never talked anyone into abandoning their faith.  You will never talk anyone into abandoning their faith.
> 
> Apparently, that makes you angry.



On this thread? I'm not even close to being angry.
OTOH, you do seem to be getting annoyed.
Faith is not logic.
faith

_noun_
noun: *faith*

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, *based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.*




_noun_
noun: *logic*
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 12, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> I'm trying to make a point by illustrating it. I'm trying to get Dave to show me what the difference is.
> If we were talking in real life, these questions would be put in a matter of fact way. I can do condescending, but I'm not being so in this instance. Unfortunately typing doesn't do nuance. Trust me, I'm not mocking him, I'm trying to get him to give me logic.


The logical and reasoned argument for the caused universe exists. The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith

Christian apologist William Lane Craig specializes in this argument and he has all sorts of scholarly referenced material from the great thinkers of history. You may find there is much more argument by Lane than anyone would care to read but you can't say he hasn't thoroughly made his points.

For me the real magic and imaginary position is to say the universe has always existed. It has no beginning and no source or reason for being. It just is. I wonder if can think of any person or thing that "just is"? I can't.
By the way, to short circuit what is surely coming the being we refer to as _God_ exists
outside of our dimension and realm of existence and therefore is not subject to the reality
we all are subject to.  Crazy I know, but not as crazy as an uncaused universe that just is.

Read the second scientific confirmation. It's quite interesting and explains why the universe cannot be infinite with no beginning or end. It's simply not possible.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 12, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You know what's also logical?  "You can't prove a negative."
> ...



Prove Santa claus is not real, Virginia. 


.


----------



## daveman (Oct 12, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I've given you logic.  Your refusal to acknowledgement is your problem, not mine.
> ...


Not everyone operates on emotion, like you do.  

I've explained simple concepts simply.  You misunderstand, either on purpose or because you really don't understand, because the things I say challenge your worldview.  

And you can't tolerate that.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 13, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I wonder if can think of any person or thing that "just is"? I can't.
> By the way, to short circuit what is surely coming the being we refer to as _God_ exists
> outside of our dimension and realm of existence and therefore is not subject to the reality
> we all are subject to.  Crazy I know, but not as crazy as an uncaused universe that just is.



And there's the thing. If you gave me the choice of what is more believable, the universe just 'exists' and this god 'exists outside the realm of existence and is not subject to the reality we all are subject too', I find the former much more believable. Because my next question would be  how does this other dimension exist? Where did it come from?

it's almost a circular argument.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 13, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Prove Santa claus is not real, Virginia.
> 
> .



All empirical and physical evidence proves Santa Claus does not exist.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 13, 2019)

daveman said:


> Not everyone operates on emotion, like you do.
> 
> I've explained simple concepts simply.  You misunderstand, either on purpose or because you really don't understand, because the things I say challenge your worldview.
> 
> And you can't tolerate that.



You're the one whose posts are dripping with emotion. Including this one. I'm being logical. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Oct 13, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> And there's the thing. If you gave me the choice of what is more believable, the universe just 'exists' and this god 'exists outside the realm of existence and is not subject to the reality we all are subject too', I find the former much more believable. Because my next question would be how does this other dimension exist? Where did it come from?
> 
> it's almost a circular argument.


Of course that's something no human being will ever be able to answer (not while on this plane of existence anyway).
But we have proof of the universe maker, or engineer, because we have proof of the universe itself.
Did you read my link to the scientific way we know the universe is not without a beginning?
If the universe has a starting point then it has a cause for being...something that started it off. 

We must infer God by his creation the way we infer a bicycle maker by the bicycle itself.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 13, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Prove Santa claus is not real, Virginia.
> ...




No it doesn't  Virginia....


DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE SUN it’s so.’
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

VIRGINIA O’HANLON.
115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET.

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 13, 2019)

The Bible explains why the climate is changing and it's not because of fossil fuels.
It describes exactly what's happening right now with our climate and how we can change it.
But the vast majority won't accept it.


----------



## daveman (Oct 13, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Not everyone operates on emotion, like you do.
> ...


I'm sure that fiction comforts you.


----------



## sparky (Oct 13, 2019)

WT <blue> F  does faith have to do with science here?

~S~


----------



## daveman (Oct 13, 2019)

sparky said:


> WT <blue> F  does faith have to do with science here?
> 
> ~S~


Grump is angry that people of faith don't believe the things he tells them to.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 13, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> [
> Of course that's something no human being will ever be able to answer (not while on this plane of existence anyway).
> But we have proof of the universe maker, or engineer, because we have proof of the universe itself.
> Did you read my link to the scientific way we know the universe is not without a beginning?
> ...



And why does the 'thing' that started it off have to be a god? Or an omnipotent being?

Yeah, but I can tell you where you got the parts to make the bike.

There is no proof other than belief of a god.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 13, 2019)

daveman said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > WT <blue> F  does faith have to do with science here?
> ...


\
Grump isn't even angry.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 13, 2019)

peach174 said:


> The Bible explains why the climate is changing and it's not because of fossil fuels.
> It describes exactly what's happening right now with our climate and how we can change it.
> But the vast majority won't accept it.


I'm almost to afraid to ask. Almost. Why?


----------



## peach174 (Oct 13, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible explains why the climate is changing and it's not because of fossil fuels.
> ...



Read it and find out.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 13, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Don't have the time or inclination


----------



## peach174 (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...




That's your right to do so.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


Grump is less than honest.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

peach174 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Grump bitterly clings to his faith.

Like all militant atheists, he is very closed-minded.  He wouldn't even go through a simple thought experiment.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> Grump is less than honest.



I think any lay person reading this might see a hint of anger in our to and fro. But I'm thinking that hint isn't coming from me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> Grump bitterly clings to his faith.
> 
> Like all militant atheists, he is very closed-minded.  He wouldn't even go through a simple thought experiment.



I am far from militant. Used to be for sure! As for being close-minded, I would suggest that is on you. I'm the one who thought long and hard about believing and non-believing. IOW, I have thought both proposals through. You haven't. You only give one train of thought consideration. I have moved on. You're stuck in the Middle Ages. That's on you.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Grump is less than honest.
> ...


Is that another one of those things that you insist just is?


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Grump bitterly clings to his faith.
> ...


Really?

1.  I used to be an atheist.  I wasn't an asshole, though...I was respectful of others' beliefs.  For instance, I never compared religion to belief in Santa and never told anyone they were stuck in the Middle Ages.

2.  Do my thought experiment.  Prove you have an open mind.  Don't just make claims and stamp your feet and insist they're true.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



not really. But I do know if I'm angry. And I'm not. You on the other hand....


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> 1.  I used to be an atheist.  I wasn't an asshole, though...I was respectful of others' beliefs.  For instance, I never compared religion to belief in Santa and never told anyone they were stuck in the Middle Ages.
> 
> 2.  Do my thought experiment.  Prove you have an open mind.  Don't just make claims and stamp your feet and insist they're true.




I've never once stamped my feet and I'm only insisting on what I say is true in the same sense you think what you are saying is true. Either believe me or don't. I don't mind either way.

What am I supposed to do when it comes to comparing Santa to a god? Lie. That is what I truely believe. They are comparable IMO. If you find that insulting there is not much I can do about it. I see absolutely no difference between the two. shrug...


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Dood.  It's words on a screen.  Your observations are colored by your prejudices.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  I used to be an atheist.  I wasn't an asshole, though...I was respectful of others' beliefs.  For instance, I never compared religion to belief in Santa and never told anyone they were stuck in the Middle Ages.
> ...


I don't find it insulting, no matter your obvious intent.  It's been pointed out several times how the analogy is false.  

And yet again you refuse to conduct my thought experiment.  What are you afraid of?

Thing is, as I've said before, I can admit the possibility I'm wrong about God.

But you can't admit you might be wrong about God.  

Your claim you're more open-minded than me is patently false.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> Dood.  It's words on a screen.  Your observations are colored by your prejudices.



If it's words on a screen, then why are you getting all het up if I compare Santa to a god? 
Of course I have prejudices. So do you. And?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> I don't find it insulting, no matter your obvious intent.  It's been pointed out several times how the analogy is false.
> 
> And yet again you refuse to conduct my thought experiment.  What are you afraid of?
> 
> ...



oh, no no, no. I have not discounted the possibility of a god. There is a tiny, minute possibility there might be one. I choose not to believe so.

What thought experiment? Sorry, missed it.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dood.  It's words on a screen.  Your observations are colored by your prejudices.
> ...


But I'm not all het up.  Your prejudice against believers insists I am.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I don't find it insulting, no matter your obvious intent.  It's been pointed out several times how the analogy is false.
> ...


It's here:  Where do religious folk who are climate deniers reconcile this?

And you didn't miss it; you weaseled out of performing it here:  Where do religious folk who are climate deniers reconcile this?


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I've clicked on both links. They don't do anything.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> [
> But I'm not all het up.  Your prejudice against believers insists I am.




And you don't have prejudices against those who don't believe?


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Oh, bloody hell.  This thread, Post 263.  You quoted it in Post 267.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I treat people the way they treat me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> I'm well acquainted with the meanings.  I wonder if you are.  You keep demanding proof of God.
> 
> Faith precludes proof.  Proof of God would render faith meaningless, and utterly negate Man's free will.
> 
> ...



You can't disprove it. No more than you can disprove the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## daveman (Oct 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm well acquainted with the meanings.  I wonder if you are.  You keep demanding proof of God.
> ...


We may have made a breakthrough here!

So, what have we learned of the nature of faith here?  Do I need to walk you through it?  It would be a lot quicker, given the nature of this thread.

Matters that are inherently unknowable can neither be proven nor disproven.  THAT is the nature of faith.  "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, KJV)  You can argue against it until you're blue in the face...errr, fingers, in this case...but you can't state categorically that it's false.  Nor can you demand proof of a matter of faith, then pretend that the absence of proof is evidence the claim is false.

The origin of the universe is inherently unknowable...unless you invent a time machine.  Not real likely, is it?  Besides, as Schrödinger and his cat demonstrated, observing the experiment alters it.  If you go back in time to observe the origin of the universe, whether ten minutes or 13.8 billion years, you're standing outside of it and would alter it.  And you might, I dunno, make butter pecan ice cream impossible under the laws of physics of the universe whose birth you witnessed, and that would be _entirely_ unacceptable.

Now astrophysicists have come up with some ideas to explain how the universe began, based on things they see.  Those are all thought experiments, too -- since the events they're trying to describe are unobservable.  They're just as falsifiable as my created-ten-minutes-ago thought experiment, or the Biblical account of creation, or the Tooth Fairy.  In other words:  Not at all.  

Get it now?


----------



## Zorro! (Nov 12, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling...


You understand that models simply spit back the assumptions programmed into them?  The real world has never responded as predicted by the extreme models.


> ...yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god...


There are very good reasons to believe in God. In fact, I can come up with five in very short order:

God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
God can be immediately known and experienced.



> ... almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...


Demanding evidence, to you, is "evidence" of hypocrisy?  That looks like a concept in need of further consideration.

Don't worry about what Christians do or do not believe.  The strength of a concept is how well supported it is by real world evidence.  Who accepts it or rejects it has no bearing on that.

Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono: ‘Believe in Climate Change as Though It’s a Religion.’

Many years ago, the journalist Michael Kinsley noted an odd truth about American political life: 

“A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” ​While there are any number of other gaffes that a politician can make (please refer to anything ever uttered by Joe Biden), this particular type of screw-up has become known as a “Kinsley gaffe.” It can be very embarrassing for a politician to accidentally tell the truth. He’ll usually catch himself and start lying again immediately, and his partisans will pretend to believe the falsehoods over the truth, but everybody still knows he screwed up. He can lie about being momentarily and unintentionally honest, but he can’t unsay it.

Or she! It’s 2019, and it’s time we all recognized that women can be every bit as deceptive and untruthful as men. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) certainly is.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 12, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> ...



Your reasons for a belief are fine. But that is all they are. Belief not fact. Here is a fact - there is absolutely no empirical proof of a god. In fact, there is no type of proof whatsoever.

Quoting a single politician is you trying to make a point. Now quote 50 per cent of them saying that. I can cherrypick too.


----------



## Zorro! (Nov 12, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


Facts are not dependent on what percentage of any group agrees with them.  That is simply hand waving and means nothing, what is meaningful is how well a concept explains real world data.

Take for example the Origin of the Universe that flows directly from the Big Bang Theory that is the reigning theory of cosmogony.

In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang.

As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.​
Of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory.

In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.​
That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes,

"A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."​
But surely that doesn't make sense.  Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

*This argument summarizes as follows:*

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the truth of the the first two premises, the conclusion, 3, necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect, but, with a will, such an entity could refrain until the chosen moment of creation.

Taken together, we have an entity that sufficiently explains the origin of the Universe that's perfectly familiar to Theists and clearly the inference to the best explanation.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 13, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> Your reasons for a belief are fine. But that is all they are. Belief not fact. Here is a fact - there is absolutely no empirical proof of a god. In fact, there is no type of proof whatsoever.
> 
> Quoting a single politician is you trying to make a point. Now quote 50 per cent of them saying that. I can cherrypick too.


Facts are not dependent on what percentage of any group agrees with them.  That is simply hand waving and means nothing, what is meaningful is how well a concept explains real world data.

Take for example the Origin of the Universe that flows directly from the Big Bang Theory that is the reigning theory of cosmogony.

In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang.

As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.​
Of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory.

In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.​
That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes,

"A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."​
But surely that doesn't make sense.  Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

*This argument summarizes as follows:*

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the truth of the the first two premises, the conclusion, 3, necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect, but, with a will, such an entity could refrain until the chosen moment of creation.

Taken together, we have an entity that sufficiently explains the origin of the Universe that's perfectly familiar to Theists and clearly the inference to the best explanation.[/QUOTE]

And this is where religious folk lose me. You expect to make the point that nothing can't come from nothing (ie.unbelievable), but that this 'timeless' entity not only has always 'been', but the beginning of its existence is just explained as 'uncaused' or 'timeless'...I find that excuse a convenient copout. 

In saying that, I find your point of view interesting..


----------



## Zorro! (Nov 13, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > Your reasons for a belief are fine. But that is all they are. Belief not fact. Here is a fact - there is absolutely no empirical proof of a god. In fact, there is no type of proof whatsoever.
> ...





> And this is where religious folk lose me. You expect to make the point that nothing can't come from nothing (ie.unbelievable),


How does something come from nothing?


> but that this 'timeless' entity not only has always 'been', but the beginning of its existence is just explained as 'uncaused' or 'timeless'...I find that excuse a convenient copout...


What sense would it make to discuss a cause for an eternal being?  The very definition of eternal is that it has always existed.  If it has always existed, what need is there for a cause?  When would the cause operate?

The Universe, on the other hand, according to the reigning theory of science is a temporal entity, that is, about 13 billion years ago, it began to exist.  Why?

I'm not insisting that you agree, but, I do think that you can agree that the question is not an irrational one and that the assumption that the origin was caused rather than uncaused is perfectly rational as well.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 13, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> [
> What sense would it make to discuss a cause for an eternal being?  The very definition of eternal is that it has always existed.  If it has always existed, what need is there for a cause?  When would the cause operate?
> 
> The Universe, on the other hand, according to the reigning theory of science is a temporal entity, that is, about 13 billion years ago, it began to exist.  Why?
> ...



I agree to a degree. Who is to say the universe hasn't been contracting and expanding for trillions of years? And maybe there never was a start? We made the word eternal, but who says this being was eternal. Our logic stats that something has to come from somewhere or something. Everything in the universe does. Except for this unprovable 'being'. Kinda convenient IMO...


----------



## Zorro! (Nov 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


That was a theory for awhile, it fell out of circulation over the entropy problem which is that no one could come up with a logical reason to believe that entropy would reverse during the collapse/bounce cycle, meaning that entropy would continuously build and that's not sustainable over eternity.


> ... Our logic stats that something has to come from somewhere or something. Everything in the universe does...


Exactly.  Anyway you can see the tendency, if one rejects Theism to move toward the position that "the universe popped into existence from nothing, for no reason at all."  On a comparative basis I don't find that position to be more rational than Theism.

The 2nd reason that I tend toward the Theistic explanation is that God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 14, 2019)

daveman said:


> Now astrophysicists have come up with some ideas to explain how the universe began, based on things they see.  Those are all thought experiments, too -- since the events they're trying to describe are unobservable.  They're just as falsifiable as my created-ten-minutes-ago thought experiment, or the Biblical account of creation, or the Tooth Fairy.  In other words:  Not at all.
> 
> Get it now?



True. But they do have knowable data from experiments that they can compare information to. 
There is no knowable data about a god. None whatsoever.


----------



## daveman (Nov 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Now astrophysicists have come up with some ideas to explain how the universe began, based on things they see.  Those are all thought experiments, too -- since the events they're trying to describe are unobservable.  They're just as falsifiable as my created-ten-minutes-ago thought experiment, or the Biblical account of creation, or the Tooth Fairy.  In other words:  Not at all.
> ...


That experimental data was created along with the rest of the universe 10 minutes ago.

You cannot prove me wrong.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 14, 2019)

Dr Grump said:


> Not too sure if this is current events (climate change) or religion (Christianity).
> 
> Climate deniers are always rambling on about empirical evidence not being available on humans causing climate change (even though scientists use the well-proven and peer-reviewed modelling method that show unequivocally that we are having a negative effect), yet there is absolutely zero evidence of a god. Only faith. It seems - and I'm only going on anecdotal evidence on this board - that almost all climate-change-is-being-caused-by-humans deniers are conservatives, and quite a few are Christians. Seems hypocrisy to me...




Moron...they hide data, they change data, the models can't even predict the weather that has already happened.....

The science doesn't support anything you asshats claim....


----------

