Winning the war against religion

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11791
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Super Nova » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:28 am

IQS.RLOW wrote:PS... I note you still ignore there has been no warming for 16 years when we should have been cooking.

Why do you ignore the science?
Faith?

Nice try but no cigar.

16 years ... so what.... this is what they said 2 weeks ago about that point.

The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.


And the THEY are: The IPCC who are:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

I look a the science, read the reports and articles and form my own view. I look to the credentials of the authors of what I read. The sceptics are not really challenging the science through any scientific process of their own. The are acting more like the creationists. They just disbelieve the evidence and result some of the biggest brains on the planet and their conclusions.
New York time 28-Aug-2013 like 2 weeks ago
An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace.

The level of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is up 41 percent since the Industrial Revolution. Emissions from facilities like coal-fired power plants contribute.

The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors.

The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound.

“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”
Look at the process these guys follow and the number of people involved. I look forward to the next report that will be completed and published next year. Look here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activitie ... jHod-5waM8

Here is the process.... read the site. The scientific process in action.

Image
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by IQS.RLOW » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:59 am

The sceptics are not really challenging the science through any scientific process of their own.
Completely and utterly wrong.

It is the warmists that have turned science into a laughing stock with appeals to authority and demands of "the science is settled", "need action now", disaster hypothesis and spending of trillions to make not a single, minuscule difference to the world temperature ...and all this kerfuffle is based upon that magical scientific formula that when all pieced together comes up with...."likely" :roll:

Even now, scientists are coming out with new peer reviewed research based on a much lower climate sensitivity- again i ask, why do you ignore the science?

I'll tell you why, because it doesn't fit your faith.
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

User avatar
Chard
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:05 pm
Location: Mein Führer! I can walk!

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Chard » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:17 am

AiA in Atlanta wrote:I don't look at it as a battle anymore
It really isn't a battle. There isn't any more direct or even indirect evidence for God/Gods than there is for the Tooth Fairy and Santa. There's a reason why the religious speak of "faith", because they have no proof. That's exactly what faith; it's belief in something there is no evidence for.

Where you have "faith", I have scientific certainty. Where you have "religion", I have years of rigorous study and hard work. Where you bow your head in deference to "God", I lift my head in the light of reason.
AiA in Atlanta wrote: religion is very, very useful
No, religion is very, very easy. It requires no work and absolves personal responsibility on an imaginary entity. On the other hand, science and math requires years of constant work to understand, even more so if you intend to innovate and improve the sum of human knowledge about the natural universe. Science also requires personal integrity, because if you cannot admit that you might be wrong and accept mistakes then you cannot advance past those mistakes.
AiA in Atlanta wrote:evidenced that it has been around forever
Name me one piece of evidence for God's existence that's directly or indirectly observable and can withstand peer-review. Take your time, many more knowledgeable than you have tried to do so in the paste and they all failed, hence the "miracle of faith" nonsense.

AiA in Atlanta wrote:and to substitute science for religion is no improvement at all.
The irony is if it weren't for science we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Take a look around you and ask yourself how much of the things you have, the things you rely on every day, are the direct result of science. Science isn't simply an improvement over religion, its an essential part of modern society. If religion were to disappear over night life could still continue, but without science and those who practice and innovate in the various fields that add to and enrich our lives, civilization as we know it would not be possible.
Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the FEAR to attack. - Dr. Strangelove

Aldebaran5

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Aldebaran5 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:56 am

Chard wrote:
Name me one piece of evidence for God's existence that's directly or indirectly observable and can withstand peer-review.
OK. My god is shown in this picture. I can touch it, and I can tell you how much it weighs.

Image

Proof that god exists.

User avatar
Chard
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:05 pm
Location: Mein Führer! I can walk!

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Chard » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:54 am

Aldebaran5 wrote:OK. My god is shown in this picture. I can touch it, and I can tell you how much it weighs. *snip pic*
That's not "God", that's a piece of carved rock, most likely sandstone. In response though, apply the following to your stoney idol.
Epicurus wrote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Aldebaran5 wrote:Proof that god exists.
No, it's a carved rock. If anything it's an example of geology and anthropology.
Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the FEAR to attack. - Dr. Strangelove

Aldebaran5

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Aldebaran5 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:40 am

Chard wrote: That's not "God", that's a piece of carved rock, most likely sandstone. In response though, apply the following to your stoney idol.
Epicurus wrote:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Aldebaran5 wrote:Proof that god exists.
No, it's a carved rock. If anything it's an example of geology and anthropology.
Sorry to offend you. I didn't realise that the god that you didn't believe in was so specific that it didn't include my personal god. So are you exckusively a Christian Atheist?

- or maybe God just needs to be omnipotent to satisfy your criteria. Do you believe in the gods that are not omnipotent?

Tell me more about your God. Is it brown, red, yellow, blue?

User avatar
Chard
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:05 pm
Location: Mein Führer! I can walk!

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Chard » Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:33 pm

Aldebaran5 wrote:Sorry to offend you.
What exactly was it I said that at all implies I was offended? Here I thought we were engaging in debate... Silly me, right.
Aldebaran5 wrote:I didn't realise that the god that you didn't believe in was so specific that it didn't include my personal god.
If you want to pray at a carved rock, go ahead. I'm just saying that there are no mystical or supernatural entities involved outside of your own mind.

Aldebaran5 wrote:So are you exckusively a Christian Atheist?
No, I equally apply empirical reasoning to all invisible sky pixies regardless of their respective religions. My position has been from the start that "God" only exists in the minds of the faithful with no ability at all to influence or interact the natural universe. "God" is as real to you as my 6 year old niece's imaginary friend "Bob the Teddy Bear".

Aldebaran5 wrote:or maybe God just needs to be omnipotent to satisfy your criteria.
As Epicurus pointed out if God has no power then why call him "God"? Why worship something that is powerless when that same effort could be applied to something that can tangibly improve your life or the lives of those around you?
Aldebaran5 wrote:Do you believe in the gods that are not omnipotent?
I'm an atheist. I do not believe in any gods at all.

Aldebaran5 wrote:Tell me more about your God. Is it brown, red, yellow, blue?
The above statement covers this, though my favorite color is green.
Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the FEAR to attack. - Dr. Strangelove

Aldebaran5

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Aldebaran5 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:42 pm

Chard wrote:
Aldebaran5 wrote:I didn't realise that the god that you didn't believe in was so specific that it didn't include my personal god.
If you want to pray at a carved rock, go ahead. I'm just saying that there are no mystical or supernatural entities involved outside of your own mind.
My carved ... god. Correct.
Aldebaran5 wrote:So are you exckusively a Christian Atheist?
No, I equally apply empirical reasoning to all invisible sky pixies regardless of their respective religions. My position has been from the start that "God" only exists in the minds of the faithful with no ability at all to influence or interact the natural universe. "God" is as real to you as my 6 year old niece's imaginary friend "Bob the Teddy Bear".
Well mine is not an invisible sky pixie. It's a visible ground god. I can touch it, and other people can confirm that it exists.

I think your Atheism is very specific to invisible sky pixies. (Is that Christianity?)
Aldebaran5 wrote:or maybe God just needs to be omnipotent to satisfy your criteria.
As Epicurus pointed out if God has no power then why call him "God"? Why worship something that is powerless when that same effort could be applied to something that can tangibly improve your life or the lives of those around you?
No power is not the same as not ominipotent. My God has certain powers.
Aldebaran5 wrote:Do you believe in the gods that are not omnipotent?
I'm an atheist. I do not believe in any gods at all.
I respect that position. So if I threw my god at you, you wouldn't duck? (I told you it has certain powers. You should see how it holds papers from blowing away). Totally awesome. If you could see a god, would you still not believe it exists? What about gods that nobody has yet imagined? Would you "not believe" in those as a matter of principle?
The above statement covers this, though my favorite color is green.
- and I tell you this. There are no green gods. Do you disagree?

You see, gods are determined to be gods by people. You defined your own god (which you don't believe in) as a sky pixie. I respect your right to define god as you wish, but if you don't believe in it, would you be so protective of its "sky pixie" definition.

My god is a rock. You say that you don't believe in any gods, but I feel quite sure that I can demonstrate that my god exists and has certain powers. You can't take away my personal definition of god, and so far you haven't even begun to define exactly what it is that you don't believe in. What you've said so far doesn't cover my god, and probably many others, so you'll have to explain to me how you can't believe in any gods.

I'm thinking of another god right now. Do you believe in it? (maybe you believe that you can read minds)

User avatar
Super Nova
Posts: 11791
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
Location: Overseas

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by Super Nova » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:16 pm

IQS.RLOW wrote:
The sceptics are not really challenging the science through any scientific process of their own.
Completely and utterly wrong.

It is the warmists that have turned science into a laughing stock with appeals to authority and demands of "the science is settled", "need action now", disaster hypothesis and spending of trillions to make not a single, minuscule difference to the world temperature ...and all this kerfuffle is based upon that magical scientific formula that when all pieced together comes up with...."likely" :roll:

Even now, scientists are coming out with new peer reviewed research based on a much lower climate sensitivity- again i ask, why do you ignore the science?

I'll tell you why, because it doesn't fit your faith.
IQ, each and every skeptic argument is destroyed on this site. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I think you are not really challenging the science of global warming but the action that needs to be taken.

You are for adaptation only and I am for mitigation with adaptation where we fail to mitigate.

Why do you think we should do SFA to mitigate the human influence on the warming of the Earth. Is it just that the governments are seeking to use taxation as their key behaviour change tool and that will have an adverse impact on the economy that is so inflammatory to your far right wing ideology?
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: Winning the war against religion

Post by IQS.RLOW » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:47 pm

I am challenging the science because for the last 15 years the science has been wrong. Even the IPCC admits that they will have to trash their models within 3 years if the warming doesn't appear.

Skeptical science is a warmerist website and their spin has been debunked a number of times. It's run by a fucking cartoonist :roll:
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests