PC friday question of the day.

[TimT]

I believe the scientists that say we are affecting the climate.

I always show this to people and never heard it mentioned by people. Although it's not a very good proof of anything because who said nows that time, who said it won't be instantanious when the time comes, and who said it won't be clothing.

.כתובות ל

This contradicts the whole belief of “man made” warming as it clearly states g-d will warm it. And nothing man can do to reverse it either. So let’s stop all regulations & stupid taxes.

[TimT]

NO ONE IS INNOCENT!

Anyone who has farted or eaten a hamburger made from a farting cow is complicit!

That’s why I only purchase “FArT FREE” hamburgers.

[Definitions]

This contradicts the whole belief of “man made” warming as it clearly states g-d will warm it. And nothing man can do to reverse it either. So let’s stop all regulations & stupid taxes.

Yes it sounds like you're right in the logic. I still have to think about it a little

[CountValentine]

Not necessarily. If you were given a choice of death by the sword or death by drowning, which would you choose?

I would choose you go in my place since you are afraid to answer any questions. 

[ExGingi]

Is your denial based on your religious beliefs?

Someone seems to have an insatiable appetite for PC this Friday.

[ExGingi]

I would choose you go in my place since you are afraid to answer any questions. 

Me!? Afraid!? To answer questions!?

Which planet are you living on?

[ExGingi]

Is your denial based on your religious beliefs?

1. Where did you see me denying anything?
2. Is there anything in my life that isn't intimately tied to or somewhat based on my religious beliefs?
3. @whYME spelled out the FACTS pretty clearly here after tersely stating his "beliefs" on this matter, while others elaborated more on how believing in "man made global warming (or climate change)" is contradictory to our belief system.

Now can you answer some questions?

[aygart]

Me!? Afraid!? To answer questions!?

Which planet are you living on?

@cbc

[CountValentine]

Now can you answer some questions?

I answer more questions than any other person on this forum. You on the other hand ask three more question while not answering any. 

[ExGingi]

I answer more questions than any other person on this forum. You on the other hand ask three more question while not answering any. 

I, my dear friend, am Jewish, and answer your questions the traditional way Jews answer questions. You, on the other hand, are referring me to answers to questions that are of no interest to me, rather than answer an honest question regarding your belief system.

[whYME]

So I probably should've posted this post here to begin with.

Not sure why you think this is something you need to argue. These are simple facts and dictionary definitions.

It's a figure of speech

I think @CountValentine won't argue on this, I believe he's a frum religious good Christian..

All of that being true, still doesn't explain why argue about atheism (does it need to be capitalized) being a religion (and for some reason my impression is that's its believers tend to be more arrogant and condescending than those of other religions).

So you guys think that what I posted is an undisputed, universally-accepted view?

I believe that even many religious people -- even though they believe in G-d and creationism etc themselves -- have bought into this lie that atheism is the rational scientific view (at least based on current scientific understanding) while religion is not. My argument here is against that idea, I'm not arguing for or against atheism or religion etc.

[CountValentine]

So I probably should've posted this post here to begin with.
It's a figure of speech

So you guys think that what I posted is an undisputed, universally-accepted view?

I believe that even many religious people -- even though they believe in G-d and creationism etc themselves -- have bought into this lie that atheism is the rational scientific view (at least based on current scientific understanding) while religion is not. My argument here is against that idea, I'm not arguing for or against atheism or religion etc.

Are you saying believing there is a G-d is a more rational view than there is not a G-d?

[whYME]

Are you saying believing there is a G-d is a more rational view than there is not a G-d?

No, I'm saying that contrary to popular belief, believing there's no G-d and the world created itself completely by chance is no more rational than believing that there's a G-d who creates and runs the world.

[jj1000]

No, I'm saying that contrary to popular belief, believing there's no G-d and the world created itself completely by chance is no more rational than believing that there's a G-d who creates and runs the world.

I think atheists will argue that G-d is a construct of religion. And you have the starting point all wrong.

They simply believe in what they can observe, what science can observe.

So to say that it's just as likely one way or the other is simply false. Because one is that we are going to make up an answer the other is we don't know yet, but that doesn't mean we will make up an answer and call it G-d.

Iirc Richard Dawkins explains their view on this well.

[skyguy918]

Also, keep in mind that atheism is at least as wide a term for a range of potential believe as any religion, without the centralization of doctrine that something like the Roman Catholic Church (or any similar religious body in any of the religions) imposes.

[whYME]

I think atheists will argue that G-d is a construct of religion. And you have the starting point all wrong.

They simply believe in what they can observe, what science can observe.

So to say that it's just as likely one way or the other is simply false. Because one is that we are going to make up an answer the other is we don't know yet, but that doesn't mean we will make up an answer and call it G-d.

Iirc Richard Dawkins explains their view on this well.

But that's exactly my point. accepting Darwinism as fact (or even as a viable option) is ascientific.

As I said in my original post

It's one thing to be agnostic, to say that you can't prove it either way. That's at least a fair argument.

Saying there's no way to know is fine. Saying that science supports the notion that there is no G-d is simply not true.
Darwinism has been effectively disproven. (At least to the intellectually honest.) The big bang theory still has some big unanswered questions. It may be the best theory we have right now, but it's not quite the scientific fact it's made out to be.
Believing those things as fact is a religious belief, not a scientific belief.

[shwarmabob]

Are you saying believing there is a G-d is a more rational view than there is not a G-d?

look at Quinque vić (@CountValentine only)

[CountValentine]

No, I'm saying that contrary to popular belief, believing there's no G-d and the world created itself completely by chance is no more rational than believing that there's a G-d who creates and runs the world.

So I said the glass is half empty and you said it is half full.
The problem comes when one tries and disprove the other side. They then automatically conclude their side must then be right. They don't look at the possibility both are wrong. 

[CountValentine]

look at Quinque vić (@CountValentine only)

FBI?

[whYME]

So I said the glass is half empty and you said it is half full.
The problem comes when one tries and disprove the other side. They then automatically conclude their side must then be right. They don't look at the possibility both are wrong. 

No, I said that you can't say the glass is completely empty