Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phanatik wrote:Dogma

Pick the target.

Phanatik wrote:
A dispassionate (must be a Vulcan?) political expert

Freeze it.

Phanatik wrote:
(cause he said so)

Personalize it.

(Also, I never called myself an expert, for someone so intent on critiquing word choice, you're playing fast and loose with language.)

Phanatik wrote:
paid (by George Soros?) to follow me around (no photos please!).

And polarize it.

One could almost think you're having fun.

purplefood wrote:I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.
As it is, it's not exactly a bad idea anyway... so go figure...

97% of UFO researchers believe that Earth has been visited by UFOs.

Consensus is not science.

Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political. The last global warming period (mideival warm period) we had was pretty darn good for humanity and life in general.

Yes, I know, anthropogenic, but I saw that typo once and I like it

MrDwhitey wrote:One could almost think you're having fun.

God forbid that anyone should come on DakkaDakka and have fun.

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.
As it is, it's not exactly a bad idea anyway... so go figure...

97% of UFO researchers believe that Earth has been visited by UFOs.

Consensus is not science.

Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political. The last global warming period (mideival warm period) we had was pretty darn good for humanity and life in general.

Yes, I know, anthropogenic, but I saw that typo once and I like it

I think that on the whole the fellows researchng global warming are a touch more reliable...
That said i haven't met any so they could all me raving lunatics.

biccat wrote:
Consensus is not science.

Thomas Kuhn disagrees.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Consensus is not science.

Thomas Kuhn disagrees.

That statement is completely and objectively false.

biccat wrote:
That statement is completely and objectively false.

Paradigms are predicated on consensus, and unless The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was about art, its a fair bet that consensus is a part of Kuhnian science.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
That statement is completely and objectively false.

Paradigms are predicated on consensus, and unless The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was about art, its a fair bet that consensus is a part of Kuhnian science.

Kuhn passed away in 1996 and is incapable of agreement or disagreement.

biccat wrote:
Kuhn passed away in 1996 and is incapable of agreement or disagreement.

So you're denying the possibility of an afterlife?

dogma wrote:So you're denying the possibility of an afterlife?

I deny the possibility of knowledge of an afterlife, or communication between the two.

Either your statement is false or it is unknowable.

Kilkrazy wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:One could almost think you're having fun.

God forbid that anyone should come on DakkaDakka and have fun.

I know, it's quite disgraceful.

biccat wrote:
I deny the possibility of knowledge of an afterlife, or communication between the two.

Either your statement is false or it is unknowable.

But...Christian eschatology...

dogma wrote:But...Christian eschatology...

Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.

Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.

Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.

biccat wrote:
Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.

Jedi?

biccat wrote:
Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.

No, there are other defensible, and consistent, religious beliefs.

Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?

biccat wrote:
Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.

Actually, no, none of that is true.

biccat wrote:
Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.

Atheism isn't a religious belief, nor is theism.

dogma wrote:Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?

I never said that. You just have to accept that your personal beliefs are not objectively demonstrable.

dogma wrote:

Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.

Actually, no, none of that is true.

Um...what? How is it not true? The Christian concept of afterlife is based on comments by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. There are other references to an afterlife, particularly in the old testament, but the Christian concept of the afterlife started with Christ.

dogma wrote:Atheism isn't a religious belief, nor is theism.

It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.

biccat wrote:
I never said that. You just have to accept that your personal beliefs are not objectively demonstrable.

You should know by now that I don't have personal beliefs.

biccat wrote:
Um...what? How is it not true? The Christian concept of afterlife is based on comments by Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. There are other references to an afterlife, particularly in the old testament, but the Christian concept of the afterlife started with Christ.

Christ didn't have an explicit eschatology, that came from John.

biccat wrote:
It's almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.

I'm sorry, let me be more precise: Atheism is not a religious perspective, nor is theism.

Chongara wrote:If Global Warming was real Jesus would have told us about it when he wrote the bible.

He did. Thats why TRexes had liked coconuts. Coconuts grow in hot climates. DUH!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm conservative. yet...
They want to force you to pray in school (and re-write curriculum to remove science from it),
***Don't want that.

they want to block homosexuals from marrying (and they even try to make it socially if not legally acceptable to assault them),
***Don't care. If you want to be that stupid I'll warn you "don't do it!" too...

they want to force women to not be able to choose abortion (and the hate they spew on this subject is vitriolic enough to eat through non-reactive glass),
***Don't care.

they want to block immigrants from coming into the country (and I'm not even talking about the illegal ones, whom they almost want to punish by execution at times), and so on and so forth.
***Bring 'em! I just want the nation to have secure borders.

Social conservatives are essentially defined by their desire to control your life, contrasting against libertarianism.
***I don't want to control your life. I just want you to do what I say. Is that so bad?

dogma wrote:You should know by now that I don't have personal beliefs.

I assumed we were talking about a hypothetical 'you'. However, I am unable to connect your assertion that you don't have personal beliefs with your previous comment "Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?" that implicitly suggests that God did tell you that he exists.

The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.

dogma wrote:Christ didn't have an explicit eschatology, that came from John.

I think you're confusing revelations with the afterlife. While Christ didn't discuss the Revelation, he did refer to the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the concept of the afterlife.

dogma wrote:I'm sorry, let me be more precise: Atheism is not a religious perspective, nor is theism.

Sure it is. Perspective is how you see the world, the state of your ideas. Believing or not believing in God is a perspective on religion, just as belief or unbelief in unicorns is a perspective on equestrianism.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:But...Christian eschatology...

Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.

Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.

Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.

Maybe in your somewhat biased belief it is Bic.

Atheism is defensible, ive seen some truly sterling efforts.

And even if you manage to make that leap, how on earth is a lack of belief LESS defensible than fething MAGIC!? Not a hypothesis, not even a coherent idea, just out and out, mystical magic!

And atheism isn't a religious perspective, I've never even heard a sensible Religious people say such a silly thing. Just those wacky Creationists in a desperate attempt to add some credence to their own staggering ridiculous and universally disproved theory of nothing, because if we are all Religious, then they just look a tiny bit less silly. Its childish.

I know its silly to point it out of course, as this absurd non argument comes up all the time what with all the American young earthers that frequent dakkadakka, but I merely lack a belief until some good evidence turns up. How the feth does that make me Religious?

biccat wrote:
I assumed we were talking about a hypothetical 'you'. However, I am unable to connect your assertion that you don't have personal beliefs with your previous comment "Who are you to say God didn't tell me that he exists?" that implicitly suggests that God did tell you that he exists.

Meh, not really, one can suggest occurrences without them being existential. I doubt Judith Jarvis Thomson really pushed a fat man in front of a trolley.

biccat wrote:
The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.

According to Dantec, that's an asset.

biccat wrote:
I think you're confusing revelations with the afterlife. While Christ didn't discuss the Revelation, he did refer to the "Kingdom of Heaven" and the concept of the afterlife.

He did refer to a "Kingdom of Heaven", and the place he would "prepare" but that was prior to his "death".

It isn't clear that Jesus had any concept of afterlife at all.

biccat wrote:
Sure it is. Perspective is how you see the world, the state of your ideas. Believing or not believing in God is a perspective on religion, just as belief or unbelief in unicorns is a perspective on equestrianism.

So science is religious (no, Orlanth, it isn't), now?

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:But...Christian eschatology...

Agnosticism is the only defensible and consistent religious belief, especially as to concepts of the afterlife.

Belief in the afterlife (from a Christian perspective) requires the belief that Jesus knew of the afterlife, that he spoke the truth, and that the truth was adequately recorded. Each of these is ultimately an act of faith and isn't objectively knowable.

Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.

Maybe in your somewhat biased belief it is Bic.

Atheism is defensible, ive seen some truly sterling efforts.

And even if you manage to make that leap, how on earth is a lack of belief LESS defensible than fething MAGIC!? Not a hypothesis, not even a coherent idea, just out and out, mystical magic!

And atheism isn't a religious perspective, I've never even heard a sensible Religious people say such a silly thing. Just those wacky Creationists in a desperate attempt to add some credence to their own staggering ridiculous and universally disproved theory of nothing, because if we are all Religious, then they just look a tiny bit less silly. Its childish.

I know its silly to point it out of course, as this absurd non argument comes up all the time what with all the American young earthers that frequent dakkadakka, but I merely lack a belief until some good evidence turns up. How the feth does that make me Religious?

Your insolence to the revealed knowledge of the Great Speghetti being will not go unanswered.
in recompence I shall sacrifice angel hair pasta with a nice marinara tonight to appease its greatness.

Frazzled wrote:
Your insolence to the revealed knowledge of the Great Speghetti being will not go unanswered.
in recompence I shall sacrifice angel hair pasta with a nice marinara tonight to appease its greatness.

Vodka sauce is the only proper partner.

Perhaps a nice garlic focaccia.

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
You seem to have a problem with definitions, but liberals do want to control the language, in order to control the argument.

Its interesting that you think I'm on one side or the other. I'm probably more liberal than you, but I'm also less liberal than either Melissia or Sebster (to pull two examples from this thread) and I make my living by thinking about politics dispassionately.

In any case, appealing to definitions is an attempt to control language. So is crying wolf (read: socialist).

lol.

Dunno. A lot of the issues I'm conservative on never come up on this forum (gun control for example, as well as my views on military intervention-- I supported both Iraq and Afghanistan when they both started as well as Libya, though Iraq a bit less so in retrospect because hindsight's a *****)... Saying I'm "liberal" gives people the wrong idea. They might think I'd want to ban gun ownership or something. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Your insolence to the revealed knowledge of the Great Speghetti being will not go unanswered.
in recompence I shall sacrifice angel hair pasta with a nice marinara tonight to appease its greatness.

Vodka sauce is the only proper partner.

Perhaps a nice garlic focaccia.

I have not heard of the vodka sauce sect. We need to have a council level meeting, clearly. We just need a Caesar (salad) to call the meeting.

biccat wrote:The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.

It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.

"the only winning move is not to play." Ignore, and move on.

Regards,

So is this a thread about global warming or the sanity of people and their religions?

Global warning ain't real!

Didn't some island chain try to sue america for "causing the flooding" of their islands because USA puts out so much emitions?
So then the american lawyers had to come up with reasons why there wasn't anything such thing as global warming.
Which was easy enough as the whole global warming thing was fake. But they couldn't say that. So they paid off the islanders.

The only evidence I've seen of Global warning is: I used to see snow in New England a few days before Thanksgiving, now we hope for some around Christmas.

Phanatik wrote:

biccat wrote:The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.

It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.

"the only winning move is not to play." Ignore, and move on.

Regards,

I think its hilarious you play that card when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.

And you play THAT card.

You are such a child, it hurts my brain.

Karon wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

biccat wrote:The only rational conclusion I can reach is that you're insane.

It took a few posts, but I realized that persona was a tar baby.

"the only winning move is not to play." Ignore, and move on.

Regards,

I think its hilarious you play that card when everyone disproved you wrong and showed you how wrong you were and you completely ignored them by calling them socialists.

And you play THAT card.

You are such a child, it hurts my brain.

Does proper punctuation and sentence structure hurt your brain as well? Wait, shouldn't you be at an OccupyDumpwater Florida protest or something?