NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I am curious what religion you concider yourself and why?

Atheist, because God doesn't exist.

OK, I am curious what religion you concider yourself and why?

None, because religion is the bane of reason.
Reason works out very well for me, religion doesn't.

In regards to the existence of a god in general, hard agnostic; I think we're inherently incapable of proving either way.

In regards to all established religion, completely atheist. If we can't know one way or the other, than it logically follows that no religion is grounded in anything resembling truth.

Atheist, because God doesn't exist.

None, because religion is the bane of reason.
Reason works out very well for me, religion doesn't.

Then choose other on the scale you socialists.

I need no religion. I'm an Atheist and I don't care if I don't have all the answers, especially if the answer is simply 'god did it'. How weak.

Then choose other on the scale you socialists.

Uh... what makes them socialist exactly?

Also, it should be noted that the only difference between a "religion" and a "cult" is the size of the congregation.

Didn't we have enough religion threads in the past 24 hours already?

And it's CONSIDER. :rolleyes:

Although Cider would be nice, too

Atheism ought to have been a choice in the poll.

Then choose other on the scale you socialists.

I did vote other, thanks very much!:mad: (I'm not really angry, just seemed appropriate at the time.)

WTF, does socialism have to do with atheism? I though hardline communism was the form of government that sponsered atheism (i.e. Soviet Union, Atheist State):mad:(I really am mad about this one.)


Linky - State Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism)

Also, it should be noted that the only difference between a "religion" and a "cult" is the size of the congregation.

atheism would also be a cult of socialist construction to make people look for nothing but the government to be their saviour.

Atheism ought to have been a choice in the poll.

That is should have been, but it isn't. Because USE is a bigoted christian (no offense intended towards non-bigoted christians wherever they may hide.)

I did vote other, thanks very much!:mad: (I'm not really angry, just seemed appropriate at the time.)

WTF, does socialism have to do with atheism? I though hardline communism was the form of government that sponsered atheism (i.e. Soviet Union, Atheist State):mad:(I really am mad about this one.)


Linky - State Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism)

There was never a REAL communist state. Socialst states yes but in the true sense of communism never. That is why i state socialism is a backer of atheism.

I don't align myself with any religion very closely, and my upbringing was strictly secular. However, my gut and my conscience incline toward the Christian faith, which I find fascinating at the core, and I favor the Orthodox tradition, being in all likelihood the most unadulterated.

If anyone's interested: www.goarch.org is nice, and very complete.

Of course, I'm not arrogant enough to claim certain knowledge of God or the lack of God, and my conscience won't allow me to commit any *major* sins, so I don't end up in church very often (ever, really), but I've met so many great people and learned so much by studying and observing the faiths, that I try and keep openminded. :)

atheism would also be a cult of socialist construction to make people look for nothing but the government to be their saviour.

You really need to grow up and do a bit of reading. Reading is good for the brain you know. Improves thought processes.










Will find proof at a later date...

Then choose other on the scale you socialists.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Seriously though, i posted before your "options". Kthnxby

Atheism ought to have been a choice in the poll.

There is an obvious bias in this poll.

atheism would also be a cult of socialist construction to make people look for nothing but the government to be their saviour.

Atheists aren't all socialist.

That is singularly absurd. It's like saying religionists are all conservative/republican.

Didn't we have enough religion threads in the past 24 hours already?

And it's CONSIDER. :rolleyes:

Although Cider would be nice, too

Well, it *is* the season... :p

Uh... what makes them socialist exactly?

Gotta be my cool hat!

There was never a REAL communist state. Socialst staes yes but in the true sense of communism never. That is why i state socialism is a backer of atheism.

What ever floats your rapidly sinking boat of unreasonable assumption, dude/man/woman/thingy/it/eater-of-the-souls-of-innocent-children. I don't really know what you are.

Gotta be my cool hat!

Where can I get that? I wanna join the club! :)

Well, it *is* the season... :p
When isn’t it the season?

“You haven’t tasted Jack, till you’ve had Frosty’s.” ;)

Where can I get that? I wanna join the club! :)
It's an option on your W-2!!!

That is should have been, but it isn't. Because USE is a bigoted christian (no offense intended towards non-bigoted christians wherever they may hide.)

I love the fact that i put a poll out that does not influence anyone and get called a bigot by you. When people can not debate they insult. I was curious what the people on this site believed in. I do not want to convert you. So please explain where my bigotism comes in?

It's an option on your W-2!!!

On my... what? :confused:

Where can I get that? I wanna join the club! :)

With the hat you get a shirt too. http://www.cafepress.com/buy/socialist/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16002667/opt_/fpt_fHBa__DB_________bRH_P___e/c_667/

I love the fact that i put a poll out that does not influence anyone and get called a bigot by you. When people can not debate they insult. I was curious what the people on this site believed in. I do not want to convert you. So please explain where my bigotism comes in?

The fact that you have listed "Other" and "Global Warmist" instead of: Atheist, Deist, Agnostic, Gnostic and any variation. You also left out Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Janism and a litany of other recognised religions.

I love the fact that i put a poll out that does not influence anyone and get called a bigot by you. When people can not debate they insult. I was curious what the people on this site believed in. I do not want to convert you. So please explain where my bigotism comes in?

I said I was atheist, and you said I was an evil socialist seeking to oppress people or some shit. BIGOT!

On my... what? :confused:

Along the bottom, when you're talking about withholdings and such .... there's a little spot for ... "contributions".

*nods*
This was a bigger issue back in '04, for those here who remember, in the U.S.

Along the bottom, when you're talking about withholdings and such .... there's a little spot for ... "contributions".

*nods*
This was a bigger issue back in '04, for those here who remember, in the U.S.

Well you see... I'm not in the US so... I've never even heard of it. :)

Well you see... I'm not in the US so... I've never even heard of it. :)

I live in the US and I've never heard of it either. *makes mental note to pay closer atention*

There is an obvious bias in this poll.



Atheists aren't all socialist.

That is singularly absurd. It's like saying religionists are all conservative/republican.

You are correct all atheist are not socialist. socialism does encorage atheism though.

You are correct all atheist are not socialist. socialism does encorage atheism though.

Uh...not it doesn't....and if it does. Links please.

None of the above.

For the same reason I don't believe in magical garden gnomes.

The fact that you have listed "Other" and "Global Warmist" instead of: Atheist, Deist, Agnostic, Gnostic and any variation. You also left out Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Janism and a litany of other recognised religions.

Unfortunatley I only get 10 choices for the poll. I wanted to include other for all others. If you are offended that i did not include your choice then too bad life is not fair and get over it.

None of the above.

For the same reason I don't believe in magical garden gnomes.Hey now, don't get insulting to these little fellas...

None of the above.

For the same reason I don't believe in magical garden gnomes.

Not even this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/German_garden_gnome.jpg):(

You are correct all atheist are not socialist. socialism does encorage atheism though.

Broad generalizations do not a truth make.

The USSR was socialist/pseudocommunist.
The USSR promoted atheism.
That does not mean all socialists promote atheism.

Just like:
The sky is blue.
My pen is blue.
My pen is not the sky. And the sky is not a pen. They just share a common trait.



Or, in logic mathematics, for those of you proficient with them:
X-> p ^ X-> q =/= p-> q

atheism would also be a cult of socialist construction to make people look for nothing but the government to be their saviour.

Hmmmm....I reject atheism (in the "there is without a doubt no god" sense), god, and government for the same single reason: I won't stand for anything to be considered as my superior. Much less some superfluous ideology.

I said I was atheist, and you said I was an evil socialist seeking to oppress people or some shit. BIGOT!

LOL. another response that requires no reson but just a scream BIGOT response......lol....It is like crying wolf i am numb to Bigot, Racist, and .etc

Unfortunatley I only get 10 choices for the poll. I wanted to include other for all others. If you are offended that i did not include your choice then too bad life is not fair and get over it.Life is not fair, indeed. Otherwise you'd be more considerate in choosing the options in your pointless polls.

Unfortunatley I only get 10 choices for the poll. I wanted to include other for all others. If you are offended that i did not include your choice then too bad life is not fair and get over it.

I forgot to ask a little while ago...why is Global Warmist on there? Global Warming has nothing to do with religion. It is real after all...

I am not exactly sure.

I believe in a God. I would like to think Jesus did some cool stuff..
I still need to work out my philosophy..

Ask me in 20 years or so.

OK, I am curious what religion you concider yourself and why?

I consider myself an Antagonist. There are many on NS that will testify to how devout I am.

Not even this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/German_garden_gnome.jpg):(

Especially that one, with the bedroom eyes.

Hmmmm....I reject atheism (in the "there is without a doubt no god" sense), god, and government for the same single reason: I won't stand for anything to be considered as my superior. Much less some superfluous ideology.

Then welcome to our ranks, my Agnostic brother, in the realm of "I don't know and I don't care because it doesn't matter".

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/

LOL. another response that requires no reson but just a scream BIGOT response......lol....It is like crying wolf i am numb to Bigot, Racist, and .etc

I had a choice between bigot and NS Resident Retard. I chose the one that was least offensive.

And I can't really think of a logical argument to change your mind about socialist being the root of atheism. You made up your mind before the first thread post had been created.

Uh...not it doesn't....and if it does. Links please.

USSR was a socialist country that discouraged religeous beliefs. Most of the the world called them communists but that was incorrect, they were socialists.

Especially that one, with the bedroom eyes.

:( *packs away garden gnome and newly printed gnomish texts*

Agnostic. Religion is blah.

USSR was a socialist country that discouraged religeous beliefs. Most of the the world called them communists but that was incorrect, they were socialists.

Nope. They were very much communist.



http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0008)

If I read correctly it mentions communism in there...maybe you see things differently???\

Religious Affiliation: Unimpressed.

Atheism ought to have been a choice in the poll.

Nope, because lack of religion is not a religion.

I forgot to ask a little while ago...why is Global Warmist on there? Global Warming has nothing to do with religion. It is real after all...
Theory is not real. Global warmists are radical and state the debate is over and want to get mad and talk trash about anyone who debates their theory. They usually say something along the lines of being a facist or a oil worshiper. The theory of global warming is just that , a theory. Y2K was also a crazy theory that proved false.

Theory is not real. Global warmists are radical and state the debate is over and want to get mad and talk trash about anyone who debates their theory. They usually say something along the lines of being a facist or a oil worshiper. The theory of global warming is just that , a theory. Y2K was also a crazy theory that proved false.


For me Y2K and Global Warming are not comparable, because the former didnt' happen and the latter is happening even as we speak.

I forgot to ask a little while ago...why is Global Warmist on there? Global Warming has nothing to do with religion. It is real after all...

I agree that it does not belong on the list....but global warming is not much more---if ANY more---"real" than god; that is to say, there will never come a day when we can say "that's it! We have every single fact about the universe in this here book, and it says here on page 195 that global warming is real!"

This is not to say that it DOESN'T exist; it's only to say that---as is the case with ALL things inductive---it can never be conclusively proven.*


*I'm aware that I'm overreacting to what was really no more than an afterthought on your part, but I find myself consistently annoyed by the belief that there is anything that can be conclusively proven. I mean no offense; I would've said the same thing if you had said "electrons are real."



I don't discriminate in my agnosticism. :)

Nope, because lack of religion is not a religion.

Seems obvious enough. get thee on MSN!

Then welcome to our ranks, my Agnostic brother, in the realm of "I don't know and I don't care because it doesn't matter".

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/

Oooooh! Awesome! :)

Nope. They were very much communist.



http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+su0008)

If I read correctly it mentions communism in there...maybe you see things differently???\

Your link does not work but please study the differences between communism ansd socialism. In the true sense there was never a communist regiem.

I agree that it does not belong on the list....but global warming is not much more---if ANY more---"real" than god; that is to say, there will never come a day when we can say "that's it! We have every single fact about the universe in this here book, and it says here on page 195 that global warming is real!"

This is not to say that it DOESN'T exist; it's only to say that---as is the case with ALL things inductive---it can never be conclusively proven.*


*I'm aware that I'm overreacting to what was really no more than an afterthought on your part, but I find myself consistently annoyed by the belief that there is anything that can be conclusively proven. I mean no offense; I would've said the same thing if you had said "electrons are real."

Fine by me. I personally believe that Global Warming is happening, but I don't hold the fact that you are skeptical against you.

Theory is not real. Global warmists are radical and state the debate is over and want to get mad and talk trash about anyone who debates their theory. They usually say something along the lines of being a facist or a oil worshiper. The theory of global warming is just that , a theory. Y2K was also a crazy theory that proved false.OK, let's draw the line here. Your religious drooling was entertaining for a while, but denying global warming is just plain mental retardation and lack of all education.

Seems obvious enough. get thee on MSN!

You'd think so, but neither the OP nor many subsequent posters are exactly cream of the crop. Ah, well, I needed to update my ignore list with the trolls du jour.

Theory is not real. Global warmists are radical and state the debate is over and want to get mad and talk trash about anyone who debates their theory. They usually say something along the lines of being a facist or a oil worshiper. The theory of global warming is just that , a theory. Y2K was also a crazy theory that proved false.

Ehwhat?

Climate change is a pressing issue which we should...oh..bother. Just...use the internet or something.

I'm leaning towards Paganism myself, I am finding it very interesting.

Taoist. Both the philosophy and the religion. If you need proof, just look around you:D.

Your link does not work but please study the differences between communism ansd socialism. In the true sense there was never a communist regiem.

Yes I realize that my link doesn't work; I am actively attempting to figure out why...

It is you who should study. While Socialism and Communism may rest on a similar platform, they are two totally different things.

Didn't read all of it, but I think this proves my point: http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

Didn't we have enough religion threads in the past 24 hours already?

And it's CONSIDER. :rolleyes:

Although Cider would be nice, too

And it's Buddhist. Maybe the OP was thinking of nudist, which is fun too.

Do we really need another of these polls? I'm not sure I want to participate. I just felt I had to remark on that spelling mistake while I think about it.

why is buddhist spelled wrong?

Nope, because lack of religion is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief without any proof that God doesn't exist. It's essentially just another set of beliefs, just like religions in general and faith in a particular god is. Theism and Atheism are two sides of a same coin.

Agnosticism is not a religion, but Atheism is.

why is buddhist spelled wrong?

Because the OP is a wetard. ;)

That really depends on your definition of 100% proved.

If you're going to doubt your own senses, nothing can be proved 100%. However, if not, and you bow to empiricism, than one can show something to be true by observation and prediction.

I can prove for instance, that if I take a tennis ball and raise it to a height of 100 meters, and take a bowling ball to the same height, and release them, then neglecting things like air resistance and wind, they will fall with the same, predictable, velocity.

I cannot, admittedly, "prove" that this is caused by gravity, but I can create a mathematical framework that explains this phenomenon of falling at the same rate, and make mathematically consistent predictions of other phenomenon, which can then also be empirically tested. If these tests prove true, then the argument is strengthened. If not, the argument is generally discarded.

After literally hundreds of such tests, we have what we call a Scientific Theory. It will never be proved 100%. It CAN never be proved 100%. But it can be shown that each experiment that was conducted to test it has strengthened it. And these individual experiments can be proved be true.

Hope that helps :)

atheism would also be a cult of socialist construction to make people look for nothing but the government to be their saviour.

I'm an atheist anarchist, what's your excuse for me?

For me Y2K and Global Warming are not comparable, because the former didnt' happen and the latter is happening even as we speak.

Y2K lucklily had a shelf life Global Warming does not. It is theory and is debateable on whether or not we are causing it. Either way it is defended by radicals who yell and scream various insults for the fact that the debate is not over.

And it's Buddhist. Maybe the OP was thinking of nudist, which is fun too.

Man, I really wish I was of the nudist faith. :(

I'm an atheist anarchist, what's your excuse for me?

Work of the Devil. God's scapegoat.

Fine by me. I personally believe that Global Warming is happening, but I don't hold the fact that you are skeptical against you.

;)

Y2K lucklily had a shelf life Global Warming does not. It is theory and is debateable on whether or not we are causing it. Either way it is defended by radicals who yell and scream various insults for the fact that the debate is not over.

*contemplates adding United States Earth to the ignore list because he makes no f&*king sense at all*

Man, I really wish I was of the nudist faith. :(Oh, nobody is keeping you away from it....

Man, I really wish I was of the nudist faith. :(

Drop those undies and get converted, baby!! :cool:

Oh, nobody is keeping you away from it....

Well, I don't know about where YOU live, but to be a nudist in Canada pretty much means dying a martyr death the very first Winter after your conversion.

And yeah, our Winters have a capital "W". They're that badass. :p

Atheism is the belief without any proof that God doesn't exist. It's essentially just another set of beliefs, just like religions in general and faith in a particular god is. Theism and Atheism are two sides of a same coin.

Agnosticism is not a religion, but Atheism is.

Pure tripe. A set of beliefs does not a religion make. The idea that asserting something to be true, with no proof, is somehow EXACTLY the same as not believing in something that has not been proved, is frankly laughable.

"Oh, but you haven't proved it ISN'T true..."

No, that's not how it works, sorry.

Atheism is the belief without any proof that God doesn't exist. It's essentially just another set of beliefs, just like religions in general and faith in a particular god is. Theism and Atheism are two sides of a same coin.

Agnosticism is not a religion, but Atheism is.

It's much too early in the morning here for me to stand reading such ridiculous nonsense, so I'll just let the "but bald is, too, a haircolour"-vapidity speak for itself. I need some tea before I can stomach NS's mind-boggling... contortions.

If you're going to doubt your own senses, nothing can be proved 100%. However, if not, and you bow to empiricism, than one can show something to be true by observation and prediction....

[yet]...It CAN never be proved 100%. But it can be shown that each experiment that was conducted to test it has strengthened it. And these individual experiments can be proved be true.

Hope that helps :)

I don't understand....the British empiricist tradition was highly skeptical of scientific "proofs." Just read Hume.

:confused:

Atheism is the belief without any proof that God doesn’t exist. It’s essentially just another set of beliefs, just like religions in general and faith in a particular god is. Theism and Atheism are two sides of a same coin.

Agnosticism is not a religion, but Atheism is.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

We don’t say that those who don’t believe in ghosts without proof have supernatural beliefs, or that those who don’t believe in the Yeti without proof (homework: can we prove a negative?) have cryptozoological beliefs. So why would we say that those who don’t believe in a god or gods have religious beliefs? It make no sense.

Drop those undies and get converted, baby!! :cool:

My tender cheeks and sweet, beloved testicles demand from me that I wear clothes at least part of the year. I could never be a true devout, condemned to pay only lip service to my faith :D

Drop those undies and get converted, baby!! :cool:

Slogan Generated some Nudist Faith Slogans:

Have You Forgotten How Good Nudist Faith Tastes?

I'm Only Here For The Nudist Faith.

Think Once, Think Twice, Think Nudist Faith.

Tell Them About The Nudist Faith, Mummy.

Be Like Dad, Keep Nudist Faith.

The Non-Sticky Sticky Nudist Faith.


It's Different in a Nudist Faith. lol..

Look, the POINT of this thread is not whether Skaladora should run around the Canadian wilderness with no pants on (though don't you wish it was?).

The POINT is that this is just another dumbass exercise in trollery, and I'm going to pass on it. There are too many of these little critters piddling all over NSG's carpet and begging to be fed.

So I'll just chime in as NSG's animist-in-residence and say, ciao. I'm outta here.

OK, let's draw the line here. Your religious drooling was entertaining for a while, but denying global warming is just plain mental retardation and lack of all education.

Ehwhat?

Climate change is a pressing issue which we should...oh..bother. Just...use the internet or something.

That really depends on your definition of 100% proved.

If you're going to doubt your own senses, nothing can be proved 100%. However, if not, and you bow to empiricism, than one can show something to be true by observation and prediction.

I can prove for instance, that if I take a tennis ball and raise it to a height of 100 meters, and take a bowling ball to the same height, and release them, then neglecting things like air resistance and wind, they will fall with the same, predictable, velocity.

I cannot, admittedly, "prove" that this is caused by gravity, but I can create a mathematical framework that explains this phenomenon of falling at the same rate, and make mathematically consistent predictions of other phenomenon, which can then also be empirically tested. If these tests prove true, then the argument is strengthened. If not, the argument is generally discarded.

After literally hundreds of such tests, we have what we call a Scientific Theory. It will never be proved 100%. It CAN never be proved 100%. But it can be shown that each experiment that was conducted to test it has strengthened it. And these individual experiments can be proved be true.

Hope that helps :)

The fact that I challenge your beliefs makes you want to insult me or make me feel that the fact is a scientific LAW, IT IS NOT A LAW. it is just a theory. Try looking at both sides of the discussion. Science is suppossed to question everything.

The fact that I challenge your beliefs makes you want to insult me or make me feel that the fact is a scientific LAW, IT IS NOT A LAW. it is just a theory. Try looking at both sides of the discussion. Science is suppossed to question everything.

Possibly.. not really..and..

No.

For those three posts.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

We don’t say that those who don’t believe in ghosts without proof have supernatural beliefs, or that those who don’t believe in the Yeti without proof (homework: can we prove a negative?) have cryptozoological beliefs. So why would we say that those who don’t believe in a god or gods have religious beliefs? It make no sense.
We can't prove a negative indeed. Atheism has actually two meanings, according to my local online dictionnary:

atheism:

1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

The archaic sense we can discard. Taken in the first meaning, you're pretty much right. What I meant in my previous post considers the second definition, though: the doctrine that there is no deity. Which is the same thing as any other doctrine out there about the existance of God.

In the strictest sense, if you truly have the scientific spirit, you cannot deny without doubt the existence of God, Nessie, the Yeti, or Ghosts. You can, of course, argue that no credible evidence exists and that this makes you believe those things are not real; but you cannot argue without a doubt and preach it as doctrine like some atheists do.

Hence, Agnosticism. Preferably of the apathetic kind.

"We don't know, and we don't care!" :p

It's much too early in the morning here for me to stand reading such ridiculous nonsense, so I'll just let the "but bald is, too, a haircolour"-vapidity speak for itself. I need some tea before I can stomach NS's mind-boggling... contortions.

More like "But bald is, too, a hairstyle".

The fact that I challenge your beliefs makes you want to insult me or make me feel that the fact is a scientific LAW, IT IS NOT A LAW. it is just a theory. Try looking at both sides of the discussion. Science is suppossed to question everything.You don't even know what the word Theory means at all. Please go away. And global warming is not a matter of belief. You may ask the folks in New Orleans.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

We don’t say that those who don’t believe in ghosts without proof have supernatural beliefs, or that those who don’t believe in the Yeti without proof (homework: can we prove a negative?) have cryptozoological beliefs. So why would we say that those who don’t believe in a god or gods have religious beliefs? It make no sense.

Nicely put.


Back when I worked at the record store we had an employee that was so prone to doing or saying something stupid that one of the buyers put up a sign that said, "How can you be so stupid?" so that whenever it happened all he had to do was point. Whenever I see this 'oh but you can't prove he doesn't' nonsense I long for that sign...

It's much too early in the morning here for me to stand reading such ridiculous nonsense, so I'll just let the "but bald is, too, haircolour [sic?]"-vapidity speak for itself. I need some tea before I can stomach NS's mind-boggling... contortions.

Whether one is "bald" or has "black hair" is typically understood as being as being an empirical (and thus, epistimic) observation; saying "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" is, either way, a metaphysical assertion.

Thus, the analogy doesn't hold.

None. Inteligence and reason overrule blind devotion to an "all powerful deity" if he is (assuming he exists, if just for a moment) shouldn't he be able to force us to follow him like lemmings?

You don't even know what the word Theory means at all. Please go away. And global warming is not a matter of belief. You may ask the folks in New Orleans.

Thank you for proving my point about radical global warmists.

...saying "god exists" or "god doesn't exist" is, either way, a metaphysical assertion.Only until any god chooses to appear on Larry King ....

The Funny Thing Is Is I Did Not Want To Debate "ones Religion" I Was Just Curious What It Was.

Thank you for proving my point about radical global warmists.

Please...I am to the point of begging now...do some research or shut the fuck up.

Thus, the analogy doesn't hold.

Yes it does for the simple reason that a lack of something is not the existence of something. Bald isn't a haircolour, lack of religion is not a religion, disbelief is not belief, anosmia is not a sense of smell, nudity is not clothing and so on. Only idiots claim that not having a religion is having a religion, and as I said, it's much too early in my part of the globe for me to even feign patience with such an obvious lack of intelligent discourse that NS can be. *makes tea, expects for calm to come and with it laughter at the nonsense*

Thank you for proving my point about radical global warmists.There is no radicalisms needed. Facts are facts, whether you like them or doubt them is irrelevant. But denying them is just plain braindead.

The Funny Thing Is Is I Did Not Want To Debate "ones Religion" I Was Just Curious What It Was.

Consider your curiosity sated.

I don't understand....the British empiricist tradition was highly skeptical of scientific "proofs." Just read Hume.

:confused:

I think I got a bit ahead of myself, to be honest.

The fact that I challenge your beliefs makes you want to insult me or make me feel that the fact is a scientific LAW, IT IS NOT A LAW. it is just a theory. Try looking at both sides of the discussion. Science is suppossed to question everything.

You fail. Horribly and miserably. Any and every physics professor and any accredited university would laugh their asses off with glee at your lack of understanding of basic, grade school scientific principles.

You have just performed what anyone with an understanding of philosophy would call an "equivocation." That is, using an inaccurate, double meaning for a word in an attempt to discredit an argument. The fact that you don't know the difference between a lay theory and a scientific theory is, frankly, unsurprising, but it is a tad worrying that you would act as if your nuanced, inadequate understanding of what you're talking about provides you ANY credibility. It does, in point of fact, provide you the opposite.

The concept of a scientific law died with Newton. All we have now, and all we ever will have, are theories.

And if you're unsatisfied by this, stop using your computer, because its development was founded on the principles of a theory.

Please...I am to the point of begging now...do some research or shut the fuck up.

The fact is that i do research. You must just listen to talking points. The earth is warming and it does so every 1500 years and there is nothing we can do. If you want to allow government to take your money and freedoms in the name of false science then go ahead you are probably not in my country anyway.

Yes it does for the simple reason that a lack of something is not the existence of something. Bald isn't a haircolour, lack of religion is not a religion, disbelief is not belief, anosmia is not a sense of smell, nudity is not clothing and so on. Only idiots claim that not having a religion is having a religion, and as I said, it's much too early in my part of the globe for me to even feign patience with such an obvious lack of intelligent discourse that NS can be. *makes tea, expects for calm to come and with it laughter at the nonsense*

True, but it could be argued that bald is, in fact, a hairstyle.

atheism would also be a cult of socialist construction to make people look for nothing but the government to be their saviour.

Again, wtf does atheism have to do with socialism. And I just love how you capitalize and properly spell "Christian" and "Jew" but not "Buddhist" or "Hindu"

What I meant in my previous post considers the second definition, though: the doctrine that there is no deity. Which is the same thing as any other doctrine out there about the existance of God.
‘Doctrine that there is no deity" is incredibly loaded language, implying a religious-stylee organisation/structure to atheist thought that simply doesn’t exist. Yes there are atheists, some quite prominent, who seem to voice their anti-theism with almost religious fervour, but anti-theism and atheism are quite different things.

Once again, lack of religious belief does not imply, quite obviously, religious belief.

In the strictest sense, if you truly have the scientific spirit, you cannot deny without doubt the existence of God, Nessie, the Yeti, or Ghosts. You can, of course, argue that no credible evidence exists and that this makes you believe those things are not real; but you cannot argue without a doubt and preach it as doctrine like some atheists do.
Some anti-theists, who are also atheists, rather.

The vast majority of atheists, I wager, don’t give two hoots about religious belief, or have never really entertained the notion of religious belief for a long time.

Personally, I have never seen any credible proof that a god or gods, Nessie, the Yeti, ghosts, aliens, unicorns, leprechauns, Max Barry, etc., exist, and thus don’t believe in them. That doesn’t mean I have religious, supernatural, etc., beliefs.

The fact is that i do research. You must just listen to talking points. The earth is warming and it does so every 1500 years and there is nothing we can do. If you want to allow government to take your money and freedoms in the name of false science then go ahead you are probably not in my country anyway.

*takes a few steps back, squints at notes on hand* What freedoms have I as an American citizen lost because of Global Warming? Truely I'm more worried about the president taking away more freedoms to protect us from the turrists.

‘Doctrine that there is no deity" is incredibly loaded language, implying a religious-stylee organisation/structure to atheist thought that simply doesn’t exist. Yes there are atheists, some quite prominent, who seem to voice their anti-theism with almost religious fervour, but anti-theism and atheism are quite different things.

Once again, lack of religious belief does not imply, quite obviously, religious belief.


Some anti-theists, who are also atheists, rather.

The vast majority of atheists, I wager, don’t give two hoots about religious belief, or have never really entertained the notion of religious belief for a long time.

Personally, I have never seen any credible proof that a god or gods, Nessie, the Yeti, ghosts, aliens, unicorns, leprechauns, Max Barry, etc., exist, and thus don’t believe in them. That doesn’t mean I have religious, supernatural, etc., beliefs.


Actually, I used tobe religious in my younger years, but that faded when no proof that god existed presented themself.

OK, I am curious what religion you concider yourself and why?

What religion do you concider yourself?
Christian
Jewish
muslim
hindu
budist
Wiccan/pagan/magick religion
satanist
scientologist/mormon/other cult
Global Warmist
Other

LOL - Your poll is max phail.

:rolleyes:

Atheism is the belief without any proof that God doesn't exist. It's essentially just another set of beliefs, just like religions in general and faith in a particular god is. Theism and Atheism are two sides of a same coin.

Agnosticism is not a religion, but Atheism is.

Only Strong Atheism ("I know there are no gods") would be a faith. But faith =/= religion.

Again, wtf does atheism have to do with socialism. And I just love how you capitalize and properly spell "Christian" and "Jew" but not "Buddhist" or "Hindu"

He didn't capitalize Muslim either (though it is actually supposed to be Islamic, but that is beside the point). Aren't Christianty, Islam, and Judaism all Abrahamic Faiths or something like that?

Aw found the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion)

True, but it could be argued that bald is, in fact, a hairstyle.

Nope, but if you'd like to think that you can style your non-existent hair, go right ahead. A lot of bald men nurture such zany fantasies.

According to various tests and the like, Taoist. Upon actually starting to pursue that path, I realize it's actually dead-on.

There is no radicalisms needed. Facts are facts, whether you like them or doubt them is irrelevant. But denying them is just plain braindead.

I think I got a bit ahead of myself, to be honest.



You fail. Horribly and miserably. Any and every physics professor and any accredited university would laugh their asses off with glee at your lack of understanding of basic, grade school scientific principles.

You have just performed what anyone with an understanding of philosophy would call an "equivocation." That is, using an inaccurate, double meaning for a word in an attempt to discredit an argument. The fact that you don't know the difference between a lay theory and a scientific theory is, frankly, unsurprising, but it is a tad worrying that you would act as if your nuanced, inadequate understanding of what you're talking about provides you ANY credibility. It does, in point of fact, provide you the opposite.

The concept of a scientific law died with Newton. All we have now, and all we ever will have, are theories.

And if you're unsatisfied by this, stop using your computer, because its development was founded on the principles of a theory.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2951065823736508883
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp

Check out the other side. LOL thank you for proving that global warming is a radical religion.

The fact is that i do research. You must just listen to talking points. The earth is warming and it does so every 1500 years and there is nothing we can do. If you want to allow government to take your money and freedoms in the name of false science then go ahead you are probably not in my country anyway.


Really, which country would this be? Zimbabwe or the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

What kind of person do you have to be to look at a graph and see the direct proportion between CO2 and global temperatures and say "that's false". Or to look at the obvious correlation to the destruction of the ozone layer and skin cancer and say "you lie."

If you take a look at ice samples from Antarctica, the last global warming of this scale was not 1,500 years ago, as you put it, it was 10,000. Do us all a favor and actually get your facts from a respectable source, rather than from some random Republican web-blog.

EDIT: How the fuck is the theory of global warming a religion? Does everyone who believe in it worship Al Gore?

Yes it does for the simple reason that a lack of something is not the existence of something. Bald isn't a haircolour, lack of religion is not a religion, disbelief is not belief, anosmia is not a sense of smell, nudity is not clothing and so on. Only idiots claim that not having a religion is having a religion, and as I said, it's much too early in my part of the globe for me to even feign patience with such an obvious lack of intelligent discourse that NS can be. *makes tea, expects for calm to come and with it laughter at the nonsense*

I notice you fail to address anything with arguments other than Ad Hominems. Thus, you are phail.

Belief that no God exists is still a belief concerning God. Disbelief is a belief unless proof is offered. Bald, being the absence of hair, is a hairstyle, like I said before. Wearing nothing(nudity) is a description of what one is wearing.

Atheism and Agnosticism are religious beliefs just like every other religion out there, because they are just that: beliefs about religion. Agnosticism, unlike some versions of Atheism(the distinction is to be made according to the dictionnary definition I presented earlier), recognizes that and doesn't pretend to be anything other than belief. Atheism, in the second definition offered by my dictionnary (the one about it being the doctrine of the inexistance of God) claims absolute and unequivocal truth. It's not.

You might claim you don't believe intelligent life exists outside our solar system, but until we're gone and mapped the entire universe looking into every nook and cranny, you can never say it is an absolute certainty that intelligent life doesn't exist.

Science only allows proof of existence, you cannot prove inexistence.

Nicely put.
The credit must go to Jonathan Miller in his brilliantly informative series Brief Guide to Disbelief. It was shown on BBC Four in 2004, repeated on BBC Two in 2005, and I’m sure is floating about the net somewhere.

Highly recommended to both atheist and theist alike, as well as the accompanying series of extended interviews, The Atheism Tapes.

Although I am disapointed by the lack of Atheist as a choice in the poll, I salute you, U.S. Earth, for having included Mormonism and Scientology in the same category. Back in the 1830's, Mormonism was considered the same kind of crazy cult that Scientology is today. (And it still is just as crazy, only people try to be more respectful or are ignorant of their craziness)

Really, which country would this be? Zimbabwe or the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

What kind of person do you have to be to look at a graph and see the direct proportion between CO2 and global temperatures and say "that's false". Or to look at the obvious correlation to the destruction of the ozone layer and skin cancer and say "you lie."

If you take a look at ice samples from Antarctica, the last global warming of this scale was not 1,500 years ago, as you put it, it was 10,000. Do us all a favor and actually get your facts from a respectable source, rather than from some random Republican web-blog.

We've told USE this quite a few times already. No point in doing it agian he won't listen.

He didn't capitalize Muslim either (though it is actually supposed to be Islamic, but that is beside the point). Aren't Christianty, Islam, and Judaism all Abrahamic Faiths or something like that?

Aw found the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion)

Dharmic religions actually make much more sense to me, I mean, Hindus kill Muslims every day but, when the hell was the last time a Buddhist ever killed someone in the name of their religion. Buddhism fucking owns.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2951065823736508883
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp

Check out the other side. LOL thank you for proving that global warming is a radical religion.To quote one similarly uneducated fella: if you're in a hole, stop digging.
But maybe you are just too young to realize the climate difference between today and say 25 years ago. Do you even understand at all how climate works?

He didn't capitalize Muslim either (though it is actually supposed to be Islamic, but that is beside the point). Aren't Christianty, Islam, and Judaism all Abrahamic Faiths or something like that?

Aw found the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion)

Yes they are but I chose muslim because there are various faiths in the islamic community.

We've told USE this quite a few times already. No point in doing it agian he won't listen.

Its like a religion to him, disbelieiving global warming. Most likely he won't disbelieve it until his flesh melts.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2951065823736508883
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp

Check out the other side. LOL thank you for proving that global warming is a radical religion.

You fail again. Seriously, this is almost too easy.

Around the turn of the 20th century, experiments and mathematical problems arose in the framework laid out by Newton and refined over time into Classical Physics. These problems were numerous, but all pointed to the Classical theory (Newton's "Laws" of Physics) being flawed. After further theoretical work and experimentation, a new framework was developed to explain these phenomena, which made wholly new predictions about the way our world worked. We call this framework Quantum Mechanics, and it is a theory.

So far, this theory has held up to the test of repeated experiments, and has been further developed into more focused branches (QED, QFT, QCD) that all also continue to hold up to the test of experimentation.

Are you suggesting that, as we get new data about how our climate is changing, we shouldn't also refine and alter our theories as necessary to explain what is going on?

Are you really that stupid?

Dharmic religions actually make much more sense to me, I mean, Hindus kill Muslims every day but, when the hell was the last time a Buddhist ever killed someone in the name of their religion. Buddhism fucking owns.

Never met a Buddist so I can't say for sure how they act.

Really, which country would this be? Zimbabwe or the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

What kind of person do you have to be to look at a graph and see the direct proportion between CO2 and global temperatures and say "that's false". Or to look at the obvious correlation to the destruction of the ozone layer and skin cancer and say "you lie."

If you take a look at ice samples from Antarctica, the last global warming of this scale was not 1,500 years ago, as you put it, it was 10,000. Do us all a favor and actually get your facts from a respectable source, rather than from some random Republican web-blog.

EDIT: How the fuck is the theory of global warming a religion? Does everyone who believe in it worship Al Gore?

To quote one similarly uneducated fella: if you're in a hole, stop digging.
But maybe you are just too young to realize the climate difference between today and say 25 years ago. Do you even understand at all how climate works?

Thank you again for helping prove that you insult anyone who wants debate on climate change. You are radicals who hate the fact of Theory VS debate.

Yes they are but I chose muslim because there are various faiths in the islamic community.

WRONG! Shiite, Sunni or whichever way you spin it; they are all Islamic, thus it should be Islamic rather than muslim.

Its like a religion to him, disbelieiving global warming. Most likely he won't disbelieve it until his flesh melts.

Or he dies of skin cancer. I can see it now *chuckle*

Dharmic religions actually make much more sense to me, I mean, Hindus kill Muslims every day but, when the hell was the last time a Buddhist ever killed someone in the name of their religion. Buddhism fucking owns.

It's really not that interesting, to be honest. Take it from a former Hindu.

Sure, there's no burning-at-the-stake, but you've got the caste system, elitism, xenophobia, etc. to contend with.

Personally, I have never seen any credible proof that a god or gods, Nessie, the Yeti, ghosts, aliens, unicorns, leprechauns, Max Barry, etc., exist, and thus don’t believe in them. That doesn’t mean I have religious, supernatural, etc., beliefs.
Perhaps not in the sense you understand it, but from my point of view it's certainly beliefs pertaining to religion, the supernatural, etc. As long as you state you don't believe in them, you're simply being reasonably skeptical, and I agree wholeheartedly with that. But if you state : "Max Barry's existence is IMPOSSIBLE", then you stray from a scientific point of view.

It seems you were on to something about using the term "anti-deist", I suppose. I always understood pure, radical Atheists to be exactly like this anti-deist concept. And according to my online dictionary, I wasn't wrong in using this definition. I personally know of at least one hardcore, self-identified atheist who fits your definition of anti-deist, and it's those people I was referring to.

Because the "I just don't believe in God" Atheists really are more like Agnostics. After all, if they believed proof of God's existence could be obtained, they wouldn't be saying they don't believe in it. And like we said earlier, proving that something doesn't exist is impossible.

You fail again. Seriously, this is almost too easy.

Around the turn of the 20th century, experiments and mathematical problems arose in the framework laid out by Newton and refined over time into Classical Physics. These problems were numerous, but all pointed to the Classical theory (Newton's "Laws" of Physics) being flawed. After further theoretical work and experimentation, a new framework was developed to explain these phenomena, which made wholly new predictions about the way our world worked. We call this framework Quantum Mechanics, and it is a theory.

So far, this theory has held up to the test of repeated experiments, and has been further developed into more focused branches (QED, QFT, QCD) that all also continue to hold up to the test of experimentation.

Are you suggesting that, as we get new data about how our climate is changing, we shouldn't also refine and alter our theories as necessary to explain what is going on?

Are you really that stupid?

There are theories from climatoligists that contridict the norm. Why is it that i want to see all the facts from both sides and i am treated like a criminal. Radicals do not want debate they are flat earthers that want to crucify me for defying their religion of global warming.

Thank you again for helping prove that you insult anyone who wants debate on climate change. You are radicals who hate the fact of Theory VS debate.

fact of Theory Vs. Debate? What the fuck are you babbling about?

Do you realize how little sense you're actually making to everyone but you and the voices in your head?

You fail again. Seriously, this is almost too easy.

Around the turn of the 20th century, experiments and mathematical problems arose in the framework laid out by Newton and refined over time into Classical Physics. These problems were numerous, but all pointed to the Classical theory (Newton's "Laws" of Physics) being flawed. After further theoretical work and experimentation, a new framework was developed to explain these phenomena, which made wholly new predictions about the way our world worked. We call this framework Quantum Mechanics, and it is a theory.

So far, this theory has held up to the test of repeated experiments, and has been further developed into more focused branches (QED, QFT, QCD) that all also continue to hold up to the test of experimentation.

Are you suggesting that, as we get new data about how our climate is changing, we shouldn't also refine and alter our theories as necessary to explain what is going on?

Are you really that stupid?

Methinks yes.

Also, there's a particular form of oxygen that's toxic to humans, I forget which one it is, but it's been on the rise lately according to some Antarctic research bases. If anyone remembers it, that would kill this guys argument, it's not O2 or O3, it's something else.

fact of Theory Vs. Debate? What the fuck are you babbling about?

Do you realize how little sense you're actually making to everyone but you and the voices in your head?

Its the crack man. It keeps...steppin'. On the crack. Lol. ROORAOR.

There are theories from climatoligists that contridict the norm. Why is it that i want to see all the facts from both sides and i am treated like a criminal. Radicals do not want debate they are flat earthers that want to crucify me for defying their religion of global warming.

Jesus motherfucking Christ Almighty (oops)

Belief that no God exists is still a belief concerning God. Disbelief is a belief unless proof is offered. Bald, being the absence of hair, is a hairstyle, like I said before. Wearing nothing(nudity) is a description of what one is wearing.
As the eloquent John McEnroe said, “You can’t be serious!?”.

Baldness is the absence of hair, not a hairstyle. Nudity is the absence of clothes, not a form of clothing. It’s paradoxical to claim that the absence of X is an indication of the presence of a form of X.

Atheism and Agnosticism are religious beliefs just like every other religion out there, because they are just that: beliefs about religion.
That’s a misuse of the word ‘belief’.

One cannot state it in a more clear way: the absence of X is not an indicator of a presence of X.

Thank you again for helping prove that you insult anyone who wants debate on climate change. You are radicals who hate the fact of Theory VS debate.

And I ask again: How the fuck is the theory of global warming a god damn religion? Answer the fucking question.

There are theories from climatoligists that contridict the norm. Why is it that i want to see all the facts from both sides and i am treated like a criminal. Radicals do not want debate they are flat earthers that want to crucify me for defying their religion of global warming.

Because you're some kid, sitting at a computer, bitching about this.

You are not a scientist. You do not realize that there IS discussion of this going on, just as there is discussion of every other fucking theory ever presented to the scientific community.

Who the fuck cares what you see and don't see about this debate. Let us grown-ups talk this over.

Thank you again for helping prove that you insult anyone who wants debate on climate change. You are radicals who hate the fact of Theory VS debate.
You don't want to debate and you have no basis to debate. At least not with me.
Theory vs debate? What rubbish is that? Theory designates a collection of observations, logical deductions, and evidence to verify (or falsify) those deductions. Now on what level does that correspond to anything in debate? To what university have you been?

You don't want to debate and you have no basis to debate. At least not with me.
Theory vs debate? What rubbish is that? Theory designates a collection of observations, logical deductions, and evidence to verify those deductions. Now on what level does that correspond to anything in debate? To what university have you been?


Dipshitika Religious Tech University.

Dude, USE. Let me get this one thing through your head right now, bud: Those "wacko climatologists" you speak of know more about the weather patterns of this planet and how they're supposed to function than you. In fact, all the time in the world reading wikipedia won't make you smarter than them. So instead of bashing them, how about listening to them, because at least they know what they're talking about.

True or false: Recieving a degree from a university and spending your career on a subject makes you an expert on it.

True or false: Reading wikipedia for 30 minutes on a subject makes you an expert on it.

So, OP, I guess you think that the existence of gravity is unproven? It is, after all, referred to as the "Theory of Gravity."

So, OP, I guess you think that the existence of gravity is unproven? It is, after all, referred to as the "Theory of Gravity."

Wait, gravitys just a theory? Then how come its a law... *floats off the floor*

when the hell was the last time a Buddhist ever killed someone in the name of their religion..
Probably fairly recently.

However, the easiest example I can point to is Imperial Japan, in the 16-17th centuries and in World War II, where Buddhism was incorporated into Japanese nationalism and military campaigns.

fact of Theory Vs. Debate? What the fuck are you babbling about?

Do you realize how little sense you're actually making to everyone but you and the voices in your head?

Methinks yes.

Also, there's a particular form of oxygen that's toxic to humans, I forget which one it is, but it's been on the rise lately according to some Antarctic research bases. If anyone remembers it, that would kill this guys argument, it's not O2 or O3, it's something else.

Its the crack man. It keeps...steppin'. On the crack. Lol. ROORAOR.

Jesus motherfucking Christ Almighty (oops)

And I ask again: How the fuck is the theory of global warming a god damn religion? Answer the fucking question.

Because you're some kid, sitting at a computer, bitching about this.

You are not a scientist. You do not realize that there IS discussion of this going on, just as there is discussion of every other fucking theory ever presented to the scientific community.

Who the fuck cares what you see and don't see about this debate. Let us grown-ups talk this over.

You don't want to debate and you have no basis to debate. At least not with me.
Theory vs debate? What rubbish is that? Theory designates a collection of observations, logical deductions, and evidence to verify those deductions. Now on what level does that correspond to anything in debate? To what university have you been?

LOL. I really thank you for my research on the inability of people to change their minds once they have been brain washed. Go ahead and spend your money on "carbon credits" to help with "global warming". Make sure to look only at the research of the guys who get money to study "global warming" and would lose funding if it was false. Jump off the cliff lemmings. I do not care. This thread has been hijacked from my original purpose to see what you believe?

So, OP, I guess you think that the existence of gravity is unproven? It is, after all, referred to as the "Theory of Gravity."

Of course gravity doesn't exist! The atomic theory is false, too. So is special relativity theory. It's all just one big conspiracy, really.

What idiot put these thoughts into your head that these were true? Einstein? Newton? No, no, they knew nothing. Of course the OP thinks he knows more, after all, he has wikipedia!

So, OP, I guess you think that the existence of gravity is unproven? It is, after all, referred to as the "Theory of Gravity."

Of course...objects of different mass falling at the same speed in a vaccum chamber (with the absense friction of course) is also Satans work. :D

http://library.thinkquest.org/11924/galileo.html

LOL. I really thank you for my research on the inability of people to change their minds once they have been brain washed. Go ahead and spend your money on "carbon credits" to help with "global warming". Make sure to look only at the research of the guys who get money to study "global warming" and would lose funding if it was false. Jump off the cliff lemmings. I do not care. This thread has been hijacked from my original purpose to see what you believe?

*nods solemnly*
I take that as a compliment.

By the way, how do I do that multiple quote thing without typing the tags manually?

Probably fairly recently.

However, the easiest example I can point to is Imperial Japan, in the 16-17th centuries and in World War II, where Buddhism was incorporated into Japanese nationalism and military campaigns.

Well, then they weren't practising buddhists appearently. Harmony hardly equates to war.

LOL. I really thank you for my research on the inability of people to change their minds once they have been brain washed. Go ahead and spend your money on "carbon credits" to help with "global warming". Make sure to look only at the research of the guys who get money to study "global warming" and would lose funding if it was false. Jump off the cliff lemmings. I do not care. This thread has been hijacked from my original purpose to see what you believe?
How old are you?

LOL. I really thank you for my research on the inability of people to change their minds once they have been brain washed. Go ahead and spend your money on "carbon credits" to help with "global warming". Make sure to look only at the research of the guys who get money to study "global warming" and would lose funding if it was false. Jump off the cliff lemmings. I do not care. This thread has been hijacked from my original purpose to see what you believe?

You mean the falsehood that you believe that all atheists are socialists? And the fact that you think everyone worships Al Gore? And the fact that you are a clearly biased right-wing Christian due to your "inability" to capitalize and spell the names of religions other than "Christianity and Judaism"

Oh yeah, yeah we hijacked it all right. We saved this thread. We brought the wonderous light of thinking to it. Have you ever sat down and thought, USE? It's really wonderful, you should try it sometime. It works wonders to prevent psychosis.

How old are you?

Five bucks says he's 12, but he says he is 20 or 30 something.

How old are you?

My guess is 17. Regardless of the chronological age of his actual body.

*nods solemnly*
I take that as a compliment.

By the way, how do I do that multiple quote thing without typing the tags manually?

How old are you?

Just click Quote multiple times on all the posts. Who cares how old I am? I most likely could be your dad, But that is besides the point.

Five bucks says he's 12, but he says he is 20 or 30 something.

Same here. I admit that I myself am a young fella, but I tend to base my ideas on cold hard facts, not radical guesses without any solid base.

My guess is 17. Regardless of the chronological age of his actual body.

Hey, dude, that's insulting....in a politically incorrect way. I'm younger than that and I know just as much about the subject as a lot of people around here.

Well, then they weren’t practising buddhists appearently.
They were ‘practising’ as much as anyone who has killed in the name of Christ, Allah, Thor, or whoever, was ‘practising’.

Same here. I admit that I myself am a young fella, but I tend to base my ideas on cold hard facts, not radical guesses without any solid base.

I'm 19, graduated high school 3rd in my class and am currently attending college, which is more than I dare say for the OP.

Hey, dude, that's insulting....in a politically incorrect way. I'm younger than that and I know just as much about the subject as a lot of people around here.

Physical age vs mental age. ;) You may be physically younger than 17, but mentally... I think it's clear that you're older than he. *sagely nod*

As the eloquent John McEnroe said, “You can’t be serious!?”.

Baldness is the absence of hair, not a hairstyle. Nudity is the absence of clothes, not a form of clothing. It’s paradoxical to claim that the absence of X is an indication of the presence of a form of X.


That’s a misuse of the word ‘belief’.

One cannot state it in a more clear way: the absence of X is not an indicator of a presence of X.
A concept does not require an occurrence to exist.

Baldness is definitely a hairstyle. What is a hairstyle? Here's what my local dictionnary answers:

"a style or manner of arranging the hair"

You can arrange your hair by cutting it all off.

Likewise, being naked i.e. not wearing anything is a state of dress.

If someone asks you on the phone "What hat are you wearing?" while you've got no hat on your head, you don't stare at him dumbfounded, unable to comprehend his question. You answer "I'm not wearing any". Your lack of a hat describes your state of being.

I never stated that the absence of X is an indicator of a presence of X. What I am arguing is that the absence of X does not prove nor disproves anything about the concept that is X. Design without shape and all that. Picture a chair in your head. It does not exist, yet is is a chair, because it is the concept of a chair.

A belief about religion is a religious belief. By very definition. And since there is no way of providing evidence either way, any and all opinions about religion are religious beliefs.

At least until God stops snoring and comes down here to say "hi" to our faces.

By the way, how do I do that multiple quote thing without typing the tags manually?
You hit the little plus thing with quote marks next to the quote thing for all the posts that you want to quote and it will stack them in the order that you clicked them. If you change your mind, click it again.

They were ‘practising’ as much as anyone who has killed in the name of Christ, Allah, Thor, or whoever, was ‘practising’.

What I meant was they weren't totally devoted to it. Total devotion would be monks. And according to most of those religions. (As far as I know, the norse religion never encouraged killing for it, the vikings did it for personal glory AND to get supplies.) killing is okay as long as its in the "name" of whatever god they believed in.

Who cares how old I am?I do so I asked.
I most likely could be your dad....If that were true that would be indeed alarming. Where did you go to school and when?

My guess is 17. Regardless of the chronological age of his actual body.

*coughs* I pardon you for that grave insult.

LOL. I really thank you for my research on the inability of people to change their minds once they have been brain washed. Go ahead and spend your money on "carbon credits" to help with "global warming". Make sure to look only at the research of the guys who get money to study "global warming" and would lose funding if it was false. Jump off the cliff lemmings. I do not care. This thread has been hijacked from my original purpose to see what you believe?

This is actually really informative on just what your understanding (or lack of it, more properly) of research really is.

Here's a little bit of news, cupcake. I do research in upper atmospheric phenomena. In other words, and I know this might be hard for you to follow so I'm going to spell it out for you: my lab gets money to study "upper atmospheric phenomena" and my lab would lose funding if it turned out that were not, in fact, looking at upper atmospheric phenomena and instead using our fancy, expensive telescopes (paid for by research grant money from the NSF) to, say, look at what the folks in the lab next door were doing.
The fact that our research in upper atmospheric phenomena has always been able to be incorporated into theories that explain upper atmospheric phenomena means absolutely fuckall when it comes to applying for my next grant. Similarly, someone doing climate research would continue to receive funding even if their observations did not support the presently prevailing theory on global climate change.

I find it hilarious and sad that you are so close-minded, that despite all of the research supporting global warming. Clearly you will not be convinced until you are diagnosed with melanoma.

You mean the falsehood that you believe that all atheists are socialists? And the fact that you think everyone worships Al Gore? And the fact that you are a clearly biased right-wing Christian due to your "inability" to capitalize and spell the names of religions other than "Christianity and Judaism"

Oh yeah, yeah we hijacked it all right. We saved this thread. We brought the wonderous light of thinking to it. Have you ever sat down and thought, USE? It's really wonderful, you should try it sometime. It works wonders to prevent psychosis.

I never made fun of any religion in this thread. Please prove where I did. I defended my beliefs on global warming and the effects of socialism on religion. The reason I did not capitalize other religios was to check the politically correct. The politically correct hijack most forms of discussion and not discluding this thread.

I never made fun of any religion in this thread. Please prove where I did. I defended my beliefs on global warming and the effects of socialism on religion. The reason I did not capitalize other religios was to check the politically correct. The politically correct hijack most forms of discussion and not discluding this thread.


:confused:

You hit the little plus thing with quote marks next to the quote thing for all the posts that you want to quote and it will stack them in the order that you clicked them. If you change your mind, click it again.

Nice, thanks. Now I can smite the below types with speed and convenience. :p

Just click Quote multiple times on all the posts. Who cares how old I am? I most likely could be your dad, But that is besides the point.

Ah, that confused me more.
I am not adopted.(to my knowledge)

Wow, only in NSG can a thread go from religion debate to a Global Warming debate.

Okay, ive read through this entire thread, and I belive that it is United States Earth who is the one that is brainwashed on Global Warming. As it stands right now, we are indeed certain that we don't know if we are really causing global warming. If you ask me, United States Earth, your obviously a far left democrat that is brainwashed in thinking that the earth is warming and its all the Republican's fault. Please, all of these so called theorys and facts are a bunch of bull#@$&. Some have even been made up by political opponents just to gain an advantage in the polls and in the upcoming elections.

As for everyone else arguing against him, well done!

Me, im christian, but on the line....

Socialism having an effect on religion, maybe, but not always, and Russia was a communist country, so dont even go there

I never made fun of any religion in this thread. Please prove where I did. I defended my beliefs on global warming and the effects of socialism on religion. The reason I did not capitalize other religios was to check the politically correct. The politically correct hijack most forms of discussion and not discluding this thread.

Or the fact that you did it purposely. Remember kiddo, this is the internet, everything you say is false.

Wow, only in NSG can a thread go from religion debate to a Global Warming debate.

Dude, look at the poll, it started there.

Wow, only in NSG can a thread go from religion debate to a Global Warming debate.

You know what... I completely forgot that this was a 'what religion are you' discussion. I must be so used to this already.

Wow, only in NSG can a thread go from religion debate to a Global Warming debate.

Yep.

Wow, only in NSG can a thread go from religion debate to a Global Warming debate.

sigh, that is polotics and the freedom of the internet my friend :p

Wow, only in NSG can a thread go from religion debate to a Global Warming debate.Actually, most of the time threads end up in religious debates....

This is actually really informative on just what your understanding (or lack of it, more properly) of research really is.

Here's a little bit of news, cupcake. I do research in upper atmospheric phenomena. In other words, and I know this might be hard for you to follow so I'm going to spell it out for you: my lab gets money to study "upper atmospheric phenomena" and my lab would lose funding if it turned out that were not, in fact, looking at upper atmospheric phenomena and instead using our fancy, expensive telescopes (paid for by research grant money from the NSF) to, say, look at what the folks in the lab next door were doing.
The fact that our research in upper atmospheric phenomena has always been able to be incorporated into theories that explain upper atmospheric phenomena means absolutely fuckall when it comes to applying for my next grant. Similarly, someone doing climate research would continue to receive funding even if their observations did not support the presently prevailing theory on global climate change.

I find it hilarious and sad that you are so close-minded, that despite all of the research supporting global warming. Clearly you will not be convinced until you are diagnosed with melanoma.

Okay, ive read through this entire thread, and I belive that it is United States Earth who is the one that is brainwashed on Global Warming. As it stands right now, we are indeed certain that we don't know if we are really causing global warming. If you ask me, United States Earth, your obviously a far left democrat that is brainwashed in thinking that the earth is warming and its all the Republican's fault. Please, all of these so called theorys and facts are a bunch of bull#@$&. Some have even been made up by political opponents just to gain an advantage in the polls and in the upcoming elections.

As for everyone else arguing against him, well done!

Me, im christian, but on the line....

Socialism having an effect on religion, maybe, but not always, and Russia was a communist country, so dont even go there

Or the fact that you did it purposely. Remember kiddo, this is the internet, everything you say is false.

Dude, look at the poll, it started there.

You know what... I completely forgot that this was a 'what religion are you' discussion. I must be so used to this already.

Yep.

Think what ever you want. i am what i am. and YES this is a religion poll not anything else and i am going to bed.

Think what ever you want. i am what i am. and YES this is a religion poll not anything else and i am going to bed.

Good night. Sleep tight.
Don't let the 'Global Warmists' bite.
:)

Baldness is definitely a hairstyle. <snip>
We’ve gone off the beaten path here, and the last thing we want to do is get into an extended analogy argument.

What we’re talking about is belief and the absence of it.

Picture a chair in your head. It does not exist, yet is is a chair, because it is the concept of a chair.
I’m not getting what you’re trying to put across here.

Are you suggesting we have a chair in our minds every time we think of a chair? I don’t think you are, but that’s what it sounds like.

A belief about religion is a religious belief. By very definition. And since there is no way of providing evidence either way, any and all opinions about religion are religious beliefs.
Again, you’re misusing the word ‘belief’ here.

A belief about religion would be something like, “religion is harmful to our lives”, or, “religion enhances your sex life”, or something similar.

A belief in a religion is just that; Christian, Hindu, Hellenic, etc., religious belief.

An atheist has no belief in religion, no religious belief, but may well have belief about religion.

Actually, most of the time threads end up in religious debates....

So true. And soetimes, a simple thread about, lets say, a politician from <Insert Nation Name here> starts up, it'll eventually end in a mud fest between rlgious people and non-religious people. (Seen it happen, probably a lot of the old guys on NSG have seen it to.)

Read the poll. hard to believe who the satinist is...lol.sarcasm.

Think what ever you want. i am what i am. and YES this is a religion poll not anything else and i am going to bed.

No your not. NSG will keep you awake for hours until you are forced to return and be proven wrong again and again and again again...(need I go on?)

Dude, look at the poll, it started there.

True, Global Warming a religion, what is Al Gore the savior now? If he is, then I'd rather be on my own.

You know what... I completely forgot that this was a 'what religion are you' discussion. I must be so used to this already.

hehe, so did a few other people.

Yep.

Yup.

sigh, that is polotics and the freedom of the internet my friend :p

Ahh yes, Freedom, we meet again, now if we can only get his cousin Responsibility in the same room.

Actually, most of the time threads end up in religious debates....

That is true, NSG is a fun magical place. :D

Good night. Sleep tight.
Don't let the 'Global Warmists' bite.
:)

LOL that actually made me laugh out loud. thanks.

Think what ever you want. i am what i am. and YES this is a religion poll not anything else and i am going to bed.

You are what you are:

Someone who has shown a poor grasp of the English language.

Someone who can't spell words like Buddhist.

Someone who fails at understanding basic concepts of subjects they wish to discuss.

Someone who has admitted to trolling.
The reason I did not capitalize other religions was to check the politically correct. The politically correct hijack most forms of discussion and not discluding this thread.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13132717#post13132717

I corrected your mispelling of "religions" there, as well.

I should point out that "discluding" is not a real word. How you even managed to get ON the internet, let alone figure out how to post, is beyond me. Clearly you've got issues to work out in the brain department.

You are also someone who fails to address points brought up repeatedly in this thread with more than dismissive hand-waving.

You have wasted my time in posting here. You have wasted everyone else's time in posting your useless drivel here, and you have done nothing more for yourself than to make of yourself an object of derision and ridicule. If you thought for one moment that your stumbling, rambling, and barely coherent posts got across to anyone in your target audience, think again. Your idiocy has been pointed out in every post. Your illiteracy has been discussed in detail.

I can only imagine the shame you must feel now as you weep yourself to sleep.

You are what you are:

Someone who has shown a poor grasp of the English language.

Someone who can't spell words like Buddhist.

Someone who fails at understanding basic concepts of subjects they wish to discuss.

Someone who has admitted to trolling.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13132717#post13132717

I corrected your mispelling of "religions" there, as well.

I should point out that "discluding" is not a real word. How you even managed to get ON the internet, let alone figure out how to post, is beyond me. Clearly you've got issues to work out in the brain department.

You are also someone who fails to address points brought up repeatedly in this thread with more than dismissive hand-waving.

You have wasted my time in posting here. You have wasted everyone else's time in posting your useless drivel here, and you have done nothing more for yourself than to make of yourself an object of derision and ridicule. If you thought for one moment that your stumbling, rambling, and barely coherent posts got across to anyone in your target audience, think again. Your idiocy has been pointed out in every post. Your illiteracy has been discussed in detail.

I can only imagine the shame you must feel now as you weep yourself to sleep.


*sharp inhalation* Harsh much.

i am what i am.
Popeye?

Popeye?

I thought Popeye was 'I yam what I yam and tha's all that I yam...'

[QUOTE=Deus Malum;13132767]
-snip-[QUOTE]

Wow, that was actually real threatning there, turn it down a bit, although all of it is true :D.

[QUOTE=Deus Malum;13132767]
-snip-[QUOTE]

Wow, that was actually real threatning there, turn it down a bit, although all of it is true :D.

True, it almost hurt my feelings... If I could fit it all I would totally sig it under PURE PWNAGE though. :D

*sharp inhalation* Harsh much.

The man's committed the mortal sin of annoying me. I see nothing wrong with displaying the consequences of his actions.

The man's committed the mortal sin of annoying me. I see nothing wrong with displaying the consequences of his actions.

:( But it was so....painful. Funny, but painful.

We’ve gone off the beaten path here, and the last thing we want to do is get into an extended analogy argument.

What we’re talking about is belief and the absence of it.


I’m not getting what you’re trying to put across here.

Are you suggesting we have a chair in our minds every time we think of a chair? I don’t think you are, but that’s what it sounds like.

All right, we'll forget this. I don't suppose you ever took a philosophy class? Design vs substance is a matter that's commonly seen in philosophy classes here. Hence why I used this to explain myself further. But yes, the idea is that every time you picture a chair in your head, or draw plans for chair design, it is indeed a chair you have. If you have any experience in programming, it's just basic application of a class object, and an occurrence of this class object.

But if you don't have any background in either of those fields, then I'm obviously not making any sense to you.



Again, you’re misusing the word ‘belief’ here.

A belief about religion would be something like, “religion is harmful to our lives”, or, “religion enhances your sex life”, or something similar.

A belief in a religion is just that; Christian, Hindu, Hellenic, etc., religious belief.

An atheist has no belief in religion, no religious belief, but may well have belief about religion.


re·li·gious
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion


A belief about or pertaining to religion is a religious belief. As I said, by very definition of the word. I don't know how else I can explain it.

An atheist that believes God doesn't exist has a religious belief. He has the belief that God doesn't exist. It is a belief(because it cannot be proven nor disproven) and it is religious in nature (because it pertains to religion as a concept).

A theist that believes in his particular brand of god has a religious belief. It is a belief because it too can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is religious with nature because it pertains to the concept of religion.

A = C ^ B = C -> A =B

Can't be any simpler, the way I see it.

Edit: I'll leave it at that. It's getting late, and this thread is so utterly derailed past any hope of redemption it's not even funny anymore. G'night, folks.

The man's committed the mortal sin of annoying me. I see nothing wrong with displaying the consequences of his actions.

"applauds" true poetry! It brought out my soul!

I can only imagine the shame you must feel now as you weep yourself to sleep.

Nah, dude, he probably giggled himself to sleep.

IF he really believes the nonsense he posted (and I have my doubts) then he's done nothing more than the internet standard, "I iz smart, they iz dumb..." To him it 'confirmed' something, namely that. "Hur hur, stupid people, why don't they know what I know..." Persuasion, not being in his toolbag, never was a goal. Simply to stir hornets and then return to his echo chamber the 'hero' that 'braved' the wild.

IF he doesn't believe what he said, then he's gleeful that saying something obviously controversial has stirred controversy. I guess in the same way he'd giggle with glee when he turns a doorknob and a door opens.

True, it almost hurt my feelings... If I could fit it all I would totally sig it under PURE PWNAGE though. :D
lol! :cool:

All right, we'll forget this. I don't suppose you ever took a philosophy class? Design vs substance is a matter that's commonly seen in philosophy classes here. Hence why I used this to explain myself further. But yes, the idea is that every time you picture a chair in your head, or draw plans for chair design, it is indeed a chair you have. If you have any experience in programming, it's just basic application of a class object, and an occurrence of this class object.

But if you don't have any background in either of those fields, then I'm obviously not making any sense to you.

A belief about or pertaining to religion is a religious belief. As I said, by very definition of the word. I don't know how else I can explain it.

An atheist that believes God doesn't exist has a religious belief. He has the belief that God doesn't exist. It is a belief(because it cannot be proven nor disproven) and it is religious in nature (because it pertains to religion as a concept).

A theist that believes in his particular brand of god has a religious belief. It is a belief because it too can neither be proven nor disproven, and it is religious with nature because it pertains to the concept of religion.

A = C ^ B = C -> A =B

Can't be any simpler, the way I see it.

To.....many.....formulas & complicated.....philosophy principles!!!:headbang:

*head explosion in background*

Nah, dude, he probably giggled himself to sleep.

IF he really believes the nonsense he posted (and I have my doubts) then he's done nothing more than the internet standard, "I iz smart, they iz dumb..." To him it 'confirmed' something, namely that. "Hur hur, stupid people, why don't they know what I know..." Persuasion, not being in his toolbag, never was a goal. Simply to stir hornets and then return to his echo chamber the 'hero' that 'braved' the wild.

IF he doesn't believe what he said, then he's gleeful that saying something obviously controversial has stirred controversy. I guess in the same way he'd giggle with glee when he turns a doorknob and a door opens.

Right, good point. Ignore the invalid reasons!

lol! :cool:



To.....many.....formulas & complicated.....philosophy principles!!!:headbang:

*head explosion in background*

KABANGBOOMBANG! "Oh, look mommy brainmatter, can I keep it please?!"

Nah, dude, he probably giggled himself to sleep.

IF he really believes the nonsense he posted (and I have my doubts) then he's done nothing more than the internet standard, "I iz smart, they iz dumb..." To him it 'confirmed' something, namely that. "Hur hur, stupid people, why don't they know what I know..." Persuasion, not being in his toolbag, never was a goal. Simply to stir hornets and then return to his echo chamber the 'hero' that 'braved' the wild.

IF he doesn't believe what he said, then he's gleeful that saying something obviously controversial has stirred controversy. I guess in the same way he'd giggle with glee when he turns a doorknob and a door opens.

Your probably right, instead of crying, he is probably giggling.....girl:D

Hello, the toolbag never even existed in his case. :)

The giggling whenever he turns a doorknob and the door opens sounds like a Paris Hilton thing to me....:p

Your probably right, instead of crying, he is probably giggling.....girl:D

Hello, the toolbag never even existed in his case. :)

The giggling whenever he turns a doorknob and the door opens sounds like a Paris Hilton thing to me....:p

Look! Eye kanz open door! Yay, Yay, Yay.

Push...Pull:confused:Damn.

I don't concider myself a member or believer of any religion. I did apple cider a religion once.

KABANGBOOMBANG! "Oh, look mommy brainmatter, can I keep it please?!"

"No, son. You'll stain the carpet."

"No, son. You'll stain the carpet."

"Awwwwww. Fine...bitch..."

KABANGBOOMBANG! "Oh, look mommy brainmatter, can I keep it please?!"

"Okay, but make sure you get the cerebellum dear"(hope I spelled that right, there are people with dictionaries around here <__<)

"Okay, but make sure you get the cerebellum dear"(hope I spelled that right, there are people with dictionaries around here <__<)

"Aww! Damn. I wanted the cranium!!!"

Push...Pull:confused:Damn.

People who need help opening doors:

Britney Spears
Paris Hilton
You
Lindsey Lohan
President Bush

People who need help opening doors:

Britney Spears
Paris Hilton
You
Lindsey Lohan
President Bush


Wwwwhhhhhaaaattttt!? *runs at door. Door doesn't open...headache ensues*

"Aww! Damn. I wanted the cranium!!!"

I thought cranium was another name for the brain, hence the game cranium :confused:

Wwwwhhhhhaaaattttt!? *runs at door. Door doesn't open...headache ensues*

*toddler walks by and opens door*

I thought cranium was another name for the brain, hence the game cranium :confused:

FUCK! Alright, the medulla oblongata then.

*toddler walks by and opens door*

"Don't flaunt your smarty smarts at me you smarty smart pants."

FUCK! Alright, the medulla oblongata then.

okay! geeze, no need to shout in internet public :D

I consider my religion "World Religion" that is an accumulation of all messages, and traditions in the world as I interpret it through my interaction in the world
and communion with diety and all incarnation or aspects of that diety. (where my communication in the world beyond the spiritual or mental aspects.. is just the message I take in, what is recalled to me is a type of expression facilitating the constitution's view and the thoughts and motions that emerge there of. Of course consel can occur in viewing the spirit or the temporal extension to the motion whatever direction or aspect it exists within noticed (mental, spiritual, physical, or emotive as per the roots and interface of soul to name a few aspects in somewhat generic western terms)

It is complex.. I do beleive in "a holy force" but I see myself as in union as well as all things being aspects or avatars of myself.. a sort of manifest destiny.. but I think keeping in touch with the human aspects is good as well because the world exists for a reason, and that is for us to experience life.

I think that all religions tell us about life that holyness has provided to us, and all things for a reason.

At different times in our lives things may hold a different purpose.. while the founding though stays the same.. we live for a reason.. death is beyond explaination in a full sense, cept in acceptance of the purpose of the expression called life.


p.s. I'm an ordained minister of the universal life church, which in their documentation tends to support a more traditional role of the priest in performing relatively christianized rites (in general it at it's home church site, is christian it seems, but the whole of the church is said to be non denominational, that is accepting those of various backgrounds, and enabling them to perform the rites of the ministry such as marriages, funerals baptisms etc.. without discrimination based on requirements - so I think - my opinion not officially speaking for the ULC, just my interpretation. None the less whatever way you look at it, it is a calling. A core tenant of the ULC is 'do what is right.' I firmly beleive that as part of the foundation that as the will of god, we do what is right.

"Don't flaunt your smarty smarts at me you smarty smart pants."

*toddler walks back in, kicks you in the nuts, and goes back through the door, a crowd of voices that usually comes from nowhere says "You have just been kicked in the nuts!!!!!" :D

I consider my religion "World Religion" that is an accumulation of all messages, and tradition in the world as I interpret it through my interaction in the world
and communion with diety and all incarnation or aspects of that diety.

It is complex.. I do beleive in "a holy force" but I see myself as in union as well as all things being aspects or avatars of myself.. a sort of manifest destiny.. but I think keeping in touch with the human aspects is good as well because the world exists for a reason, and that is for us to experience life.

I think that all religions tell us about life that holyness has provided to us, and all things for a reason.

At different times in our lives things may hold a different purpose.. while the founding though stays the same.. we live for a reason.. death is beyond explaination in a full sense, cept in acceptance of the purpose of the expression called life.

Wow, that is really deep, and so touching (really) :eek:

*toddler walks back in, kicks you in the nuts, and goes back through the door, a crowd of voices that usually comes from nowhere says "You have just been kicked in the nuts!!!!!" :D

"My nads are in pain. Your mother must comfort them now!" :p

Might someone post a poll that is not biased and/or bigoted? I would be quite interested to know the actual number of people voting other that subscribe to no religion, and possibly how many of the people who claim atheism are true atheists or actually agnostics/unitarians/believers in something but not religion...

I believe in obnoxious right wing stupidity. Unlike other religions, mine has positive proof, courtesy of the OP.

*converts to Global Warmism*

socialism does encorage atheism though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Socialism

Socialism doesn´t support atheism. BTW, where is the atheism option? Religion is just a product of evolution. It has been stated by scientists that religious people live longer, atheists get some physical diseases easier :confused:. That supports the theory that evolution has created religion.

I don't know if anyone already mentioned it [it's hard to go through eleven pages of comments of changing quality] but buddhism isn't a religion. It's a life philosophy.

Shinto, I guess.

Yes it does for the simple reason that a lack of something is not the existence of something. Bald isn't a haircolour, lack of religion is not a religion, disbelief is not belief, anosmia is not a sense of smell, nudity is not clothing and so on. Only idiots claim that not having a religion is having a religion, and as I said, it's much too early in my part of the globe for me to even feign patience with such an obvious lack of intelligent discourse that NS can be. *makes tea, expects for calm to come and with it laughter at the nonsense*

1. You didn't address the core of my objection; indeed, you apparently missed it entirely.

2. Who ever said that "not having a religion" is a "religion"? I sure didn't. Perhaps you're getting "not having a religion" confused with "actively opposing the idea, existence, and overall belief in a supreme being."

3. You're a Dawkins fan, aren't you? A Ph.D in BIOLOGY does not a philosopher make.

Well you see... I'm not in the US so... I've never even heard of it. :)

Fair enough. :)

Climate change is a pressing issue which we should...oh..bother. Just...use the internet or something.
You know, Kyronea asked a little while back why i didn't bother attempting to "educate" this one poster fella on this particular issue, and i kinda intimated the same conclusion as yours here. :)

p.s. I'm an ordained minister of the universal life church

You, me and a hundred thousand other people with access to the internet and a spare two minutes.

Drop those undies and get converted, baby!! :cool:

Yay! The line starts here!

\IT IS NOT A LAW. it is just a theory. Try looking at both sides of the discussion. Science is suppossed to question everything.

Don't do this. It can only end in tears.
Guess what atomic theory yielded? Are you going to tell the people in Nagasaki that it was NOT A LAW or a FACT, but a THEORY which resulted in what they experienced?

Please...I am to the point of begging now...do some research or shut the fuck up.

Remember, this particular poster finds purpose in providing "advocacy", no matter how incredibly uninformed and unstructured that position may be.

You are radicals who hate the fact of Theory VS debate.
You're right .... and i'm sure your persuasive and non-partisan POV can adequately express the sensible, debatable benefits of Nazism.

Radicals do not want debate they are flat earthers that want to crucify me for defying their religion of global warming.Oh, so it's a persecution complex that's keeping your boiler going. I see. You need, perhaps, to gracefully interject some, say, PROOF of your position, else look like the buffoon you're accusing everyone as recognizing you for.

I most likely could be your dad, But that is besides the point.
Not exactly, since it would appear a lot of people really think you should have learned a little more by now.

This is actually really informative on just what your understanding (or lack of it, more properly) of research really is.

Here's a little bit of news, cupcake. I do research in upper atmospheric phenomena. In other words, and I know this might be hard for you to follow so I'm going to spell it out for you: my lab gets money to study "upper atmospheric phenomena" and my lab would lose funding if it turned out that were not, in fact, looking at upper atmospheric phenomena and instead using our fancy, expensive telescopes (paid for by research grant money from the NSF) to, say, look at what the folks in the lab next door were doing.
The fact that our research in upper atmospheric phenomena has always been able to be incorporated into theories that explain upper atmospheric phenomena means absolutely fuckall when it comes to applying for my next grant. Similarly, someone doing climate research would continue to receive funding even if their observations did not support the presently prevailing theory on global climate change.

I find it hilarious and sad that you are so close-minded, that despite all of the research supporting global warming. Clearly you will not be convinced until you are diagnosed with melanoma.

Hey, Deus, if i may interject - you appear to be the most likely candidate for this ... are you or are you possibly going to be involved with HAARP and the newer projects?

The politically correct hijack most forms of discussion and not discluding this thread.
Ah - you've made a potentially embarassing lack of distinction between the term "politically" and "factually" here. Watch out for that in the future, people might mock you mercilessly.

Ah - you've made a potentially embarassing lack of distinction between the term "politically" and "factually" here. Watch out for that in the future, people might mock you mercilessly.Might? No, folks who have spelling mistakes in their thread titles must be mocked. It's an implicit forum rule.

Don't do this. It can only end in tears.
Guess what atomic theory yielded? Are you going to tell the people in Nagasaki that it was NOT A LAW or a FACT, but a THEORY which resulted in what they experienced?

You're right .... and i'm sure your persuasive and non-partisan POV can adequately express the sensible, debatable benefits of Nazism.

Oh, so it's a persecution complex that's keeping your boiler going. I see. You need, perhaps, to gracefully interject some, say, PROOF of your position, else look like the buffoon you're accusing everyone as recognizing you for.

Ah - you've made a potentially embarassing lack of distinction between the term "politically" and "factually" here. Watch out for that in the future, people might mock you mercilessly.

So Debate is not in your vocabulary. I am a nazi and buffoon and to be mocked mercilessly because I defend the position that science is debate. When i put the option of global warmist I knew I would get more radicals from that religion than any other. Thank you for showing the rest of the posters how radical a religion global warming can be. NOW back to the original reason of the thread, What religion are you? Do not "mock others mercilessly" for their view of religion.

Hang on... Wicca is the same as Paganism?
And what the hell is "Global Warmism"?

Hang on... Wicca is the same as Paganism?
And what the hell is "Global Warmism"?

Read the thread and you can see people defending global warming like radical zealots. Debate is the backbone of science without it it's just a big pile of crap.

I'm a Christian, more specifically Roman Catholic.

Debate is the backbone of science

Thus, before deciding whether or not dropping a rock in your hand will cause it to fall, you carry on several hours of discussion with gravity-skeptics to make sure their argument has no merit.

So Debate is not in your vocabulary. I am a nazi and buffoon and to be mocked mercilessly because I defend the position that science is debate. When i put the option of global warmist I knew I would get more radicals from that religion than any other. Thank you for showing the rest of the posters how radical a religion global warming can be. NOW back to the original reason of the thread, What religion are you? Do not "mock others mercilessly" for their view of religion.
You defend a position that you don't even understand. You have no clue whatsoever how climate works or what causes it to change. Global warming is a fact, no matter how much you reject it.
And as for the view people might have on religion, I am telling you that we already had hundreds of such threads that were started and maintained by folks with a lot more understanding of the matter than you.

Read the thread and you can see people defending global warming like radical zealots. Debate is the backbone of science without it it's just a big pile of crap.
Since you have no scientific understanding you are outside the debate.

I give up. I really do; I have read the past few pages I missed and guess what...USE has yet to give up his idiotic position on subjects he doesn't know anything about...at all...not even close to knowing even the tiniest bit about them... You all can keep trying to convince otherwise and educate him in the laws of modern science; but I am at the point of exasperation and must leave the thread before I say something that will win the 'Hand of the Mod' award.

I am the religion of Me. Its a very exclusive religion and only allows one member. I promise at no time to knock on your door or accost you at an airport to ask you to join Me. That is the exclusive right of my girlfriend but i digress.

Read the thread and you can see people defending global warming like radical zealots.

The irony of that flew right over your head, didn't it? :/

Other: none

At first i was a christian with shia and sunni relatives in lebanon,syria and jordan but last year i started reading the koran and im practicallly a muslim except i havent said the words

I am the religion of Me. Its a very exclusive religion and only allows one member. I promise at no time to knock on your door or accost you at an airport to ask you to join Me. That is the exclusive right of my girlfriend but i digress.

Do tell me more about your religion! :D Oh right, you don't preach. ;)

atheist. I've never been anything else and I like it.

Hey, Deus, if i may interject - you appear to be the most likely candidate for this ... are you or are you possibly going to be involved with HAARP and the newer projects?

Nope. I'm still an undergrad, so I've got a few years of schooling to go, and while I'm doing atmospheric research right now (which is somewhat situational) my actual focus is optical sciences and photonics. Though that in itself is a fairly broad field.

Still, my lab is looking at the same layer of sky, the ionosphere, as HAARP, though our measurements are passive rather than active (we use all-sky imagers rather than ionospheric heaters and diagnostic equipment), and we're trying to observe two different sets of phenomena (their looking at ionospheric dynamics and auroras, we're looking for something called gravity waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave), not to be confused with gravitational waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves), which are a completely separate thing entirely.

Which is still fascinating research.

Hope that answers your question :)

Pagan.