|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 21:19:44 GMT
Could you read them if I did? I'll take that as a no. Why did you just lie? I'll take that as a no. Lie?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 1, 2020 21:21:58 GMT
I'll take that as a no. Why did you just lie? I'll take that as a no. Lie? You lied about the "dubious" way scientists are surveyed. I asked you to provide evidence, you refuse to, and your already known liar. So yeah, your most likely just lying (as usual)
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 21:30:30 GMT
I'll take that as a no. Lie? You lied about the "dubious" way scientists are surveyed. I asked you to provide evidence, you refuse to, and your already known liar. So yeah, your most likely just lying (as usual) You obviously believe your opinion counts more than mine. Perhaps you believe you have some privilege. Perhaps you believe I have some sort of "burden" of proof. Although I do provide as much "proof" as is readily available to all parties, regardless whose "burden" it is, I have found that other parties do not. What exactly were the qualifications of any scientists? Government jobs?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 21:35:16 GMT
you are the one and only person on Earth to use such terminology. Do you deny that you have previously insisted me that life on earth could not have come about naturally, by chance, and that you favour intelligent design? So then, we have law - where you still have not explained how a law could be 'proved wrong'. Then religion where you say that "If a majority engages in some social function such as "worship" then it is a valid social function" which in regards as it holds for them at least, is something we can both agree on. However you will remember that, previously, the discussion was not over whether religion and religious observance was valid; it was that you offered the Argument from Popularity fallacy: that because so many were religious and there were religious communities, that was to be taken as positive evidence for God - a different thing entirely (also one cannot prove a mythical as wrong so your rule is not even relevant). Then finally science, where again we can agree that "a "majority"in science that presents no evidence whatsoever should not be taken seriously." But there being plenty of evidence for climate change, as I have already substantiated from across a range of disciplines, whereas I have never claimed that a majority is necessarily right. What everything tells those with a genuine open mind is that there is a global emergency. Previously you erroneously claimed that there was no consensus and one could not even know what scientists think, both of which have been shown as false suggestions. And, as usual the bottom line is, why would we accept the views of someone about science who also considers there is no or little evidence for the Theory of Relativity or that Darwin contributed anything to science, or that science does not know how old the cosmos is? I asked for proper substantiation for your theory. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 21:53:20 GMT
you are the one and only person on Earth to use such terminology. Do you deny that you have previously insisted me that life on earth could not have come about naturally, by chance, and that you favour intelligent design? So then, we have law - where you still have not explained how a law could be 'proved wrong'. Then religion where you say that "If a majority engages in some social function such as "worship" then it is a valid social function" which in regards as it holds for them at least, is something we can both agree on. However you will remember that, previously, the discussion was not over whether religion and religious observance was valid; it was that you offered the Argument from Popularity fallacy: that because so many were religious and there were religious communities, that was to be taken as positive evidence for God - a different thing entirely (also one cannot prove a mythical as wrong so your rule is not even relevant). Then finally science, where again we can agree that "a "majority"in science that presents no evidence whatsoever should not be taken seriously." But there being plenty of evidence for climate change, as I have already substantiated from across a range of disciplines, whereas I have never claimed that a majority is necessarily right. What everything tells those with a genuine open mind is that there is a global emergency. Previously you erroneously claimed that there was no consensus and one could not even know what scientists think, both of which have been shown as false suggestions. And, as usual the bottom line is, why would we accept the views of someone about science who also considers there is no or little evidence for the Theory of Relativity or that Darwin contributed anything to science, or that science does not know how old the cosmos is? I asked for proper substantiation for your theory. Evasion noted. A key term there being "God" which you proved time and time again you cannot understand what other people mean by the word, are confused by the various uses, and determined to make up your own god simple enough for you (mortal that you are) to understand and make rules governing. Do I need to get in line with all the others who evaded you?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 21:55:03 GMT
You lied about the "dubious" way scientists are surveyed. I asked you to provide evidence, you refuse to, and your already known liar. So yeah, your most likely just lying (as usual) You obviously believe your opinion counts more than mine. Perhaps you believe you have some privilege. Perhaps you believe I have some sort of "burden" of proof. You have the burden of proof when arguing against what is overwhelming scientific consensus. But you never substantiate anything, so I can see why it won't trouble you much this time either - even though on this thread you have been specifically asked for it. The evidence for climate change is so widespread from such a wide range of sources and disciplines the advice is, as before, just take your famous 'open mind' and do the Google. This just sounds a little desperate. Give it up and stick to arguing over child safety seats and the earning power of the religious lol
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 1, 2020 21:56:14 GMT
You lied about the "dubious" way scientists are surveyed. I asked you to provide evidence, you refuse to, and your already known liar. So yeah, your most likely just lying (as usual) You obviously believe your opinion counts more than mine. Perhaps you believe you have some privilege. Perhaps you believe I have some sort of "burden" of proof. Although I do provide as much "proof" as is readily available to all parties, regardless whose "burden" it is, I have found that other parties do not. What exactly were the qualifications of any scientists? Government jobs? Still waiting to link me your source
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 21:57:30 GMT
A key term there being "God" which you proved time and time again you cannot understand what other people mean by the word, Here's that question again since you seem to have overlooked it: Do you deny that you have previously insisted me that life on earth could not have come about naturally, by chance, and that you favour intelligent design? "I answer every direct question I am asked" That was you, right?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 22:00:17 GMT
You obviously believe your opinion counts more than mine. Perhaps you believe you have some privilege. Perhaps you believe I have some sort of "burden" of proof. Yes you do when arguing against what is overwhelming scientific consensus. But you never substantiate anything so I can see why it won't trouble you much this time either even though on this thread you have been specifically asked for it. The evidence for climate change is so widespread from such a wide range of sources and disciplines the advice is, as before, just take your famous 'open mind' and do the Google. This is just a lazy way of arguing and sounds a little desperate. Give it up and stick to child safety seats and the earning power of the religious lol Because you are neither a scientist yourself, nor do you possess any logic, it does not matter what you believe is the "overwhelming scientific consensus." That is a major flaw in your thinking there. The same in fact foes for Google.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 22:01:07 GMT
You obviously believe your opinion counts more than mine. Perhaps you believe you have some privilege. Perhaps you believe I have some sort of "burden" of proof. Although I do provide as much "proof" as is readily available to all parties, regardless whose "burden" it is, I have found that other parties do not. What exactly were the qualifications of any scientists? Government jobs? Still waiting to link me your source Still waiting for you to learn to read.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 1, 2020 22:04:25 GMT
Still waiting to link me your source Still waiting for you to learn to read. Lame ad homs aren't an argument. Provide a link or admit you lied.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 22:04:41 GMT
Yes you do when arguing against what is overwhelming scientific consensus. But you never substantiate anything so I can see why it won't trouble you much this time either even though on this thread you have been specifically asked for it. The evidence for climate change is so widespread from such a wide range of sources and disciplines the advice is, as before, just take your famous 'open mind' and do the Google. This is just a lazy way of arguing and sounds a little desperate. Give it up and stick to child safety seats and the earning power of the religious lol Because you are neither a scientist yourself, nor do you possess any logic, it does not matter what you believe is the "overwhelming scientific consensus." That is a major flaw in your thinking there. The same in fact foes for Google. I have emboldened the key part of my last answer. It saves time. I am, surprisingly, still waiting for your own substantiation for the notion that there is no climate change. Is there a problem? As on previous occasions there obviously is, and it only needs now to you to start with the personal attacks...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 22:14:13 GMT
Because you are neither a scientist yourself, nor do you possess any logic, it does not matter what you believe is the "overwhelming scientific consensus." That is a major flaw in your thinking there. The same in fact foes for Google. I have emboldened the key part of my last answer. It saves time. I am, surprisingly, still waiting for your own substantiation for the notion that there is no climate change. Is there a problem? As on previous occasions there obviously is, and it only needs now to you to start with the personal attacks... And it has still never crossed your (Let's not describe it, I've already made that point.) mind that you have presented no evidence whatsoever yet? Remember that polar ice theory? Here's what happened. People who are too plain stupid to understand religion became "scientists" because being plainspoken is often accepted in science, and even expected at times. But they are still stupid and think shrinking polar ice necessarily means the globe is warming. It does not, that is not necessarily anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2020 22:18:59 GMT
Still waiting for you to learn to read. Lame ad homs aren't an argument. Provide a link or admit you lied. PKB
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 1, 2020 22:30:12 GMT
I have emboldened the key part of my last answer. It saves time. I am, surprisingly, still waiting for your own substantiation for the notion that there is no climate change. Is there a problem? As on previous occasions there obviously is, and it only needs now to you to start with the personal attacks... And it has still never crossed your (Let's not describe it, I've already made that point.) mind that you have presented no evidence whatsoever yet? Yes I have, with a link or two way back, in fact there is no end of evidence easily to be found - although I am sure none of it will work on your 'open mind'. Now stop evading and provide something back of your own to evidence your ideas. Remember when I asked, and you ignored, that if there has been no climate change and your idea applies, why then has the ice not been retreating consistently down the centuries, and not rapidly as it has been over the last few decades? Care to try an answer? "I answer every direct question I am asked" That was still you, right? For everyone else with an open mind here is the relevant Wiki article. And Arlon's authority for his theory is: .........
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2020 5:35:46 GMT
I'm always amused by the Xtian believer's double-bind on their god: a totally loving and forgiving being of complete kindness and mercy, but yet a ruthless 'spank-daddy' to whom one is going to have to explain one's minutest actions after death (of course said believing Xtian never really believes he's going to have to explain anything; he'll be ushered through the pearly gates pronto. It's the people whom the believer disapproves of who'll get the post-mortem third degree). If said god already knows and has predetermined all of this, then why the need? If he's all-loving and all-forgiving, there's no point to it, and if he's not and is going to be vindictive to the sinful, it seems more likely he'd simply send them on to perdition without benefit of the accused getting a hearing since said god already knows all of the wrongs the sinner has committed. It's just another example of the really childish manner inculcated into the majority of Xtians towards viewing their deity. One of the things that turned me off to the religion early on was the utterly undignified depiction of a supreme being. If I'm going to worship something I at least want it to be something I can respect, and the petty and silly 'god' of popular Xtianity is something I can't even begin to feel respectful towards. The Christians are very limited in their concept. As the Bible illustrates, there are several versions of him. The vindictive, judgmental, exclusionist God is the one most pale biblically correct and politically right wing Evangelical church has settled upon. Which is worse to your mind, people who are mean because they are stupid or people who are nice because they are stupid? I suspect that with the people who are mean because they are stupid at least you can see them coming. With the people who are nice because they are stupid you might have to try their long term plans only to find that instead of reducing poverty it just creates more of it, people who can't fish and that sort of thing. There are several memes about the warning parks give not to feed the animals because it makes the animals dependent and what the government does in other cases. The internet is a playground and Google is your friend there.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 2, 2020 12:13:39 GMT
The Christians are very limited in their concept. As the Bible illustrates, there are several versions of him. The vindictive, judgmental, exclusionist God is the one most pale biblically correct and politically right wing Evangelical church has settled upon. Which is worse to your mind, people who are mean because they are stupid or people who are nice because they are stupid? I suspect that with the people who are mean because they are stupid at least you can see them coming. With the people who are nice because they are stupid you might have to try their long term plans only to find that instead of reducing poverty it just creates more of it, people who can't fish and that sort of thing. There are several memes about the warning parks give not to feed the animals because it makes the animals dependent and what the government does in other cases. The internet is a playground and Google is your friend there. As usual, you post obfuscation dished up as observation. Where you found anything in either Paul's or my above posts pertaining to intelligence or lack of same relating to the subject at hand is beyond me. That bolded part is particularly incoherent and relates to nothing whatsoever. Perhaps you could do with a reminder that clarity is also your friend, and if you want to chip in on this discussion a bit more of it would be welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2020 14:25:01 GMT
Which is worse to your mind, people who are mean because they are stupid or people who are nice because they are stupid? I suspect that with the people who are mean because they are stupid at least you can see them coming. With the people who are nice because they are stupid you might have to try their long term plans only to find that instead of reducing poverty it just creates more of it, people who can't fish and that sort of thing. There are several memes about the warning parks give not to feed the animals because it makes the animals dependent and what the government does in other cases. The internet is a playground and Google is your friend there. As usual, you post obfuscation dished up as observation. Where you found anything in either Paul's or my above posts pertaining to intelligence or lack of same relating to the subject at hand is beyond me. That bolded part is particularly incoherent and relates to nothing whatsoever. Perhaps you could do with a reminder that clarity is also your friend, and if you want to chip in on this discussion a bit more of it would be welcome. I introduced the idea you failed to address. I'm sure quite much is beyond you. Just as you do not value my opinions, it is important for you to realize that I do not value yours. What expression is there? Mexican standoff? You won't pay any more attention to me than I do you, but you really do need to grow up. There is no number of IMDb friends or fiends that can make your silliness any more valid. I suppose that means we're both wasting our time here. That's why I limit my time here.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 2, 2020 14:27:41 GMT
Which is worse to your mind, people who are mean because they are stupid or people who are nice because they are stupid? I suspect that with the people who are mean because they are stupid at least you can see them coming. With the people who are nice because they are stupid you might have to try their long term plans only to find that instead of reducing poverty it just creates more of it, people who can't fish and that sort of thing. There are several memes about the warning parks give not to feed the animals because it makes the animals dependent and what the government does in other cases. The internet is a playground and Google is your friend there. You know, I only started using the Internet regularly around 2003, therefore I have a store of knowledge that came from real books. Like how of the great classics of literature, history, etc have you read? Because I’ve read much the needed western canon. My parents bought a 1958 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (in 1958) that I would browse as a favorite pass time in my younger and older years.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 2, 2020 17:04:14 GMT
As usual, you post obfuscation dished up as observation. Where you found anything in either Paul's or my above posts pertaining to intelligence or lack of same relating to the subject at hand is beyond me. That bolded part is particularly incoherent and relates to nothing whatsoever. Perhaps you could do with a reminder that clarity is also your friend, and if you want to chip in on this discussion a bit more of it would be welcome. I introduced the idea you failed to address. I'm sure quite much is beyond you. Just as you do not value my opinions, it is important for you to realize that I do not value yours. What expression is there? Mexican standoff? You won't pay any more attention to me than I do you, but you really do need to grow up. There is no number of IMDb friends or fiends that can make your silliness any more valid. I suppose that means we're both wasting our time here. That's why I limit my time here. It must be quite a shy and demure idea in that case, as I fail to see where it put in an appearance. It assuredly is beyond me to see a point that looks to be nonexistent. Do you really not know how to speak in anything other than strings of ad homs? Do you believe an air of pseudo-intellectual condescension intimidates those with whom you attempt debate? Whether you value my opinions or no is immaterial to me, unless of course your 'value' is being paid out in Green Stamps or some like currency that might prove useful to me . Perfect strangers on a faceless forum are not where I go to seek self-validation, Arlon. I somehow think the same cannot be said of yourself. It appears to me you'd do pretty well to go from limiting your time here to abandoning your time here altogether, the better to devote your attentions to platforms that can more fully support the mighty weight of your intellect--such as Reddit. Who knows--you might even improve your 'karma' by moving over there on a permanent basis .
|
|