Man Made Global Warming

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

I wouldn't argue that there is climate change. But what is said will happen will happen without any help from earths inhabitants. It will do what its going to do and there's nothing you can do. We can't prevent its eventual end no more than we can prevent a huge asteroid hitting earth.

but it makes us feel better to think that we can be masters of our fate. simple as that really.


madblaster, how is atheism a scam?

is there an atheist organisation that asks for a tithe in return for a promise of...well, anything? the core of atheism, as i see it, is that the notions of good and evil lie entirely in the physical realm and control of man, not in any abstract entity such as god or the devil. don't try and make out that being god-less means you have no grasp of ethics. if anything it gives a greater appreciation of why you should do the right thing - because it's the right thing to do, not because you get an after-life reward.

[ATAG_Doc]

It's going to do what it do. And there isn't anything man can do to slow it down even a millisecond.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4dhvm9ivGQ

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

but it makes us feel better to think that we can be masters of our fate. simple as that really.


madblaster, how is atheism a scam?

is there an atheist organisation that asks for a tithe in return for a promise of...well, anything? the core of atheism, as i see it, is that the notions of good and evil lie entirely in the physical realm and control of man, not in any abstract entity such as god or the devil. don't try and make out that being god-less means you have no grasp of ethics. if anything it gives a greater appreciation of why you should do the right thing - because it's the right thing to do, not because you get an after-life reward.

1) “is there an atheist organisation that asks for a tithe in return for a promise of...well, anything?”
There are all kinds of scams. Apparently, money for false promise is on your “A” list. What does that say about you? I take your view as no faith in the ordinary man because he is a sucker for organized religion. Maybe the scam of the so called “atheist organization” is to close your mind to order and open your mind to chaos and destruction? Gee, I wonder why they would want to do that?

2) “the core of atheism, as i see it, is that the notions of good and evil lie entirely in the physical realm and control of man, not in any abstract entity such as god or the devil.”
I would say god and devil are analogous to good and evil. You’ve heard the term “methphor”. I would say none of these lie in the control of man. For example, a free man makes a choice. He may percieve it to be good choice, while another man observing may percieve it to be a bad choice. This is how wars start. If one man kills the other man because of his choice, the man that lives gets to decide who is “right”. You know the cliches, “only the strong survive” as “evolution in a nutshell”. The inate ability to pass judgment on another is part of evolution of the species. So, your definition of aithest can not be correct. Man can not control good and evil. They must be in conflict in order for man to evolve. The question I have, why is the ability to pass judgement inate? How did that get in the jar? Do you see it in the DNA molecule? I don’t think so. It seems to exist in the non-physical realm. It seems to be an ability developed and changing over a life cycle.

3) “don't try and make out that being god-less means you have no grasp of ethics”
Again, how did your atheist acquire ethics? What is the context? He must have first developed an ability somehow to abstract/conceptualize the notions of good and evil in order to become ethical?

Jmho, I think your definition of atheist needs some work. I stand by my veiw that there is no such thing as a real atheist. It’s a sales pitch to a scam. See atheist -> karlmarx -> communist manifesto -> steal everything.

[WTE_Galway]

This has never been a debate about the science.

however there is probably also too much focus on the political and religious issues.

Yeah politicians in general, whether fascist or communist, liberal or conservative, are all total idiots and most organised religions are inherently evil and all about power (regardless if we are talking pre-reformation Catholicism, modern Islam, TV evangelists or right wing American fundamentalism).

However the efforts of the politico's and religious nutters of the world pale in comparison to the machieviallian manipulations of large corporations.

You only have to look at Northrop Grumman to see that.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

It's going to do what it do. And there isn't anything man can do to slow it down even a millisecond.

preeeeetty much

like i say, makes us feel better to do something. like the band playing on sort of thing.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

1) “is there an atheist organisation that asks for a tithe in return for a promise of...well, anything?”
There are all kinds of scams. Apparently, money for false promise is on your “A” list. What does that say about you? I take your view as no faith in the ordinary man because he is a sucker for organized religion. Maybe the scam of the so called “atheist organization” is to close your mind to order and open your mind to chaos and destruction? Gee, I wonder why they would want to do that?

i made no such comment about "false promises". tithes taken by the church go to good causes, if for nothing else than to maintain the fabric of often ancient buildings and often for charitable activities. the promise of something is implicit and goes back to the time of selling graces, but i make no assertion that is a false promise. i may not believe in it, but that makes it no less real to some people.

to say that atheists have "closed their minds to order and opened them to chaos and destruction" is kind of wonderful. do you believe in other gods, or just yours?

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

2) “the core of atheism, as i see it, is that the notions of good and evil lie entirely in the physical realm and control of man, not in any abstract entity such as god or the devil.”
I would say god and devil are analogous to good and evil. You’ve heard the term “methphor”. I would say none of these lie in the control of man. For example, a free man makes a choice. He may percieve it to be good choice, while another man observing may percieve it to be a bad choice. This is how wars start. If one man kills the other man because of his choice, the man that lives gets to decide who is “right”. You know the cliches, “only the strong survive” as “evolution in a nutshell”. The inate ability to pass judgment on another is part of evolution of the species. So, your definition of aithest can not be correct. Man can not control good and evil. They must be in conflict in order for man to evolve. The question I have, why is the ability to pass judgement inate? How did that get in the jar? Do you see it in the DNA molecule? I don’t think so. It seems to exist in the non-physical realm. It seems to be an ability developed and changing over a life cycle.

what
so the guy who commits evil can declare himself to be right.... and he is? what?

the non-physical realm has nothing to do with human consciousness, mainly because *ta-da* human consciousness is a function of the physical brain. learn to neurobiology. next you'll be trotting out descartes and his attempts to prove the existence of god. as to judgement, it's one of those innate qualities that makes us human, that we develop through experience and what we learn of the world and it's inhabitants. of course it changes over a life cycle. if nothing was learned then we'd still be whacking the crap out of each other with the jaws of sheep.

oh and they aren't cliches, but strength can either be physical or mental. we prevailed over the neanderthal, according to theory, because we were smarter not bigger.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

3) “don't try and make out that being god-less means you have no grasp of ethics”
Again, how did your atheist acquire ethics? What is the context? He must have first developed an ability somehow to abstract/conceptualize the notions of good and evil in order to become ethical?

no, not necessary at all. i set fire to your house. you don't like it. would i like it if it's done to me? no, then it's bad. if this same process applies or can be said to apply to each reasonable person (ie not sadists, masochists, the unhinged) then it applies as either good or bad. i'm putting this in very simplified terms because... well frankly there's a 5,000 word essay on this, easy.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Jmho, I think your definition of atheist needs some work. I stand by my veiw that there is no such thing as a real atheist. It’s a sales pitch to a scam. See atheist -> karlmarx -> communist manifesto -> steal everything.

well it was a definition pitched at a certain level, and intended as a mini-definition to save time, typing and refinement. it's no sales pitch though, it's not selling anything.

if you consider wealth redistribution and societal equality to be "steal everything" then you massively misunderstand the ideals of marxism, to such an extent that you should either read up on it or cease commenting on it. you simply cannot steal what you own part of. that communism failed in all it's incarnations is mostly due to human nature, apparently we can't really act in a truly altruistic way for ever, require carrots to put in the best effort with our talents and generally foul things up through greed and avarice. but then that apparently applies in all political systems.


i would suggest that your invitation to atheists to kill themselves actually constitutes a hate crime though. if i told all christians/muslims/jews/hindus/worshippers of his noodly-appendagedness to kill themselves i would expect criminal sanctions to follow shortly after.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

This has never been a debate about the science.

however there is probably also too much focus on the political and religious issues.

Yeah politicians in general, whether fascist or communist, liberal or conservative, are all total idiots and most organised religions are inherently evil and all about power (regardless if we are talking pre-reformation Catholicism, modern Islam, TV evangelists or right wing American fundamentalism).

However the efforts of the politico's and religious nutters of the world pale in comparison to the machieviallian manipulations of large corporations.

You only have to look at Northrop Grumman to see that.

amen.

without a hint of irony as well, in all honesty.

[jimson8]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

if you consider wealth redistribution and societal equality to be "steal everything" then you massively misunderstand the ideals of marxism, to such an extent that you should either read up on it or cease commenting on it. you simply cannot steal what you own part of. that communism failed in all it's incarnations is mostly due to human nature, apparently we can't really act in a truly altruistic way for ever, require carrots to put in the best effort with our talents and generally foul things up through greed and avarice. but then that apparently applies in all political systems.

This is why marxism is a fundamentally flawed system. We work to better our lives. No one will put the effort into performing exceptionally when there is no reward above performing adequately.

Everyone is dragged down, not up.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

preeeeetty much

like i say, makes us feel better to do something. like the band playing on sort of thing.

i made no such comment about "false promises". tithes taken by the church go to good causes, if for nothing else than to maintain the fabric of often ancient buildings and often for charitable activities. the promise of something is implicit and goes back to the time of selling graces, but i make no assertion that is a false promise. i may not believe in it, but that makes it no less real to some people.

to say that atheists have "closed their minds to order and opened them to chaos and destruction" is kind of wonderful. do you believe in other gods, or just yours?

what
so the guy who commits evil can declare himself to be right.... and he is? what?

the non-physical realm has nothing to do with human consciousness, mainly because *ta-da* human consciousness is a function of the physical brain. learn to neurobiology. next you'll be trotting out descartes and his attempts to prove the existence of god. as to judgement, it's one of those innate qualities that makes us human, that we develop through experience and what we learn of the world and it's inhabitants. of course it changes over a life cycle. if nothing was learned then we'd still be whacking the crap out of each other with the jaws of sheep.

oh and they aren't cliches, but strength can either be physical or mental. we prevailed over the neanderthal, according to theory, because we were smarter not bigger.

no, not necessary at all. i set fire to your house. you don't like it. would i like it if it's done to me? no, then it's bad. if this same process applies or can be said to apply to each reasonable person (ie not sadists, masochists, the unhinged) then it applies as either good or bad. i'm putting this in very simplified terms because... well frankly there's a 5,000 word essay on this, easy.

well it was a definition pitched at a certain level, and intended as a mini-definition to save time, typing and refinement. it's no sales pitch though, it's not selling anything.

if you consider wealth redistribution and societal equality to be "steal everything" then you massively misunderstand the ideals of marxism, to such an extent that you should either read up on it or cease commenting on it. you simply cannot steal what you own part of. that communism failed in all it's incarnations is mostly due to human nature, apparently we can't really act in a truly altruistic way for ever, require carrots to put in the best effort with our talents and generally foul things up through greed and avarice. but then that apparently applies in all political systems.


i would suggest that your invitation to atheists to kill themselves actually constitutes a hate crime though. if i told all christians/muslims/jews/hindus/worshippers of his noodly-appendagedness to kill themselves i would expect criminal sanctions to follow shortly after.

quote:
“i made no such comment about "false promises". tithes taken by the church go to good causes, if for nothing else than to maintain the fabric of often ancient buildings and often for charitable activities. the promise of something is implicit and goes back to the time of selling graces, but i make no assertion that is a false promise. i may not believe in it, but that makes it no less real to some people.”

Your exact words “in return for a promise of...well, anything?” You seem confused by your own words. If a promise is broken, if it doesn’t materialize, if it doesn’t stay true to form, if it promises nothing, I think it fair to characterize it to be “false”. Get it? Then you say exactly this, “i may not believe in it, but that makes it no less real to some people.” I will parse this. “I may not believe in it” suggests to me you believe the promise to be “false” because if you believed in it, it would be “true” and you would believe in it instead of qualify it as “may not”. Then you say “some people”. Now maybe you should go look at your “good guy” self in the mirror and ask, “did I just pass judgement?” I would say you did. It’s okay. I do it all the time.

quote:
“to say that atheists have "closed their minds to order and opened them to chaos and destruction" is kind of wonderful. do you believe in other gods, or just yours?”
I’m comfortable in my skin. What else is there to say? If you think chaos and destruction is “kind of wonderful”? Whatever. It’s your skin. We now know where you stand.

quote:
“the non-physical realm has nothing to do with human consciousness, mainly because *ta-da* human consciousness is a function of the physical brain. learn to neurobiology. next you'll be trotting out descartes and his attempts to prove the existence of god. as to judgement, it's one of those innate qualities that makes us human, that we develop through experience and what we learn of the world and it's inhabitants. of course it changes over a life cycle. if nothing was learned then we'd still be whacking the crap out of each other with the jaws of sheep.”

Diving through the insults, a “function”. Okay, the neuro process the brain goes through to form a non-physical/intangible called an “idea”. Nothing physically relevant about that unless it materializes into something that can be perceived through our senses. I just had another idea, but I won’t mention it here. So it won’t materialize as insult. For you to guess or to remain irrelevant. It’s also wonderful how you equate human consciousness to neurobiology. I think those phds are still working on it. No brain transplants yet. But keep sending them your monies or try to steal ours because they are the smart guys with all the answers about how your brain works. In the meantime, you’ll have to stick with the indoctrintation techniques you were taught.

quote:
“oh and they aren't cliches”
as in the phrase is common and subject to overuse in the vernacular to lose meaning, imo.

quote:
“no, not necessary at all. i set fire to your house. you don't like it. would i like it if it's done to me? no, then it's bad. if this same process applies or can be said to apply to each reasonable person (ie not sadists, masochists, the unhinged) then it applies as either good or bad. i'm putting this in very simplified terms because... well frankly there's a 5,000 word essay on this, easy.”

Again, you make the circular argument. A common theme. What is “reasonable”. What is the context for “reasonable”. Imo, “good” and “bad” are the building blocks to “reasonable” and “ethical”. No 5000 word essay necessary. Keep using your neurobiology to figure your way out of the circle. How about, “think outside the box”. Get it? Does that qualify as a cliche in your opinion?

quote:
if you consider wealth redistribution and societal equality to be "steal everything" then you massively misunderstand the ideals of marxism, to such an extent that you should either read up on it or cease commenting on it. you simply cannot steal what you own part of. that communism failed in all it's incarnations is mostly due to human nature, apparently we can't really act in a truly altruistic way for ever, require carrots to put in the best effort with our talents and generally foul things up through greed and avarice. but then that apparently applies in all political systems.

I guess your not a farmer. The war for communism hasn’t ended. It has taken the guise of man-made global warming. “Atheism” is recruiting tool, a sales pitch. The ordinary man is aware. Your attempts to wrap it up in higher purpose sugar, epic fail.

quote:
i would suggest that your invitation to atheists to kill themselves actually constitutes a hate crime though. if i told all christians/muslims/jews/hindus/worshippers of his noodly-appendagedness to kill themselves i would expect criminal sanctions to follow shortly after.

If I don’t believe they exist, then how can I believe they can kill themselves? Are you suggesting thought crime? Should my neurobiology be arrested? How do you do that? Do you want to murder me? At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least! You really underestimate yourself if you believe in a so called atheism. Anyway, my last words. It was fun. I’m out.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by jimson8

This is why marxism is a fundamentally flawed system. We work to better our lives. No one will put the effort into performing exceptionally when there is no reward above performing adequately.

Everyone is dragged down, not up.

that's a fundamental misunderstanding of marxism. the theory at least. spot on with how it is implemented though. ideally some are dragged down, but a larger number - as the wealth tends to be distributed as a pyramid rich and few at the top, poor but many at the bottom - are (meant to be) dragged up. funny thing is it tends to be the middle class that espouses marxism, with the richer and poorer tending to have it down as being a liberal panty sniffing taxation fest.

i think i'm remembering this story right, paraphrasing heavily though - when watching a train load up with passengers, marx and a companion went past the first class carriage, and saw the luxury and comfort these few were afforded. they pass second class to see old women perching uncomfortably on wooden benches in the busy carriage. they come to third class and watch as people are loaded into bare cattle carriages. his companion turned to marx and said
"when the revolution comes we'll make those pigs travel third class with the rest of us" (not actual pigs of course)
"no, comrade, you misunderstand - when the revolution comes we'll all travel first class"


oh god, you've made a mess of this madblaster.

quote:
“i made no such comment about "false promises". tithes taken by the church go to good causes, if for nothing else than to maintain the fabric of often ancient buildings and often for charitable activities. the promise of something is implicit and goes back to the time of selling graces, but i make no assertion that is a false promise. i may not believe in it, but that makes it no less real to some people.”

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Your exact words “in return for a promise of...well, anything?” You seem confused by your own words. If a promise is broken, if it doesn’t materialize, if it doesn’t stay true to form, if it promises nothing, I think it fair to characterize it to be “false”. Get it? Then you say exactly this, “i may not believe in it, but that makes it no less real to some people.” I will parse this. “I may not believe in it” suggests to me you believe the promise to be “false” because if you believed in it, it would be “true” and you would believe in it instead of qualify it as “may not”. Then you say “some people”. Now maybe you should go look at your “good guy” self in the mirror and ask, “did I just pass judgement?” I would say you did. It’s okay. I do it all the time.

by a promise of anything i meant, quite literally, anything. 72 virgins, 10,000 less years in purgatory, your own swimming pool. anything. i don't believe it so i don't get it, but the person paying the tithe or doing the penance may well receive such graces as dictated by their faith, for all I or anyone else knows. some people believe, some people don't. you're trying to start an argument with your own misunderstanding, as i'm not judging anything or anyone there. i always chuckle when the thing of "judge not lest ye be judged" is used one sidedly though. that and the casting of stones. anyway, the point was that atheism asks nothing from those who believe it, it takes nothing nor offers anything in return which it does not deliver - so how can it be a scam.

quote:
“to say that atheists have "closed their minds to order and opened them to chaos and destruction" is kind of wonderful. do you believe in other gods, or just yours?”

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I’m comfortable in my skin. What else is there to say? If you think chaos and destruction is “kind of wonderful”? Whatever. It’s your skin. We now know where you stand.

no, not the "chaos and destruction" bit being wonderful - although out of chaos arises order, out of destruction arises new life - it's the sheer brass neck to say that atheists rejoice in it. it's a sort of mix of sarcasm and "oh wow, do they mean that or am i reading it wrong". there's plenty to say - do you believe your god to be the one true god, and by extension that the many millions (billions) that believe otherwise are wrong?

quote:
“the non-physical realm has nothing to do with human consciousness, mainly because *ta-da* human consciousness is a function of the physical brain. learn to neurobiology. next you'll be trotting out descartes and his attempts to prove the existence of god. as to judgement, it's one of those innate qualities that makes us human, that we develop through experience and what we learn of the world and it's inhabitants. of course it changes over a life cycle. if nothing was learned then we'd still be whacking the crap out of each other with the jaws of sheep.”

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Diving through the insults, a “function”. Okay, the neuro process the brain goes through to form a non-physical/intangible called an “idea”. Nothing physically relevant about that unless it materializes into something that can be perceived through our senses. I just had another idea, but I won’t mention it here. So it won’t materialize as insult. For you to guess or to remain irrelevant. It’s also wonderful how you equate human consciousness to neurobiology. I think those phds are still working on it. No brain transplants yet. But keep sending them your monies or try to steal ours because they are the smart guys with all the answers about how your brain works. In the meantime, you’ll have to stick with the indoctrintation techniques you were taught.

what insults? as current tech stands we can only highlight areas of activity associated with certain activities - movement, memory, language and the like - but that's not to say that specific thought processes (what am i eating for lunch today?) cannot be similarly mapped out once scanning techniques are improved. to say an idea is intangible and non-physical is to show an ignorance of neurobiology, because things like "i want to move the mouse cursor left" have already been successfully mapped and used to develop a means for people to communicate despite massive physical or neurological trauma destroying their physical capacity. a brain transplant? in what respect or for what function would you do that? it's not swapping out a hard drive. each brains structure has been altered by that person's life experiences, even at the basic level of understanding that we have now it isn't a muscle or filtration organ that can be transplanted.

btw, loving the hint of craziness you're throwing in at the end there "indoctrination techniques" *girlish giggle* really? i mean really?

quote:
“oh and they aren't cliches”

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

as in the phrase is common and subject to overuse in the vernacular to lose meaning, imo.

as in commonly used because they are common in life. there's a reason they are cliches. the meaning is still there.

quote:
“no, not necessary at all. i set fire to your house. you don't like it. would i like it if it's done to me? no, then it's bad. if this same process applies or can be said to apply to each reasonable person (ie not sadists, masochists, the unhinged) then it applies as either good or bad. i'm putting this in very simplified terms because... well frankly there's a 5,000 word essay on this, easy.”

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Again, you make the circular argument. A common theme. What is “reasonable”. What is the context for “reasonable”. Imo, “good” and “bad” are the building blocks to “reasonable” and “ethical”. No 5000 word essay necessary. Keep using your neurobiology to figure your way out of the circle. How about, “think outside the box”. Get it? Does that qualify as a cliche in your opinion?

circular argument? what now?
i state what is reasonable. i'll try again - someone acting without malice or overt charity, without cross purposes, without a motivation that they would deny others, with fairness. in effect, an average person. good and bad are more easily classified as harm or gain, within this framework and seeing as you're all hung up on good and bad. there's also an element of consensus. a reasonable person would want no harm to come to them but would want gains. a reasonable person would also not deny others this, as to deny others could be to deny themselves.

think outside the box is hackneyed meeting speak, and perfect for bullsh*t bingo. see also "blue sky thinking"

quote:
if you consider wealth redistribution and societal equality to be "steal everything" then you massively misunderstand the ideals of marxism, to such an extent that you should either read up on it or cease commenting on it. you simply cannot steal what you own part of. that communism failed in all it's incarnations is mostly due to human nature, apparently we can't really act in a truly altruistic way for ever, require carrots to put in the best effort with our talents and generally foul things up through greed and avarice. but then that apparently applies in all political systems.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I guess your not a farmer. The war for communism hasn’t ended. It has taken the guise of man-made global warming. “Atheism” is recruiting tool, a sales pitch. The ordinary man is aware. Your attempts to wrap it up in higher purpose sugar, epic fail.

you're great. i mean really - this is just brilliant.

quote:
i would suggest that your invitation to atheists to kill themselves actually constitutes a hate crime though. if i told all christians/muslims/jews/hindus/worshippers of his noodly-appendagedness to kill themselves i would expect criminal sanctions to follow shortly after.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

If I don’t believe they exist, then how can I believe they can kill themselves? Are you suggesting thought crime? Should my neurobiology be arrested? How do you do that? Do you want to murder me? At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least! You really underestimate yourself if you believe in a so called atheism. Anyway, my last words. It was fun. I’m out.

no, you typed it out on an internet forum. that's not a thought crime, it's just an offensive sentiment to express publicly.

there's a lot of hate in you, which i find sad really. why do you have so much hate in your soul? maybe we should talk about it, see what you're repressing and try to work out a way to make you better.

[MadBlaster]

quote:
"oh god, you've made a mess of this madblaster."

Now we are getting somewhere. "Well, are you ready to go?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcXWE-edyL0