Glow BULL WAR ming

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by Arius

Odd that in the combining Christians forget that Jews don't believe that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the "son of God".

Don't stereotype. Every single Jew I know but one believes that Jesus existed. They just have a problem with the concept of His being divine.

Jerome, a Jew, wrote about Jesus, don't forget. So there is a tradition of Jews knowing He existed.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

Don't stereotype. Every single Jew I know but one believes that Jesus existed. They just have a problem with the concept of His being divine.

Jerome, a Jew, wrote about Jesus, don't forget. So there is a tradition of Jews knowing He existed.

There is also a tradition of Jews saying he didn't.

So allow me to change the reply...

Given Jews have far more years of "proof" on their side (about 250% more years), one must say that their refusal to accept him as divine must be true (using your method of proving a fantasy). Therefore, since we are supposed to find your fantasy credible because of the method of proof called "existence over time"...we must therefore believe the Jewish fantasy to be even more credible due to the fact that it has been tested by even MORE time.

So, according to your method of testing out fantasy, the Jewish belief would be more credible...meaning that Jesus was not divine.

Or even the belief that the Sun God powers the sun....that has been around much longer then either the Jewish or Christian fantasies.

Whatever version man used to describe the unknown for his own edification it still remains unknown, and therefore a fantasy of man. It is know different that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the existence of monsters under the bed...they exist only as far as the mind will allow them to. When you seek to describe that which cannot be described or label that which cannot be labeled, you turn a truth to fantasy...

Could you ever just accept what is without labeling or classifying it?

[Pineygirl]

Actually, you're all getting your panties in a twist and you're all off-base -- so eager to try to disprove Christianity that you totally missed the point of my original post:

This was OHH's post:

In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. What grounds do those who use these models have to refute observations made by others to the effect that there is no believable evidence of the postulated dramatic adverse changes produced by the models?

This was my response:

Same grounds that Jews and Christians have for believing what we believe. But even with more than 5,000 years of combined testimony, experience, and writings, WE'RE the nut-cases.

The POINT is the Church of Human-Caused Global Warming rests on its faith in something that cannot be proven or disproven. Neither Judaism nor Christianity can "prove" their faith, either.

The DIFFERENCE is that both Judaism and Christianity have a bit more evidence on their side than an argument that's barely 10 years old. But the world calls US the nut-cases, for believing in something that has more substance than the "Inconvenient Truthers."

[SheriB]

Evidence? Really?! Testimony, experience, and writings are hardly evidence. Again, see the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That church has all of the above, and doesn't consider it evidence.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by SheriB

Evidence? Really?! Testimony, experience, and writings are hardly evidence. Again, see the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That church has all of the above, and doesn't consider it evidence.

And the evidence used by the Church of Human-Caused Global Warming has about the same amount of evidence. It's just that enough time as passed for the older religions to prove that they have value.

The Church of Human-Caused Global Warming, like Scientology, needs to hang out a little longer to see if they're onto anything -- especially if they want everyone's money.

So far, it's ALL faith-based initiatives. You just have faith in a different one than I do.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

Actually, you're all getting your panties in a twist and you're all off-base -- so eager to try to disprove Christianity that you totally missed the point of my original post:

Even if I wore panties, one can believe they would be a bit smaller than yours. Still, you act as if a challenge to your fantasy is an effort to disprove it. Rather, couldn't it be just an exploration of the many plausible and likely causes to you - the effect?

And remember, it would seem that your belief in Christianity is a way you disprove the possibilities outside of it. I am sure that if someone you knew believed that Snow White was God and that the Seven Dwarfs were "prophets" you would have something to say to them. Wait, not you, the "live and let live" candidate.

As for missing the point, I am sorry. I have taken into account the many other times you have brought the forbearance of time as proof that your way is the right way. I should have just limited my response to this one time, where you were hardly trying to prove your way as right

The POINT is the Church of Human-Caused Global Warming rests on its faith in something that cannot be proven or disproven. Neither Judaism nor Christianity can "prove" their faith, either.

That is why it is rediculous to focus on Global Warming. This focus is a diversion by the right wing to reduce the effectiveness of clean-air legislation and practice. The more we can get bogged down into a meaningless discussion on the cause of the rise in global temperatures, the less we actually need to do anything. That has become the mainstay plank of the "new" neo-con controlled right wing.

Rather, let's focus on truth. We pollute, as this nation rests near the top of the pollution food chain. We as so technologically advanced that we can consider inhabiting the moon and going to Mars - yet we cannot control our pollution to the point where we can be ruled out as possible causes to global warming.

Look at the Superfund site risk and tell me if you would allow your children to go to day care at any school built near one.

Would you allow your children to play around any industrial emitter? Can you correlate the reasons why some of the top cities in cancer rates also are the ones who have the most issues with air quality?

Ah, it doesn't matter, as long as you get to pound your chest by proving a "liberal" wrong.

So far, it's ALL faith-based initiatives. You just have faith in a different one than I do.

It is your lack of true faith that is pitiful in this discussion. If you had faith, you would do all you could to protect your God's creation. And a hint, money and economics are NOT a creation of your God.

[oldhardhead]

Originally Posted by Arius

Whatever version man used to describe the unknown for his own edification it still remains unknown, and therefore a fantasy of man. It is know [so] different that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the existence of monsters under the bed...they exist only as far as the mind will allow them to. When you seek to describe that which cannot be described or label that which cannot be labeled, you turn a truth to fantasy...

Anthropomorphic Global warming is a fantasy. Are you starting to understand that?

That is why it is rediculous [sp] to focus on Global Warming.

We agree. Are you beginning to get a friggin' clue???

This focus is a diversion by the right wing to reduce the effectiveness of clean-air legislation and practice.

It has NOTHING to do with clean air.

So what you are saying is: Let's not focus on the cause of changes in weather, let's just DO SOMETHING... run around like our hair is on fire and do SOMETHING, anything! Whatever our Dear Leaders tell us to to and DO IT NOW!!! Why get bogged down trying to understand things, be deliberative and effective - that's so much work, it hurts our little brains! Just do something NOW!

The more we can get bogged down into a meaningless discussion on the cause of the rise in global temperatures, the less we actually need to do anything.

The more we can get an understanding of the cause of the rise in global temperatures, the more we realize that we DO NOT actually need to do anything.

That has become the mainstay plank of the "new" neo-con controlled right wing.

You Liberal Democrats just like to hear yourself say that! Neo-con!

[SheriB]

Originally Posted by oldhardhead

So what you are saying is: Let's not focus on the cause of changes in weather, let's just DO SOMETHING... run around like our hair is on fire and do SOMETHING, anything! Whatever our Dear Leaders tell us to to and DO IT NOW!!! Why get bogged down trying to understand things, be deliberative and effective - that's so much work, it hurts our little brains! Just do something NOW!

Like we had to go into Iraq NOW to get the bad little terrorists? And those WMDs? That was very deliberative and effective. The only difference is this time, no one has to die. Like the video shows, if you take action and global warming is a hoax, the economy takes a hit. If you do nothing and global warming is real and preventable, well, you have to worry about a bit more than the economy...

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by SheriB

The only difference is this time, no one has to die.

Just their livelihoods, their ambitions, their achievements, their initiative, and their dreams. But that stuff isn't important at all.

Like the video shows, if you take action and global warming is a hoax, the economy takes a hit.

Just what the economy needs now, right?

[Arius]

Originally Posted by oldhardhead

Anthropomorphic Global warming is a fantasy. Are you starting to understand that?

I don't think there are any human characteristics to Global Warming, but I am not certain we do not have a part in its creation or its effects. In my understanding, however, it is irrelevant as long as:

1. We can even consider ourselves a cause (means we are doing something wrong);
2. We refuse to end the practices that can cause our consideration.

We agree. Are you beginning to get a friggin' clue???

Not your clue. What I see is a strong resistance from the right wing to end the practices that have caused us to be considered as possible causes or contributors to Global Warming. They disagree with the effect, so they resist the cause.

And that is fine, we do not need to agree, but just as Piney says about her belief in God being a safe position, I would rather err on the side of caution here as well.

It has NOTHING to do with clean air.

I am not sure how a program aimed at providing incentives for those who emit greenhouse gasses to reduce those emissions is not about clean air. In your mind, because this is a liberal program, it is evil and must be stopped. I don't see it that way.

Sorry.

o what you are saying is: Let's not focus on the cause of changes in weather, let's just DO SOMETHING... run around like our hair is on fire and do SOMETHING, anything! Whatever our Dear Leaders tell us to to and DO IT NOW!!! Why get bogged down trying to understand things, be deliberative and effective - that's so much work, it hurts our little brains! Just do something NOW!

Not sure I ever said that. What I said was I agree with the approach since business and capitalism doesn't know any other language but monetary figures. If government can effect change through the use of taxation as a means of providing incentives for emitters to alter their practices and invest in clean air technology, I am all for it.

It is similar to the charitable donation as a tax break. Remove it, and charities will suffer. When you add a tax to companies who emit - a tax which they have the power to reduce its impact - they will then invest in clean air technology and reduce emissions. It is that simple.

Now if that means we are running around with our hair on fire...well....then I guess I need a bucket.

And you assume that I personally have not gotten "bogged down" in trying to understand things. See, you NEED to dumb me down in order to provide justification for my differing opinion. It comes from the "Limbaugh school on how to handle differing views". First, you make them seem stupid. Second, you tell them they are stupid. Third, you hang up on them when they no longer seem stupid.

And if you come from the O'Reilly chapter, you scream obscenities at them.

The more we can get an understanding of the cause of the rise in global temperatures, the more we realize that we DO NOT actually need to do anything.

So say those whose points of view you agree with. Remember, the opposition is "stupid" and "misinformed" (or not informed at all). There are equal numbers of those who believe we need to do something, and do so quickly. Now, would you want to be wrong and do nothing (suffer) or be wrong and do something (clean up the air)? I don't have any attachment to being right in this case, but I certainly do to the planet I live on. Alright, maybe not an attachment exactly, but I do happen to like the place a lot.

You Liberal Democrats just like to hear yourself say that! Neo-con!

And you like to think that everyone not like you is a liberal democrat. Hint: you lost the last election pretty soundly...and that doesn't mean the majority of America is a liberal democrat. It simply means that liberal democrats appeal to more of us than does YOUR KIND.

Sorry, I didn't invent this truth, you did.