AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Worship of deities CAN be A PART OF any particular religion, but it is by no means an essential element of religion.
Yes it is essential. You chanting will not make it go away.
Worship of deities CAN be A PART OF any particular religion, but it is by no means an essential element of religion.
I don't need to alternatively explain anything. You are the one making the claim. It belongs to you.
Although, I've heard from trusted sources that 20,000 years ago, aliens from Mars flew their armed hovercrafts into the Earth's airspace and used the flash freeze machines attached to them to target whatever animals they could get their hands on. They left some of them here on Earth as clues to "life on Mars" for future generations of humans to figure out, meanwhile bringing some samples back to Mars for research and study purposes.
Weather is a topic that does come up amongst Christians from time to time. It is a topic that typically comes up as small talk whenever fellowshipping with fellow Christians after the service concludes. Sometimes a sermon during the church service might even make mention of weather. Sometimes the prayers of the church make mention of weather, for instance if a weather event happened to cause damage to a particular area.
Even outside of the church service and church building, weather is something that Christians concern themselves with. Christian farmers and gardeners need to be aware of if/when they have to water their crops, for example.
Inversion fallacy.
You continue to deny your own posts. You continue to argue both sides of your paradoxes. You continue to fail to define 'climate change'. You continue to fail to provide any evidence that 'climate change' is more than just a religion.
You're done.
Religion does not require deities.
I don't need evidence. YOU have to show the 'climate change' (what THAT means!) is more than a religion.
Burden fallacy.
Science is not experiments.
A paradox and being irrational is not answering any question.
I have it on good authority that Christians sometimes lament bad weather and hope for better weather. It's almost as if they feel that they can't control the weather themselves but that the weather is occasionally part of "God's plan." One thing that is peculiar about Christians is that they will sometimes plan for inclement weather. Go figure.Weather is a topic that does come up amongst Christians from time to time.
I have directly observed, with my own eyes and ears, Christians being "thankful" for beautiful weather and for "a gorgeous day." No joke.Sometimes a sermon during the church service might even make mention of weather.
Wait, don't tell me, let me guess ... the Christians prayed for people affected by unfortunate weather, right? Yep, I'm a psychic.Sometimes the prayers of the church make mention of weather, for instance if a weather event happened to cause damage to a particular area.
I have to admit, Christians walk the walk when it comes to "Heaven helps those who help themselves."Christian farmers and gardeners need to be aware of if/when they have to water their crops, for example.
Well, none to which you will admit, regardless of how conspicuous. It's funny how little you care that it is obvious to all readers.There is no paradox, liar.
Please try to remember that you don't even know what science is.Science is based on experiments, dude.
Please try to remember that you don't even know what science is.
No, science is not based on experiments.
Well, none to which you will admit, regardless of how conspicuous. It's funny how little you care that it is obvious to all readers.
You worship a religion which you call "science" so that you can pretend that you don't worship any religion. Then you try to hijack the word "religion" to add a deity requirement, mistakenly believing that your religion has no deities, so that you can pretend that you don't worship any religion. You are obviously desperate.There is no paradox.
Correct. You put it into existence well enough on your own. I don't have anything to do with it.Your say so does not put it into existence.
What is it based on then? Enlighten me with your acumen.
What's in it for me? I rather enjoy how you make yourself a target-rich environment when you opt to be totally dishonest on matters of science. You are completely scientifically illiterate but think you are some sort of science genius.
I'll have to think about it. You're asking me to throw away a shitload of fun. Things would be different if you were routinely honest, but you're not. For the present, I'm just going to enjoy letting you continue backing yourself in a corner.
You worship a religion which you call "science" so that you can pretend that you don't worship any religion. Then you try to hijack the word "religion" to add a deity requirement, mistakenly believing that your religion has no deities, so that you can pretend that you don't worship any religion. You are obviously desperate.
Correct. You put it into existence well enough on your own. I don't have anything to do with it.
Are you suggesting that climate science is based on faith, not studies?
I'd say it's mostly based on a conclusion that studies are then produced to support while ignoring anything that might be contrary to that.
So you agree that it is not a religion? Good.