Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

Doc Dutch said:
It's okay for you to live in ignorant bliss, Sybil. As someone who tries to follow the examples of both Jesus and reason, then I can't fault you for something you can't control. Having genetic mental issues is no different than being born with different hair colors and skin tones in terms of person choice. Obviously there's a major fucking problem with the results in cases like yours, sir.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep calling yourself Sybil?
 
NovoJank said:
I highly doubt that any of us on this forum have the requisite scientific training or skill to question anthropogenic climate change. Most people who claim climate change isn't "real science" have no scientific training themselves past junior high school.
Click to expand...

Science isn't training. Science isn't a high school.
Define 'anthropogenic climate change'.

Science has no theories based on undefined words or phrases.
 
Doc Dutch said:
It's okay for you to live in ignorant bliss, Sybil.
Click to expand...
It's OK for you to live in a numb sort of blackness, Terry, just don't overtax the brain stem.

Doc Dutch said:
As someone who tries to follow the examples of both Jesus and reason,
Click to expand...
Which examples are you claiming those to be?

Doc Dutch said:
Having genetic mental issues is no different than being born with different hair colors and skin tones in terms of person choice.
Click to expand...
So, you think that you can just dye your brain to be more intelligent, or to just tan yourself to be smarter?

You're an idiot.

Oh, the correct word is "from", i.e. "no different from being born with different hair ..." Obviously this is one of the major fucking problems resulting in cases like your.
 
Into the Night said:
You deny science. You have no expertise.

Science isn't people.

Circular definition. Try again.

Climate has no temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Base rate fallacy.

Non-sequitur fallacy.

Not possible. You've been watching too many movies.

Not possible. You've been watching too many movies.

Conclusion based on fiction and discard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

There is no such thing as 'forcings'. Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacies. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate has no temperature.

Argument from randU fallacy. Attempted proof by randU.
Click to expand...

Calm yourself, Sybil.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
So finally an admission of being a total, fucking nutjob.
Click to expand...
So, finally an admission of being to stupid to recognize and understand when your own (il)logic is being effectively used against you.

Aaaah, now I recall our discussion concerning your lack of reading comprehension.
 
IBDaMann said:
So, finally an admission of being to stupid to recognize and understand when your own (il)logic is being effectively used against you.

Aaaah, now I recall our discussion concerning your lack of reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
Those gears are definitely turning in your mind... you caught on straight away! :)

Plus, it's always extra bonus points to get people like him riled up by simply mentioning Christianity or some Biblical claim (such as Jesus loving them or dying for their sins).
 
gfm7175 said:
All this flailing around just to irrationally deny the truth that numerous religions lack deities... ergo, deities are not a requirement of religion.
Click to expand...
I think we're all missing the main point. There is no board, panel, commission, organization, agency, institution or person/people whose permission or approval is somehow needed for someone to create a religion. If you or I or anyone wishes to form a religion tomorrow, even one based on the belief that science is a candy bar, or that there are no gods because they would otherwise be too big to fit within the meager confines of the universe, no one gets to inform you that your application is somehow denied because you lack required deities per section VI paragraph 4 of the Religion Code.

There is no definition for religion that somehow mandates content. It simply does NOT matter whether there are currently any deity-free religions or not. Content of deities is not and cannot somehow be a definition requirement.

Also, for the same reason, AProudLefty gets to declare that his religion has no deities and isn't a religion. Tomorrow he could declare science to be a candy bar, who knows?
 
gfm7175 said:
Plus, it's always extra bonus points to get people like him riled up by simply mentioning Christianity or some Biblical claim
Click to expand...
Tell me about it. It's been too long since I have been accused of being a science-denying Christian such that I could put on my Christian minister hat and piss off the Marxizombies. It really is fun beyond belief, I have no idea why you aren't doing it every day. I, for my part, would be so Johnny-on-the-spot ready to come flying in to snipe from the rafters.

...but I digress. One can dream though, right?
 
IBDaMann said:
This is a perfect illustration of your ignorance of gaslighting.

Hint:. You are operating under the mistaken belief that "gaslight" means "insult" or "ad hominem"
Click to expand...

It's pretty hilarious because you are trying to gaslight me into believing that you are not trying to gaslight me. :)
 
AProudLefty said:
It's pretty hilarious because you are trying to gaslight me into believing that you are not trying to gaslight me.
Click to expand...
If I were gaslighting you in that way, you would "realize" that I am not gaslighting you. Your belief that I am gaslighting you in that way is your proof that I am not gaslighting you in that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top