Conquer Club

mightyal wrote:The numbers depend on your definition of Xian really. By jay's usual definition there are the 6 people who attend his church regularly. Now there are 2.1 billion! England in a Xian country - I assume that's 60 million of your alleged 2.1 billion; the overwhelming majority of it's population are in no doubt that Evolution, Geology, global warming and everything else you deny so blindly are absolute facts.

Mightyal where you born a buttmunch or did you become one over time? You know nothing of my church or the number of regular attendies. And the link INCLUDED the non-religious. You, my friend, are in a miniority no matter how you look at it.

jay_a2j wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:If I remember correctly islam is the #1 religion in the world.

Nope.... its Christianity.



http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

From your own source:

Many Muslims (and some non-Muslim) observers claim that there are more practicing Muslims than practicing Christians in the world. Adherents.com has no reason to dispute this. It seems likely, but we would point out that there are different opinions on the matter, and a Muslim may define "practicing" differently than a Christian. In any case, the primary criterion for the rankings on this page is self-identification, which has nothing to do with practice.

Sound like semantic BS to me. Muslims may define practising differently, so they dont count?!

Anyway, christianity is on the decline worldwide.

• The percentage of adults in both countries who identify themselves as Christian will continue to drop by about 0.8 percentage points per year.
• Some commentators predicted that adults in the Protestant denominations of Christianity probably became a minority sometime during 2006
• Christians will become a minority in Canada about 2023 and in the U.S. about the year 2042.

(Source)

Oh...and global warming is real.

Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian because they believe Jesus wasn't divine. Mormons aren't Christians because they can become gods of their own planets when they die.

And, tell me what's wrong with Pascal's Wager.

Blaise Pascal wrote:If God exists, and I believe, I go to heaven. If God doesn't exist, and I believe, nothing happens. If God exists, and I don't believe, I get sent to Hell. So, there is no chance of anything bad happening to me after death if I believe.

The reason people aren't religious is because they don't want to "waste their time" with it. They just don't want to put any of their precious time into it.

I thought faith of convenience was the equivalent of no faith? Not everyone needs a fixed set of rules to lead their lives and I would point to vtmarik's idea that there doesn't have to only be heaven, hell, and purgatory. You can't just say, well these people who don't go to church are too lazy to save their soul. Is it that hard to accept that religion isn't an important aspect of people's lives?

And have you considered other culture's beliefs that life isn't linear, time isn't linear? So stop assuming everything follows a straight line. That is the main reason people are afraid of death.

I do not follow a faith of convenience. Christianity is a major aspect of my life.

And have you considered other culture's beliefs that life isn't linear, time isn't linear?

Yes. I'll surrender my beliefs on behalf of some other minority culture's. You of all people should agree that I have a right to my beliefs. You can try to convert me to your other-culture beliefs, but uit won't happen. Just like how nothing I say will convert you lazy atheists to get some religion in yourselves. And don't advocate another culture's beliefs if you are not a member of that other culture's beliefs.

Happysad makes a good pointby his standards

Thanks for that lesson in ethnocentrism...

HSF ... I love your sig! lol

how did this thread get so far off track?

Let's get back on track, then.

Global warming is a cyclical change.

It has been proven that cow farts contribute more to the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the air than human activities. Therefore, even if we stop using cars completely, we'll still have those cows to worry about. And, cows aren't farting more now than they were, are they? How come, if the cow fart rate is consistent, we didn't notice this before? Like when the people were complaining about global cooling?

happysadfun wrote:Let's get back on track, then.

Global warming is a cyclical change.

It has been proven that cow farts contribute more to the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the air than human activities. Therefore, even if we stop using cars completely, we'll still have those cows to worry about. And, cows aren't farting more now than they were, are they? How come, if the cow fart rate is consistent, we didn't notice this before? Like when the people were complaining about global cooling?

Even by HSFs standards, this is a retarded post. Keep it up.

I see that all the millions Exxon-Mobil poured into creating FUD has really paid off. As for the website 'Junk Science', its name is apt. Read Tim Lambert for the history behind Steve Milloy, the man behind the site. Also check his entry in Wikipedia, or otherwise do independent research of your own.

As for global warming, or global climate change as scientists prefer to call it now, exactly because of juvenile arguments like the original post (but it's cold here, how could it be warming!), refer to RealClimate.com.

For now, all anyone can hope for regarding this issue is that people in power, and businesses outside of the oil industry, begin to wake up and take the initiative in tackling this disaster-in-waiting, which they are thankfully starting to do. Farmers especially, knowing how much climate change will devastate them, are beginning to organise. As for the denialists, well, there's no point arguing with them. They're scientifically illiterate and all they can do is regurgitate the words of paid for disinformants like Milloy. Their mindset is that of a sports team fan who has chosen a side, and the words, meanings, and consequences of the sophomoric debating games they play are irrelevent to them. All they care about is that 'the other team' has claimed something, and therefore they must now oppose it. Ask them what they think about climate change 20 years from now and I gurantee you'll never find a trace of shame in their response.

you're an idiot.

nicasro wrote:I see that all the millions Exxon-Mobil poured into creating FUD has really paid off.

You're absolutely right. The reason why Prince William Sound looks much the same now as it did before the disaster is simply because of the people who scrubbed all the rocks clean and has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of an ecosystem to rebound.

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/bat/about.html

I guess the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is simply a tool of Exxon-Mobil.

nicasro wrote:As for the website 'Junk Science', its name is apt. Read Tim Lambert for the history behind Steve Milloy, the man behind the site. Also check his entry in Wikipedia, or otherwise do independent research of your own.

Oh, I see. Steve Milloy has a hidden agenda and the links you provided do not. Thanks for making that so clear! For every source you can list supporting global warming, I can list one that casts doubt upon it.

nicasro wrote: As for the denialists, well, there's no point arguing with them. They're scientifically illiterate and all they can do is regurgitate the words of paid for disinformants like Milloy.

So if I don't agree with you I'm illiterate and an idiot. PLEASE tell me your qualifications that makes you an expert in this field and why you're right and so many climatologists whose opinions differ are wrong.

The truth lies somewhere between your "global-warming-is-a-fact-deal-with-it" blanket statement and those that think maybe, just maybe, the earth is simply going through a climatic cycle.

Stop being such an arrogant, absolutist jerk. If the evidence was so overwhelming either way, there wouldn't be such a wide range of opinion in the scientific community.

If the evidence was so overwhelming either way, there wouldn't be such a wide range of opinion in the scientific community.

There is no wider range of scientific opinion over this than there is over evolution or whether smoking is dangerous.

If anyone remembers this topic was actually "bitch about the weather" despite what the titles say.

and here we go agin with the snowed in shit lol got to love it

happysadfun wrote:And, tell me what's wrong with Pascal's Wager.

Blaise Pascal wrote:If God exists, and I believe, I go to heaven. If God doesn't exist, and I believe, nothing happens. If God exists, and I don't believe, I get sent to Hell. So, there is no chance of anything bad happening to me after death if I believe.

So tell me: which God should I believe in? The God my parents worhsipped? The God/s Cathaholics worship? One/some/all of the Hindu Gods?

Perhaps I should emualte the Bahai and believe in all of them at once?

Back on topic: I'm in Australia. We're in the middle of summer. Some parts of the country just had a white christmas.

This isn't unexpected though: as other people have said in this thread, "Global Warming" is a bad name, "Climate Change" is more appropriate. "Global Warming" isn't just going to cause the whole globe to warm, but it is going to cause weather conditions that used to be considered extreme to become more common - storms will become more powerful, or will come less frequently. There are parts of the globe that "Global Warming" will actually make much colder - wait for the UK to drop 5-10 degrees C as the Atlantic currents shut down..


*sits back to await flaming*

*sits back to await flaming*

lol, no flame, Zhasper. You didn't call me illiterate. And you didn't make any idiotic statement like "If you don't believe this you're about as big of a dumbass as they come."

And I agree with your assertion, as do most people. What's arguable are the reasons why this is happening. Greenhouse effect from oil-guzzling capitalist pigs or cyclical global climate change? A little of both? Neither? I don't think anyone will come up with an answer that will satisfy all sides.

BTW - totally off topic (so what else is new) - but I just watched "Wolf Creek." This was really based on a true story?

DogDoc wrote:And I agree with your assertion, as do most people. What's arguable are the reasons why this is happening. Greenhouse effect from oil-guzzling capitalist pigs or cyclical global climate change? A little of both? Neither? I don't think anyone will come up with an answer that will satisfy all sides.

You should ask how the debate is being framed. Scientists generally say the atmosphere is being dangerously warmed by human activities. Those who make money from human activities dangerously warming the atmosphere generally disagree because they wish to make money. Scientists measure the atmosphere more or less impartially. Those who make the money rubbish the measurements.

You can take whichever side you like, but please, don't pretend there's any kind of scientific argument going on here - those who say global warming (or I should say "climate change") is happening have no financial interests to protect - those who say it ISN'T happening, DO.

Eg, see -

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0920-04.htm

DogDoc wrote: BTW - totally off topic (so what else is new) - but I just watched "Wolf Creek." This was really based on a true story?

Because, of course, I'm an aussie, and so know all the facts about all australian events...

It was loosely based on a couple of true stories. It was mostly inspired by Ivan Milat, who killed a dozen or so backpackers - he'd pick up hitchhikers, take them to a remote forest location, and murder them. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Milat

It was also partially inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Falconio.

It isn't a depiction of any single actual event though, just loosely inspired by those.

What's hilarious is to get your hands on videos that some coal organizations make to explain how CO2 changing the environment is only a good thing. The scientists in those are funny because they frame their experiments in slanted forms. The best was an experiment that "proved" how plants are CO2 deprived and that burning fossil fuels would increase crop yields. These don't get circulated into the general public and the only reason my professor had one was because he also works in the government. Good times watching that.

areon wrote:The scientists in those are funny because they frame their experiments in slanted forms.

I think what you're referring to here is the way they'll, for instance, do a study which measures the effect of higher CO2 on plant growth and find that the increased CO2 helps plant growth a lot, and extrapolate from that to "Global warming is good!", without taking into account secondary effects - eg, higher CO2 -> climate change -> less regular rainfall -> less plant growth

Is that what you're referring to, or are there other things you're thinking of?

Stopper wrote: You can take whichever side you like, but please, don't pretend there's any kind of scientific argument going on here - those who say global warming (or I should say "climate change") is happening have no financial interests to protect - those who say it ISN'T happening, DO.

Eg, see -

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0920-04.htm

Then how do you classify the debate that's going on right now in the scientific community? I would call them differing theories.

the·o·ry / Pronunciation Key - [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

No financial interests? What about the billions of grant money given out to fund these research projects? They need to prove their side or else risk getting funding cut.

The truth is that when you get down to it, everyone has some sort of ulterior motive to their research.

I personally subscribe to the belief that, yes, there is a global climate change occurring, and yes, man might be contributing some to it, but who the heck knows how much. I personally believe it to be a negligible amount but then again that's just my opinion considering the data and theories I've read.

Anyone who thinks they have all the answers and that their answer is the absolute truth are just fooling themselves. Or they have an ulterior motive.

Reading back through this thread is reminiscent of some of the threads regarding religion (which I avoid): a) no theory is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and b) you're not going to change anyone's mind by arguing it.

With that said, I'll refrain from posting anything further on this subject.

ive had no snow gere at all! not even in the region