Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 1:05:34 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 6:01:56 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:01:44 PM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 19:58:05 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 7:06:21 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

... You refuse to look at the evidence for
the existence of God...

Of course, there is also zero evidence that god doesn't exist, which
also proves nothing at all... but why would anyone feel the need to
prove that something doesn't exist?

There is, however, an absence of evidence, which constitutes positive
evidence against something when that something (1) should result in
evidence, and (2) such evidence has been sought.

It also depends on what you mean by "god". For the general case of a
deity, the absence of evidence isn't necessarily damning, because such
a god might be of a type that leaves no evidence. The deistic god many
of the founding fathers believed in, for instance, didn't intervene in
any way. However, the deity generally known as "God", that is, the
Abrahamic god, sticks its dirty little fingers in everything. It used
to perform mighty miracles such as flooding the Earth (known to have
not occurred), and now appears regularly on tortillas and toast.
Intervention means evidence, and there is none. It is irrational to
believe this particular god exists.

The uncouth and crude would never get Noah's flood and especially the
mathematical artistry surrounding it although some have -

https://books.google.ie/books?id=5VO...page&q&f=false

You lack the eyes to notice the 365 years of Enoch and the breaking with
the formula 'then he died'. This always happens to those who believe the
narrative isn't valuable as much as those who believe it is a literal narrative.

Likewise the Book of Revelation or the Genealogy of Matthew, exquisite
facets that still bring a wonderful resonance when viewed within a
Christian spirit. They offer no explanation and neither do I no more than
music or something of beauty needs an explanation and those who try are
doomed to failure as it comes from the heart of things.

Revelation?
Drug crazed hallucinations!
Not LSD but ergotamine (the likely culprit) is structurally similar and has
the same effect.

It is one of those things where you are entirely welcome to imagine
whatever you wish, at certain junctures it uses numbers such as 144,000
or 144 notwithstanding the familiar 666. I personally have an affinity
for chapter 17 or indeed the reference to 1260 which constitutes months and weeks.

Paul came to Christianity in his own words " I did not receive it from
any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from
Jesus Christ." and so begins the double entendre of the Revelation of
Jesus Christ in that wonderful work.

It is the 36 in oriel36.


Paul had something like an epileptic fit on the road to Damascus. His
experience is no more valid than. David Ickes realisation that many of the
worlds leader were disguised lizard aliens.
Or my own road to Damascus which came when my religious education teacher
at school described the Hindu Vedas as "Essentially the adventures of the
gods on Earth". I though "how ridiculous" and then "How is this different
to the Bible?".

You think like a child and act like a child. It's time to grow up, act like
a man put away childish beliefs and put superstition behind you.

Strange that you would twist that line in a Christian hymn for your own purpose but then again you found your own intellectual level with the other guy who would represent Simplicio in Galileo's fictional discourse between people at different levels of understanding.

Like that Arian idiot you follow in his refusal to accept that spirit links the individual to the Universal or man to God in a triad or trinity, it comes down to a childish fear where you are only comfortable by being lost in the crowd. You can even override perception of the most immediate planetary effect and its rotational cause as a fact so this reflects a condition which is neither child nor man -

"When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love." Paul

I think you are more comfortable with the other guy and his opinions based on legal jargon and the court of public opinions in matters of inspiration and physical sciences.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:26:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 11:42:18 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:03:15 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:31:22 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 5:14:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:44:43 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:22:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Why are you afraid of Mormons, peterson?

Now THAT is a GREAT example of a straw man argument... it's perfect!

peterson had expressed concern about the existence of Mormons earlier in this thread.

Bull****. Chris Peterson never said he was afraid of Mormons, you made that up.

I didn't make anything up, s***head.

Sure you did. Chris never said what you claimed, ergo, you lied.

I asked:

"Why are you afraid of Mormons, peterson?"

peterson responded:

"While all Christians are irrational, and therefore dangerous to
society, Mormons are especially so, given the ease which so many of
their beliefs are demonstrated factually wrong. Even more than most
Christian beliefs. Only a fool would not keep a close eye on such
bat****tery."

Note that he answered the question.

Uh huh...

Note also that he did not deny being afraid.

Note that he NEVER said he was afraid of Mormons. NEVER SAID THAT. No need to deny something never said. Man, you are thick!

Indeed, his words convey fear and concern.

Only within your little pea-sized brain...

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 1:07:47 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 9:26:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 11:42:18 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:03:15 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:31:22 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 5:14:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 7:44:43 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:22:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Why are you afraid of Mormons, peterson?

Now THAT is a GREAT example of a straw man argument... it's perfect!

peterson had expressed concern about the existence of Mormons earlier in this thread.

Bull****. Chris Peterson never said he was afraid of Mormons, you made that up.

I didn't make anything up, s***head.

Sure you did. Chris never said what you claimed, ergo, you lied.

I asked:

"Why are you afraid of Mormons, peterson?"

peterson responded:

"While all Christians are irrational, and therefore dangerous to
society, Mormons are especially so, given the ease which so many of
their beliefs are demonstrated factually wrong. Even more than most
Christian beliefs. Only a fool would not keep a close eye on such
bat****tery."

Note that he answered the question.

Uh huh...

Do you think that he didn't answer the question?

Note also that he did not deny being afraid.

Note that he NEVER said he was afraid of Mormons. NEVER SAID THAT.
No need to deny something never said. Man, you are thick!


I asked a question and he gave his answer. It's not really any of YOUR concern actually.

Indeed, his words convey fear and concern.

Only within your little pea-sized brain...

Well, if he isn't "keeping a close eye on such 'bat****tery'," then he would, in his own words, be a fool.

If he IS "keeping a close eye on such 'bat****tery'," then he is demonstrating a high level of fear and concern (and he would STILL be a fool.)

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 12:48:15 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:48:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:02:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:51:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
peterson wrote:


I've never said people can't teach religion to their children.

Oh, but you have, peterson, you want it to be illegal to do so.

I look forward to the day when it is seen as immoral and illegal. I
don't deny anybody the right to teach their children about religion.

One can assume that you would vote for candidates who make teaching religion illegal.

Certainly not. I would not vote for anybody who proposed laws that
conflict significantly with societal views.

So if "societal views" call for the persecution of a minority, you wouldn't vote for somebody who proposed laws to prevent that persecution?

That's a yes/no question, BTW.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 4:55:26 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:46:35 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

If US Christians followed these teachings I would respect their views. But
few seem to hold that the word of their messiah is worth following.

We're all works in process. And there are admonitions not to have your
heart set on the riches of the world. The rich young ruler had his heart
on them, as his actions revealed. What the "eye of a needle" represents is
subject to interpretation. One is that "camel" is a mistranslation and
should be "rope." Another is that the "eye of a needle" is a night gate
that camels cannot go through without removing their burden and stooping
low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of...e#Christianity

As for "perishing by the sword," certainly it doesn't mean one should not
defend one's life.


Whosoever smite thee on the right cheek turn unto him the other also

That's not equivalent to losing one's life. However, there are many
Christians that follow that rule and the rest of us just have a longer
row to hoe.

Whether or not Camel should be cable or the eye of a needle is just a gate
the passage and the bits I didn't quote show that Jesus thought it very
unlikely that any rich man would go to heaven. When the disciples protested
this he seemed to say that there would be a few exceptions. You only have
to read around the quotes.

Many time He said things that offended His disciples because they
misunderstood Him. The rich young ruler is the prime example of one who
was unwilling to unburden himself of his wealth. His heart was set on it.

The Quakers seems to have no problems with pacifism and in Britain there
were many non-conformist and Quaker industrialists who treated there
workers extremely well with model communities like Saltaire. I expect they
were acting on this teaching. They certainly didn't put their money
offshore to avoid giving to the poor.
The Salvation Army are another example.

Sure. BTW, even paupers today are "richer" than the rich young ruler. Does
that mean no one today has a chance :-)

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 5:58:48 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Peterson wrote:

Telling me I'm not ready to accept your answer is just another way of
saying you are unable to provide one.

Nope. The evidence is real, and it is convincing to many, many people.

It is not convincing to me.

Wow, you haven't even heard it yet and your mind is already made up.
THAT is why you're not ready to hear it.

But that's not the point. You made a bizarre, seemingly drug induced rant
about experiments on sentient beings that appears a total non sequitur,
and you're ignoring my request to explain what it has to do with anything.

Really? You believe God should condescend to let you satisfy your whims?
You want a sign from Him that He exists?

I'm not asking for evidence of deities.

It sounds like it to me. That's what "objective evidence" requires.

I've already evaluated that and come to my own conclusions. It is
extremely unlikely that you're going to offer anything I haven't already
encountered and evaluated.

We'll see.

And it is confirmed by rules of good conduct. At my workplace, we had some
training on what a personal attack was. The rules are surprisingly wide.
And note this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...rsonal_attacks

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the
manner in which it is done"

An editor at Wikipedia is a special position. A contributor in an
unmoderated group is not.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

There is nothing inherently wrong with personal attacks.

Tell that to your workplace. It's like throwing sand in a machine that
barely works anyway. You're just trying to salve your conscience :-)

They can be an effective argumentation technique.
They have been used by the best orators and debaters in history.

Sure they have, but they're still personal attacks and still shut down
discussion rather than encouraging it.

An opinion shared by hundreds of millions of people. I'd be cautious
calling such an opinion "worthless" simply because you don't happen to
agree with it.

It's worthless because it is based on false information and parochial logic.

Your opinion is noted. And rejected.

Your opinion is noted and rejected.

You sound no different from thousands of other people standing on
street corners mumbling their "truths".

What "truths" have I mumbled?

That there's a god. That it is somehow in the form of "love".

That's what the NT says. Why are you attacking the messenger?

Statistically, the likelihood you're right (especially as you base your
ideas on factually wrong data) is very low.

What "factually wrong data"?

Most of the content of the OT and NT. Scientifically wrong.
Geographically wrong. Historically wrong. These are factual errors-
I'm not counting what I'd consider the many moral errors in the
context of modern society.

Modern society is in a race to the bottom. You'll see.

Whether or not it tells us what actually happened, it does tell us how
to behave.

Thank goodness most Christians don't take that obsolete advice too
seriously, or the world would be in even worse shape!

Your outrageous opinion (e.g., that "do unto others" is bad for society)
is noted and rejected.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 2:55:47 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Telling me I'm not ready to accept your answer is just another way of
saying you are unable to provide one.

Nope. The evidence is real, and it is convincing to many, many people.

So, what are you waiting for, Gary? Why are you obviously reluctant to
provide your real evidence?

Why are you so reluctant to ask for it?

Are you afraid of the negative responses that might follow?

Oh, I'm sure that dyed-in-the-wool (i.e., dishonest) atheists will have
plenty of those, but they will be because they have already made up their
minds beforehand.

Convince away...

I'll accept that as asking, although it's just a bit reluctant :-)
It's coming soon. (are you getting excited yet? :-)

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 4:15:13 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 5:58:48 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

There is nothing inherently wrong with personal attacks.

Tell that to your workplace. It's like throwing sand in a machine that
barely works anyway. You're just trying to salve your conscience :-)

They can be an effective argumentation technique.
They have been used by the best orators and debaters in history.

Sure they have, but they're still personal attacks and still shut down
discussion rather than encouraging it.

You are assuming that he is even interested in "engaging discussion." Clearly he is not. He is interested only in expressing his dogmatic opinions and hurling "empty insults" at those who dare to disagree.

Anyway, I might have him cornered with a question that I posted earlier this morning. Let's see what tactics he tries.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 01:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 5:58:48 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

Peterson wrote:

Telling me I'm not ready to accept your answer is just another way of
saying you are unable to provide one.

Nope. The evidence is real, and it is convincing to many, many people.

It is not convincing to me.

Wow, you haven't even heard it yet and your mind is already made up.
THAT is why you're not ready to hear it.

As noted, it is unlikely that you are able to offer any evidence I
haven't heard before. This is an area I'm an expert it, very well
read. But you've been offered the opportunity to present evidence, and
choose not to. Your call.

But that's not the point. You made a bizarre, seemingly drug induced rant
about experiments on sentient beings that appears a total non sequitur,
and you're ignoring my request to explain what it has to do with anything.

Really? You believe God should condescend to let you satisfy your whims?
You want a sign from Him that He exists?

Non sequitur.

I'm not asking for evidence of deities.

It sounds like it to me. That's what "objective evidence" requires.

I'm asking you to explain a bizarre comment that I can't make sense
of.

I've already evaluated that and come to my own conclusions. It is
extremely unlikely that you're going to offer anything I haven't already
encountered and evaluated.

We'll see.

Still waiting.

And it is confirmed by rules of good conduct. At my workplace, we had some
training on what a personal attack was. The rules are surprisingly wide.
And note this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...rsonal_attacks

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the
manner in which it is done"

An editor at Wikipedia is a special position. A contributor in an
unmoderated group is not.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Non sequitur.

There is nothing inherently wrong with personal attacks.

Tell that to your workplace. It's like throwing sand in a machine that
barely works anyway. You're just trying to salve your conscience :-)

This isn't a workplace. It's a discussion forum.

They can be an effective argumentation technique.
They have been used by the best orators and debaters in history.

Sure they have, but they're still personal attacks and still shut down
discussion rather than encouraging it.

Or they focus discussion. And of course, when people demonstrate
relevant flaws- you are a science denier in a science forum- that is
directly relevant to the discussion.

An opinion shared by hundreds of millions of people. I'd be cautious
calling such an opinion "worthless" simply because you don't happen to
agree with it.

It's worthless because it is based on false information and parochial logic.

Your opinion is noted. And rejected.

Your opinion is noted and rejected.

You sound no different from thousands of other people standing on
street corners mumbling their "truths".

What "truths" have I mumbled?

That there's a god. That it is somehow in the form of "love".

That's what the NT says. Why are you attacking the messenger?

Because the messenger is arguing as truth that which is clearly false.
The NT is, of course, rubbish. It is criticized here, as well.

Your outrageous opinion (e.g., that "do unto others" is bad for society)
is noted and rejected.

Did I say that "do unto others" is bad for society? The law of
reciprocity is central to humanism. It is, at best, peripheral to
Christianity and most other religions, despite predating them
significantly.

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:45:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 12:48:15 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:48:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:02:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:51:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
peterson wrote:


I've never said people can't teach religion to their children.

Oh, but you have, peterson, you want it to be illegal to do so.

I look forward to the day when it is seen as immoral and illegal. I
don't deny anybody the right to teach their children about religion.

One can assume that you would vote for candidates who make teaching religion illegal.

Certainly not. I would not vote for anybody who proposed laws that
conflict significantly with societal views.

So if "societal views" call for the persecution of a minority, you wouldn't vote for somebody who proposed laws to prevent that persecution?

No. I would readily vote for someone who called out such persecution
as wrong and who sought to change the views of society, however.