I am not claiming that we should pour a lot of funding into controlling accelerated climate change. I am just responding to the claim that we should not as well as the unbased assertion that people that accept climate change are deceived by scientists of all sorts of different views on religion...
1) I notice that you conveniently left hadiths out of that list.
2) In truth its horrific whether it is eternal or not. Are you denying that Islam states that Allah punishes humans for disbelief that he causes them to have?
Reread what I typed....slowly this time.
How do you confirm those predictions?
Don't try to play the semantics game with me, you already defined science a particular way adding material or spiritual in front of it should not change the definition.
Yeah the hook is the data, the line is the evidence behind the data, and the sinker is the scientific method.
You really need to learn how science works.
Implying that preventing accelerated climate change is not a public works and that trying to prevent it or minimize it's effects is mutually exclusive with water treatment.
Incorrect.
Con artist's claims are intuitive not logical and ordered. If you can look at their claims you can see where they lack evidence and use logical fallacies, religious claims have much in common with this.
By definition it could really fall under any theistic belief, though it definitely would meld very well with pantheism.
I do not see how bringing that up has any relevance to what I was saying however.
This may be true, but the Hadiths support the idea of eternal hellfire.
Even if the hellfire was not eternal it still is punishing someone horrifically for something you did to them.
So I googled Theosophy to see if I was wrong and the definition that first comes up on google is pretty close to what I said. Seeing as you used Wikipedia as a source for a definition I did not think that you cared much about what source is used.
Okay then, what are you predicting then?
Give...