theists attack atheism because they are insecure

[Desert Snake]

Theist doesnt mean anything

 

[Desert Snake]

Define theism, its ridiculous. Made up word

 

[Desert Snake]

DEFINE THEIST

 

[DavidFirth]

Pastor: do you believe in Jesus?
New member: I'm struggling with that
Pastor: Get out of my church

He should have said, What is it that you are struggling with? - after inviting the person to talk to him privately. Maybe the person would feel uncomfortable discussing it in public.

 

[Grumpuss]

Define theism, its ridiculous. Made up word

From the same people who brought you "caffeinated" coffee.

 

[DavidFirth]

Define theism, its ridiculous. Made up word

That's subjective. According to Merriam Webster it is a word.

Definition of THEISM

 

[Desert Snake]

From the same people who brought you "caffeinated" coffee.

 

[Desert Snake]

That definition seems sketchy.

 

[Jumi]

Are you a lawyer? Science actually frowns upon only attacking a theory, if there's no alternative theory presented or referenced to explain something.

What a strange statement.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Climate change may be happening, but governments are hauling in a lot of money doing it.

I am unaware of any governments hauling in a lot of money because of climate change, and I don't see the relevance of that claim even were it factual. The government I live under is seeing less since we went solar about five years ago. We don't send money to them for power any more.

Maybe you're referring to the excess power that we harvest from the sky. We give them that without compensation.

Lying, even by exaggeration to sell the point as "settled science" is also a no-no.

The settled science is that the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are climbing and that this causes changes to the planet that we are already observing including melting ice caps, changing migration patterns, changing sea levels, the bleaching of coral reefs, an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events (droughts, floods, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes), changing ocean currents (surface and deep water temperatures, current directions and speeds, and salinity levels), the date of the first winter freeze and the spring thaw, when trees bud and lose their leaves, the behavior of various insects [apparently the rate at which crickets chirp is a reliable indicator of current temperature], and perhaps others for planetary climatological disturbances.

And then there are the record high temperatures being recorded almost every year now.

Some people come to their conclusions and make decisions using such evidence. Others use a different method.

Did you want to address the risk management argument? The climate scientists are telling us that those facts suggest a risk of calamatous changes in the future. Economists tell us that converting from the present state of most power being derived from fossil fuels to one in which clean, renewable sources such as sun and wind can be profitable for the industries that produce the means to convert those assets to electricity. The risk management argument is that it would be costlier in terms of suffering and economic loss to ignore those warnings and be wrong than it is ti heed them and be wrong.

The decision whether to purchase insurance - let's say health insurance - is a similar risk management decision. One doesn't think about being right, which would be buying insurance that you needed versus saving the premiums on insurance that it turns out that you didn't ever need. One looks at the relative costs of making the wrong choice: buying insurance you never needed or being uninsured and facing threatening medical expenses. This is how we make decisions regarding potential threats and whether to act on them or not.

You mentioned lying. I assume that you trust the petrochemical corporations more than the climate scientists, so much so that you assume that the latter are lying and the former being honest.

Are you a lawyer? Science actually frowns upon only attacking a theory, if there's no alternative theory presented or referenced to explain something.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I see the relevance of the question. Science does not frown on challenging falsifiable hypotheses. It ignores those that are not falsifiable.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That's a stupid comparison. The places mentioned in Exodus were destroyed. Finding archaeological evidence that those places existed is far beyond anything from any of your Mother Goose fairy tales.

Troy was busted up real good too, but it was found ...

What you just said is that there is no true historical data

Knowing someone named King David exists is NOT the same thing as knowing all the sex stories are true. The proofs are not valid. It is like you want me to think that if I find a log cabin it must be Abe Lincoln's and it must be where he ate eggs and toast Tuesday morning when he was 5. All you found was a log cabin. It proves none of the other stuff.

It is based on God's word.

God can't seem to get a handle on this "destruction" thing, as He continues to use the same flawed beings He is mad at every time He tries a reboot.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

But you're asking me to take the word of someone who doesn't know his right hand from his left and also much cattle, so to speak. That he claims to see evidence for God from the creation of a world he didn't attend speaks volumes. This is a guy who, IIRC, told a congregation to punish someone without even verifying he or she did anything wrong. That's the level of evidence analysis I can expect from Paul.

You either believe the Bible or you don't.

Must God do everything the bible says or vice versa? None of the above?

I don't see how it could be.

Because, for starters, it's stupid to believe a huge population took 40 years to cross a region that is less than a week's walk. They would have to tiptoe, packed like sardines, and they'd STILL get there in a week.

We believe because eye-witnesses sacrificed their own lives to stand witnesses for Jesus Christ.

But none of the authors WERE eye witnesses.

I don't need to believe the claim to know that it is right to evacuate.

Depends on the claim, though, right?

Bomber: I put a bomb in your building.
Me: Oh? Where?
Bomber: On the 8th floor. Under your desk.
Me: Whew. This is a one story building and I don't have a desk, stupid.

You don't seem to get it. So using my example, if police (a reliable source) says that there's a reported bomb nearby. Do you run or stay! You remain skeptical and wait for the evidence before making any decision, or you choose to believe its possibility to make a run.

If I believe in Magic Shield Jesus, why would it matter?

Say, the media reported that someone saw an UFO.

All a UFO is is an Unidentified Flying Object. That there are people who can't identify what's flying around shouldn't be an issue. If you don't know what that particular bird is flying around your backyard, it's an unidentified flying object, no?

 

[Polymath257]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Not taking a position, just so you can snipe at others' position is lowbrow.

Pick up almost any book on the archeology of Ancient Israel. It is made quite clear that the ancient Israelites were NOT immigrants to the area, but instead were native to the area. They were NOT slaves in Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan didn't happen as reported (for example the walls of Jericho did not fall).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Define theism, its ridiculous. Made up word

All words are made up.

 

[Desert Snake]

All words are made up.

Great, you're agreeing with me.

 

[McBell]

DEFINE THEIST

One who believes in the existence of one or more gods

 

[Kenny]

Knowing someone named King David exists is NOT the same thing as knowing all the sex stories are true. The proofs are not valid. It is like you want me to think that if I find a log cabin it must be Abe Lincoln's and it must be where he ate eggs and toast Tuesday morning when he was 5. All you found was a log cabin. It proves none of the other stuff.

That's true... but the other side of the coin is "just because you don't believe in the story that Washington had wooden dentures doesn't mean it isn't historical".

Like I said, as you demonstrated again by an overused analogy, this is so old its moldy

 

[Desert Snake]

That's true... but the other side of the coin is "just because you don't believe in the story that Washington had wooden dentures doesn't mean it isn't historical".

Like I said, as you demonstrated again by an overused analogy, this is so old its moldy

The mold is growing mold.

 

[Kenny]

The mold is growing mold.

One good mold deserves another.

 

[Grumpuss]

I am unaware of any governments hauling in a lot of money because of climate change, and I don't see the relevance of that claim even were it factual. The government I live under is seeing less since we went solar about five years ago. We don't send money to them for power any more.

Hahahahahaahah- what country do you live in that went "solar"?

Do a bit of research. Climate change is being used by unscrupulous governments to collect all manner of taxes- which fund general missions, not necessarily earmarked for fighting climate change.

Maybe you're referring to the excess power that we harvest from the sky. We give them that without compensation.

Are the trains always on time in your Utopia?

The settled science is that the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are climbing and that this causes changes to the planet that we are already observing including melting ice caps, changing migration patterns, changing sea levels, the bleaching of coral reefs, an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events (droughts, floods, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes), changing ocean currents (surface and deep water temperatures, current directions and speeds, and salinity levels), the date of the first winter freeze and the spring thaw, when trees bud and lose their leaves, the behavior of various insects [apparently the rate at which crickets chirp is a reliable indicator of current temperature], and perhaps others for planetary climatological disturbances.

How odd that something that allegedly took hundreds of years to manifest should be figured out in only a couple of decades! And that it happened following a mass panic of "global cooling" makes it even more of a mystery.

And then there are the record high temperatures being recorded almost every year now.

Except for 15 years or so when it didn't happen.

Some people come to their conclusions and make decisions using such evidence. Others use a different method.

Not these people. Instead, they're told by politicians and demagogues what to believe based on manufactured evidence and argumentum ad populum about some imagined "97% agreement" amongst all scientists.

Did you want to address the risk management argument? The climate scientists are telling us that those facts suggest a risk of calamatous changes in the future. Economists tell us that converting from the present state of most power being derived from fossil fuels to one in which clean, renewable sources such as sun and wind can be profitable for the industries that produce the means to convert those assets to electricity. The risk management argument is that it would be costlier in terms of suffering and economic loss to ignore those warnings and be wrong than it is ti heed them and be wrong.

The decision whether to purchase insurance - let's say health insurance - is a similar risk management decision. One doesn't think about being right, which would be buying insurance that you needed versus saving the premiums on insurance that it turns out that you didn't ever need. One looks at the relative costs of making the wrong choice: buying insurance you never needed or being uninsured and facing threatening medical expenses. This is how we make decisions regarding potential threats and whether to act on them or not.

I don't know why I would put any stock in what people who are willing to lie about science say. The Earth warms and cools. We have no way to measure the effect humans have upon the equation. The Earth has already been as "warm" as it is threatened to be in 100 years (during Roman times), and mysteriously life didn't end.

That's a moot point. Thanks to Obamacare, the only people with health insurance, are healthy people. They are forced to obtain such a thing upon threat of imprisonment. Other people- sick people, get health coverage at a greatly subsidized cost. The government has told you the answer and forced it upon you, whether you like it or not.

You mentioned lying. I assume that you trust the petrochemical corporations more than the climate scientists, so much so that you assume that the latter are lying and the former being honest.

I imagine both of them are lying. The petrochemical corporations are at least lying in service of profit and supplying power to society. Climate scientists, if you yourself wish to claim they are a homogeneous group, lie to themselves and to governments pushing corrupt pieces of legislation like the Paris Agreement.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I see the relevance of the question. Science does not frown on challenging falsifiable hypotheses. It ignores those that are not falsifiable.

It has to do with you parsing language in a precise and detestable way to avoid accountability or reason.

Pick up almost any book on the archeology of Ancient Israel. It is made quite clear that the ancient Israelites were NOT immigrants to the area, but instead were native to the area. They were NOT slaves in Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan didn't happen as reported (for example the walls of Jericho did not fall).

Cool story. What historical text are you deriving these profound conclusions from?

 

[Polymath257]

Cool story. What historical text are you deriving these profound conclusions from?

Quite a few, as well as evidence from archeology. Sorry if the facts don't agree with your superstition.