|
Post by jean on Oct 27, 2012 12:50:23 GMT
I am not the sort of atheist who claims her view is correct. I am not militantly atheistic. It is simply my opinion that "God" does not exist. Well, now we're getting somewhere. This being so, you are not really in a position to proclaim that others have arrived at the views they hold without the exercise of reason.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2012 13:10:12 GMT
Visitor is alarmed by Creationists in the US Congress. Who does she think spoke these words concerning the storm now brewing over the US eastern seaboard? Frankenstorm: God’s Latest Warning?
....Perhaps this weather scare that may well be much more than just a scare is God’s revenge for the refusal of the U.S. government to take action on the climate crisis.
Or maybe this is His way of inserting the climate issue into a Presidential election campaign that, astoundingly, has refused to discuss it. If this statement had issued from some American Evangelical or Creationist, Visitor would have leapt upon it with glee. But it was spoken by a stalwart "progressive" climate campaigner and is evidence that ClimateChangeism has in fact become a "religion" for the likes of him and of Visitor. She is AWFULLY mixed up. What was she thinking of in opening this thread? She has, in fact, just opened a can of worms. There is NO contradiction between Science and Religious belief for people who know the difference. The danger comes from those, like visitor, who DON'T and have somehow seamlessly incorporated their political correctness and 'save the whale' mentality into their religion.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 27, 2012 13:37:44 GMT
There is NO contradiction between Science and Religious belief for people who know the difference. Put in general terms like that of course there isn't, marchesa. But you write: I think you are confusing "Christians" with a handful of fundamentalists who interpret Genesis literally. seemingly unaware that visitor is writing of one of that handful of fundamentalists from whom she takes care to distance herself - and the confusion is all yours.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 27, 2012 14:08:03 GMT
I am not the one who has expressed the view that permitting "Creationists" to legislate is a problem, jean
I am not the one who has expressed doubt about the mentality of people who vote for a "Creationist" to be their member of Congress.
Visitor is. Some people would call her a bigot for that alone. I could not possibly comment.
I merely comment upon her inconsistency. One rule for UK Anglican Creationists, apparently, another rule for US Creationists. You see, not only is visitor engaged in a terminal confusion over the incompatibility of religious belief with objective scientific activity, she has also slipped in an assumption about the right and left in politics. Leftwing Christian "creationism" (of the modern British C of E variety, apparently) is OK. Rightwing Creationism (made in theUSA) is not.
Visitor is as politically motivated in her views on religious belief as she is in her views on climate and in neither does she show the slightest objectivity. She is nobbut a simple minded political partisan with no consciousness of either complexity or variety who sees people and issues as either black or white with no shades in-between.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 27, 2012 16:25:51 GMT
It's the firmly held "super"-natural beliefs of some of the religiose that I find "daft", Nick. As for the mystery of creation (not just of life, but of everything), I take this as, almost by definition, "natural", i.e. occurring both as a result of a series of somewhat random (but not necessary so) "accidents" and in conformity with what we know of the laws of physics. I am not the sort of atheist who claims her view is correct. I am not militantly atheistic. It is simply my opinion that does not exist. I could, of course, be wrong. I do not reject agnosticism. You see, I am eminently reasonable. It would seem so to my ears, yes. My rather convoluted point was that may well exist, without any need to suppose anything supernatural (as you define it above) at all. It may well be an entirely natural (physical) phenomenon, that has evolved along with everything else. It has simply evolved to the point where it is able to influence the natural order throughout all of time. According to our present best theories in Physics, this is entirely in accord with natural laws; and according to well-proven empirical experiments, we know that such ability to purview the time series actually occurs, even within our limited minds, at this point in universal history. The proposition that in millions of years hence - when our or other intellects that the universe has evolved will be immeasurably more powerful - this Mind may have developed the ability to know and intervene at any point of the phenomenal time series, from its viewpoint of encompassing all of it, from without, is entirely rational, and perfectly in accord with everything that modern science now understands the physical universe to be. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 27, 2012 16:54:45 GMT
If this statement had issued from some American Evangelical or Creationist, Visitor would have leapt upon it with glee. But it was spoken by a stalwart "progressive" climate campaigner and is evidence that ClimateChangeism has in fact become a "religion" for the likes of him and of Visitor. Could we possibly restrict our comments to what people have actually said, rather than castigate them for what we think they would have said in circumstances we've invented?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Oct 27, 2012 16:57:29 GMT
Capital idea! A Damascene conversion, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 28, 2012 14:06:12 GMT
Perhaps you could apply this principle to the thread you and visitor embarked upon here, jean? Anders Breivik - AGW denying mass murdererthesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=700Somehow, in her religion-coddled brain, Visitor thinks she perceives some sort of link between climate contrarians and the perpetrators of extreme political acts. Perhaps Nick can make some sort of sense of this peculiar thread and reconcile it with the positive image he seems to have obtained of Visitor's persona, because I can't. All I can say is that perhaps I have been more on the receiving end of Visitor's manners and "politeness" in her various incarnations as Louise, lamb chop and Listener over the years than he has. If anyone is "hate-filled" and obsessive she is, as witnessed by her stalking me from board to board for years, not under one name but under several presumably in an attempt to conceal her single-minded pursuit!. What did she think she was doing in associating MY values and opinions with those of Anders Beivik, for example? You really are a prat, jean, as incapable of consistently applying a principle as your protege, Visitor!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 28, 2012 14:51:01 GMT
Perhaps you could apply this principle to the thread you and visitor embarked upon here, jean? Nothing on that thread conflicts with my principle, marchesa. There is some discussion of what connexion there might be between what people have said in one context, and what they have said in another. But always the discussion deals with what was actually said, not what would have been said if...
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 28, 2012 15:22:02 GMT
The selective quoting of third parties AS IF what they said was the same as what I have said or what I believe, is the problem, jean. You should be ashamed of your part in that stupid, ill-thought out and "hate-filled" attack on me perpetrated by you and your protégée, Visitor. But at least a link was provided to the thread on the Science board where the long and thoughtful Lubos Motl article can be read in full instead of the stupid selective quotes that Visitor saw fit to use to portray his position and to somehow link Lubos and me to Breivik as if we were his acolytes. radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hobnobbing&action=display&thread=1472&page=1And as for YOUR piling in, jean, with references to Rachel Marsden, about whom I know nothing and have read less, you should be ashamed of your transparent attempt to mudsling. As for the reference to Viscount Monckton, he is not a "hero" of mine. He is a fellow AGW sceptic who is an able communicator of the many critiques that are being made of Green alarmism, hence the approval of a Green Party cadre and would-be Green Councillor of an attempt to discredit him by linking him with Anders Breivik, too! Duh! The whole thread is a travesty of any opinion I may have expressed about anything. It was pure knocking copy. What were you thinking about, jean? All that it lacked were more "fascinating" one-liners from Pippop and her sock-puppets! If you insist on your whiter than white position re bad-mouthing people you disagree with, delete that thread in its entirety, otherwise some will continue in the belief that you are a whited sepulchre rather than Miss Clean. Nah, on second thoughts let it stand. It's entertaining to read the evidence of your double standards, jean.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Oct 28, 2012 16:16:30 GMT
The selective quoting of third parties AS IF what they said was the same as what I have said or what I believe, is the problem, jean. You should be ashamed of your part in that stupid, ill-thought out and "hate-filled" attack on me perpetrated by you and your protégée, Visitor. But at least a link was provided to the thread on the Science board where the long and thoughtful Lubos Motl article can be read in full instead of the stupid selective quotes that Visitor saw fit to use to portray his position and to somehow link Lubos and me to Breivik as if we were his acolytes. radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=hobnobbing&action=display&thread=1472&page=1And as for YOUR piling in, jean, with references to Rachel Marsden, about whom I know nothing and have read less, you should be ashamed of your transparent attempt to mudsling. As for the reference to Viscount Monckton, he is not a "hero" of mine. He is a fellow AGW sceptic who is an able communicator of the many critiques that are being made of Green alarmism, hence the approval of a Green Party cadre and would-be Green Councillor of an attempt to discredit him by linking him with Anders Breivik, too! Duh! The whole thread is a travesty of any opinion I may have expressed about anything. It was pure knocking copy. What were you thinking about, jean? All that it lacked were more "fascinating" one-liners from Pippop and her sock-puppets! If you insist on your whiter than white position re bad-mouthing people you disagree with, delete that thread in its entirety, otherwise some will continue in the belief that you are a whited sepulchre rather than Miss Clean. Nah, on second thoughts let it stand. It's entertaining to read the evidence of your double standards, jean. Oh no...please, no.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 28, 2012 16:37:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Oct 30, 2012 18:35:02 GMT
Thanks for confirming that visitor is Louise/Lambchop/Listener, Nick. I always suspected that, myself. So all the 'evidence' you need to give you confirmation of your suspicions is one man's opinion - that explains your approach to science.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Oct 30, 2012 23:33:51 GMT
Thanks for confirming that visitor is Louise/Lambchop/Listener, Nick. I always suspected that, myself. So all the 'evidence' you need to give you confirmation of your suspicions is one man's opinion - that explains your approach to science. That was clever.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Post by pippop on Oct 30, 2012 23:38:43 GMT
And as for YOUR piling in, jean... Is it the "piling-in" season again? Already? Was there a memo?
|
|