Remember me
▼ Content

Is it Really Just About the Wording?


Is it Really Just About the Wording?14-03-2019 19:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
Whatever the religion, believers think their beliefs are true ... hence the term "believers." Believers, by nature of their faith, don't appreciate insinuations that their beliefs are not true.

To the contrary, (actual) scientists and mathematicians appreciate being notified of errors or flaws in their work that put their conclusions into question in the same way you might appreciate someone pulling you aside and informing you that you have a piece of broccoli stuck between your teeth.

If you tell a Christian that his "God" is part of his religion he'll say "We'll, yes, that's how it works." On the other hand, if you use slightly different wording and tell said Christian that his "God" is a religious myth, he probably won't appreciate the perceived insinuation that his beliefs are not true. Christians, as a rule, do not refer to the Christian God as a "myth."

Warmizombies, on the other hand, have that nasty axiom riveted into their precious dogma that their beliefs are SCIENCE, specifically because within modern religions, the word "religion" is equated with "is not true" and "science" is equated with "*is* true!" That's why warmizombies do not appreciate being informed that their religion is a religion because, according to their own religion, that implies their beliefs are not true.

Is there a way to assure warmizombies that their religious beliefs can remain completely valid in light of recognizing physics violations? Is there a way to get warmizombies to understand that it is OK to believe in miracles as an aspect of one's religion?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 19:54
James___
★★★☆☆
(963)
IBdaMann wrote:
Whatever the religion, believers think their beliefs are true ... hence the term "believers." Believers, by nature of their faith, don't appreciate insinuations that their beliefs are not true.

To the contrary, (actual) scientists and mathematicians appreciate being notified of errors or flaws in their work that put their conclusions into question in the same way you might appreciate someone pulling you aside and informing you that you have a piece of broccoli stuck between your teeth.

If you tell a Christian that his "God" is part of his religion he'll say "We'll, yes, that's how it works." On the other hand, if you use slightly different wording and tell said Christian that his "God" is a religious myth, he probably won't appreciate the perceived insinuation that his beliefs are not true. Christians, as a rule, do not refer to the Christian God as a "myth."

Warmizombies, on the other hand, have that nasty axiom riveted into their precious dogma that their beliefs are SCIENCE, specifically because within modern religions, the word "religion" is equated with "is not true" and "science" is equated with "*is* true!" That's why warmizombies do not appreciate being informed that their religion is a religion because, according to their own religion, that implies their beliefs are not true.

Is there a way to assure warmizombies that their religious beliefs can remain completely valid in light of recognizing physics violations? Is there a way to get warmizombies to understand that it is OK to believe in miracles as an aspect of one's religion?


And why is it people like you can't accept that natural climate variation happens? In your last post to me you stated that if the velocity that the thermohaline circulation flows at can cause our planet to warm then you said that would falsify global warming.
It wouldn't. It would show a cause and effect that allows for normal climate variations. That's science.

p.s., it's well known that the Gulf Stream has been slowing and that tectonic plate rebound has been happening.
Edited on 14-03-2019 19:59
14-03-2019 20:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
James___ wrote: And why is it people like you can't accept that natural climate variation happens?

Because I am not a believer of your religion. I stick with science and Global Climate is a religious myth.

If a Christian asks you why you can't believe that salvation happens, how do you respond?

James___ wrote: In your last post to me you stated that if the velocity that the thermohaline circulation flows at can cause our planet to warm then you said that would falsify global warming.

Would you mind showing me where you believe I said that? As far as I am aware, I have never deviated from the position that neither Christianity nor Global Warming can be proven false. They are religions. They are not falsifiable.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-03-2019 21:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
IBdaMann wrote
Whatever the religion, believers think their beliefs are true ... hence the term "believers." Believers, by nature of their faith, don't appreciate insinuations that their beliefs are not true.

...

The problem you run into here is the fundamentalist nature of the Church of Global Warming.

Going back to your example of Christians. There are Christians, who accept that God exists as part of their faith, and are convinced that what they believe is true; and there are Christians that try to prove God is true. These are they that try to prove what is really just a circular argument (that God exists, and He is who He says He is).

Most Christians believe what they believe based on faith. They understand at least on some level the circular nature of that faith. The know they can't prove what they believe, and they accept they might be wrong, but they believe they are right. They simply believe, and that's that.

The fundamentalist cannot accept that he might be wrong. He tries to prove he is right. To point out any flaws in his reasoning, such as a conflict with a theory of science, or a fallaciously constructed argument, you attack everything about their belief directly. They take the "if you're not one of us, you're one of THEM" attitude. You are condemned to 'hell'. You are the Great Satan. You MUST be ridiculed and silenced.

You obviously cannot prove a circular argument ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, then extend their arguments from that. The other word for the circular is 'faith'. Faith by itself is not a fallacy. It simply is.

The fundamentalist tries to prove the circular argument. That is the circular argument fallacy...to attempt to conduct a proof of a circular argument. They usually do so by quoting scripture after scripture, often without even any meaning or context of the scripture, even to the point of denying existing science along the way.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. They too tend to just quote scripture, often without meaning or context, even to the point of denying existing theories of science along the way.

Like most fundamentalists, they predict the 'end of the world' on day X. They ignore the earlier predictions they made for day Y, some day in the past, that never came true.

Sooner or later, most discussions about 'global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever they actually ARE is immaterial here) wander into the field of religion. This is why.
Edited on 14-03-2019 21:47
14-03-2019 22:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3313)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote
Whatever the religion, believers think their beliefs are true ... hence the term "believers." Believers, by nature of their faith, don't appreciate insinuations that their beliefs are not true.

...

The problem you run into here is the fundamentalist nature of the Church of Global Warming.

Going back to your example of Christians. There are Christians, who accept that God exists as part of their faith, and are convinced that what they believe is true; and there are Christians that try to prove God is true. These are they that try to prove what is really just a circular argument (that God exists, and He is who He says He is).

Most Christians believe what they believe based on faith. They understand at least on some level the circular nature of that faith. The know they can't prove what they believe, and they accept they might be wrong, but they believe they are right. They simply believe, and that's that.

The fundamentalist cannot accept that he might be wrong. He tries to prove he is right. To point out any flaws in his reasoning, such as a conflict with a theory of science, or a fallaciously constructed argument, you attack everything about their belief directly. They take the "if you're not one of us, you're one of THEM" attitude. You are condemned to 'hell'. You are the Great Satan. You MUST be ridiculed and silenced.

You obviously cannot prove a circular argument ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, then extend their arguments from that. The other word for the circular is 'faith'. Faith by itself is not a fallacy. It simply is.

The fundamentalist tries to prove the circular argument. That is the circular argument fallacy...to attempt to conduct a proof of a circular argument. They usually do so by quoting scripture after scripture, often without even any meaning or context of the scripture, even to the point of denying existing science along the way.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. They too tend to just quote scripture, often without meaning or context, even to the point of denying existing theories of science along the way.

Like most fundamentalists, they predict the 'end of the world' on day X. They ignore the earlier predictions they made for day Y, some day in the past, that never came true.

Sooner or later, most discussions about 'global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever they actually ARE is immaterial here) wander into the field of religion. This is why.


Great treatise. I'd say we can pack it up for GloboWarm and call it a day. Oh wait, did I just denigrate a religion and show religious intolerance. My bad. I know the warmizombies would never do that.

I take it that you don't believe that warmizombies can be forthwith reasoned?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-03-2019 04:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7003)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote
Whatever the religion, believers think their beliefs are true ... hence the term "believers." Believers, by nature of their faith, don't appreciate insinuations that their beliefs are not true.

...

The problem you run into here is the fundamentalist nature of the Church of Global Warming.

Going back to your example of Christians. There are Christians, who accept that God exists as part of their faith, and are convinced that what they believe is true; and there are Christians that try to prove God is true. These are they that try to prove what is really just a circular argument (that God exists, and He is who He says He is).

Most Christians believe what they believe based on faith. They understand at least on some level the circular nature of that faith. The know they can't prove what they believe, and they accept they might be wrong, but they believe they are right. They simply believe, and that's that.

The fundamentalist cannot accept that he might be wrong. He tries to prove he is right. To point out any flaws in his reasoning, such as a conflict with a theory of science, or a fallaciously constructed argument, you attack everything about their belief directly. They take the "if you're not one of us, you're one of THEM" attitude. You are condemned to 'hell'. You are the Great Satan. You MUST be ridiculed and silenced.

You obviously cannot prove a circular argument ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, then extend their arguments from that. The other word for the circular is 'faith'. Faith by itself is not a fallacy. It simply is.

The fundamentalist tries to prove the circular argument. That is the circular argument fallacy...to attempt to conduct a proof of a circular argument. They usually do so by quoting scripture after scripture, often without even any meaning or context of the scripture, even to the point of denying existing science along the way.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. They too tend to just quote scripture, often without meaning or context, even to the point of denying existing theories of science along the way.

Like most fundamentalists, they predict the 'end of the world' on day X. They ignore the earlier predictions they made for day Y, some day in the past, that never came true.

Sooner or later, most discussions about 'global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever they actually ARE is immaterial here) wander into the field of religion. This is why.


Great treatise.

*humble bow*
IBdaMann wrote:
I'd say we can pack it up for GloboWarm and call it a day. Oh wait, did I just denigrate a religion and show religious intolerance. My bad. I know the warmizombies would never do that.

I take it that you don't believe that warmizombies can be forthwith reasoned?


Gawd I've missed your humor, IBdaMann. It is so refreshing to have your expertise and humor back on the forum!

BTW, hope you enjoyed pi day.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-03-2019 04:37




Join the debate Is it Really Just About the Wording?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact