Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Two points:
As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind". You may at your discretion, however.
Also, I am not accusing the global warming True Believers to be engaging in any kind of blind faith. What I accuse them of is taking something which is based on little evidence, and sometimes no evidence, and calling it proven science. Like I said in my first post, the difference between a critical thinker and the True Believer is that the critical thinker can alter their position based on evidence, while the True Believer clings to their position against all evidence.
Before Beldaran pops in again and says that must mean I'm not a critical thinker when it comes to faith, I remind you again that I am not using my beliefs to impose draconian government control over our lives. Al Gore and the global warming True Believers are doing just that.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
The toll road thing may be completely different. Gas taxes haven't been altered since the 90s (and they do NOT rise with inflation). People won't stand for an increase in the gas tax, so tolls may be the only way to go, with no relation to impact on Global Warming.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Your definition of a True Believer sounds a lot like blind faith to me. At least, that's how I would define blind faith - taking a position without evidence and presenting that position as fact, and then clinging to that position no matter what evidence turns up that counters that position.
Furthermore, if the issue is really one of personal rights, you do yourself a disservice by arguing on the grounds that global warming is "made up" or whatever, because if it truly is an issue of personal rights, then then reality of global warming should have no bearing. It's like terrorism - you wouldn't argue that wiretapping, for example, is wrong on the grounds that there are no terrorists. That would be a horrible way to go about it on multiple levels.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind".
Seeing things that are invisible is not the same as seeing things. It is, however, the same as being crazy.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Beldaran, your arguments lack substance. You are as blinded by your extremely dismissive nature ("If I don't believe it, it's wrong") as Starkist is by his faith.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dechipher
You are as blinded by your extremely dismissive nature.
Yep! I am blinded by logic. I dismiss Jesus, Zeus, Thor, Leprechauns, Unicorns, and all other relentless bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dechipher
("If I don't believe it, it's wrong")
This is not my attitude at all. My attitude is "If I don't have compelling, irrefutable evidence, then I don't accept something as doctrine."
There is much more evidence for global warming than there is Jesus, and Starkist thinks people are gullible for believing data that is published in scientific journals and supported by 2000 scientists from 150 different countries.
Starkist, who worships an invisible 2000 year old carpenter with magic powers who lives in another dimension and who is best friends with everyone and watches them every second of the day to make sure they don't look at porn and say bad words, thinks people who read climatology journals are gullible.
This is grade A primo bullshit hypocrisy at its best.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
The True Believes and their messiah, Al Gore, believe two things that are absurd: 1) That man has the ability to cause dramatic and dangerous changes to this planet; and 2) That man can halt and reverse the changes that occur.
Wow I think you're officially fucking stupid. I know Beldaran has been making fun of it for awhile, but this really shows it off. You actually don't believe man can cause dramatic change to the planet. Holy shit. Oh wait sorry, I don't believe in your imaginary friend so... Wow.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
The problem is that you claim that everything is to be viewed in black and white and hide it under the banner of logic.
I would rather have someone who is open minded enough to concede that they are narrow-minded than someone who claims to have superior beliefs.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dechipher
The problem is that you claim that everything is to be viewed in black and white and hide it under the banner of logic.
I would rather have someone who is open minded enough to concede that they are narrow-minded than someone who claims to have superior beliefs.
For the ten billionth time, my beliefs are not superior, because I have no beliefs whatsoever. A belief is a logical aberration consistent with delusion and psychosis. It assumes knowledge without evidence; a form of insanity.
I cannot concede that thinking rationally might be the wrong way to go, because of the mountains of evidence piled against fanciful delusion as a productive and accurate method of acquiring knowledge about the world.
I don't know why you give delusional fantasy such a wide respect. It's really quite a sad condition that deserves to be sadly chuckled at by those whose brains are free from such errors.
Re: Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Starkist
Two points:
As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind". You may at your discretion, however.
Whether or you you think your faith is blind is completely irrelevant to the reality that faith is blind by definition.
Quote:
Also, I am not accusing the global warming True Believers to be engaging in any kind of blind faith. What I accuse them of is taking something which is based on little evidence, and sometimes no evidence, and calling it proven science. Like I said in my first post, the difference between a critical thinker and the True Believer is that the critical thinker can alter their position based on evidence, while the True Believer clings to their position against all evidence.
The irony here is so sharp I had to get a band-aid.
Really, so far you haven't put forth much of an argument. Your debate tactic seems to be something along the lines of:
1. Make an object or a group of people seem scary and evil and evil by giving them a label and Using Capitalization. For bonus points, use a label that is laughably ironic when compared with your own belief system.
2. Spout as much pseudo-intellectual rhetoric as you can. Quote a dead guy to make your argument sound smarter. Use sources such as talk show radio programs to back up your statements, because talk show radio hosts are never wrong.
3. Defend your flimsy arguments by hiding behind a wall of fallacies. When anybody challenges your statements, take any tiny logical fallacy they make, then make a long post about how they used a fallacy and they are therefore totally wrong, without ever actually addressing any counterarguments.
4. Be as arrogant and pretentious as possible. Accuse others of not having an open mind, and not applying critical thinking. Because clearly people with open minds and critical thinking skills would immediately agree with everything you say.
Oh, but wait! This is whole post is obviously ad hominem and can thus be dismissed with a wave of the hand. And possibly a long-winded post about why this post is ad hominem, oh and by the way here's another questionable source of information to prove that this group I hate is a bunch of radical jerks and I am obviously not.