Curious here Swivel
Possible use of nukes and Polluting the world is a fallacy ?
are you serious ?:bugeye:
Possible use of nukes and Polluting the world is a fallacy ?
are you serious ?:bugeye:
Religulous
- Thread starter UncleChrist
- Start date
I love it when christians try to slap a serious-sounding label like "testimonial evidence" on a collection of 2000+ year old stories of magically conjuring food out of thin air and the dead being raised with the wave of a hand, and try to seriously argue that it should believe it. It's like they're trying to build up this aura of serious scholarship around their fantastical beliefs to make themselves seem all thoughtful and rational.
Uh, what? Increased C02 levels are dangerous from a human perspective, DDT is dangerous in a certain context, there is mercury in our shots (although you can order them without), the bees are suffering some kind of mass die off. These ideas are supported by objective evidence.
Him thinking we can destroy the Earth, or even wipe out all humans is a fallacy.
The Yucatan impact which wiped out the dinosaurs contained more power than hundreds of combined world nuclear arsenals at the height of the Cold War. And global warming is a very expensive and irresponsible product of cult-think.
DDT was completely harmless at the ppm it was used in. Rats grew tumors at 20,000X concentrations. Bad science, and because of it millions of people suffer and die every year in developing countries to the diseases spread by mosquitos.
The Liberal fear of genetically modified crops leads to the starvation of millions in Africa, India, and China. Why? Because liberals worship "Nature" with the same blind ignorance that conservatives worship gods. With very real damage, and absolutely NO introspection. Also, as soon as someone violates their holy creed (as I have done), the knee-jerk reactions and litany of worn-out arguments are spit back verbatim, with no understanding of the actual concepts. The ignorance Christians demonstrate of the Bible is rivaled only by the ignorance environmentalists display about the workings of nature.
Relocated bee colonies have always experience massive die-offs. Local species are never affected. Could it be related to the fact that bees navigate by the height of the sun? And that moving them about the country screws them up? I don't know, but the fact that local bees are thriving and artificial colonies are going through the same phases they already have is not a crisis.
What is irresponsible is for Maher to use his popular show to suggest that all bees are going to go extinct, which means we will no longer have food, so all humans are going to DIE. Yes, he says this. Over and over. And he doesn't laugh afterwards. I know he is ignorant and wrong, but other viewers don't, and I hear his enviro-religious bullshit being repeated by scared soccer moms.
Anyone who defends the psychosis of enviro-religion and rails against the god variety needs to pause and analyze their hypocrisy.
RE: Bees
Maher is just repeating real fears he has. Even I was concerned about the dieing of bees. But not due to Maher, but because of a BBC interview with bee keepers in the USA and England. They, if anyone, were being irresponsible. I don't know if they were trying to get research money or what, but they made it clear we could lose a lot of crops we're used to eating. Would we die off, no. But a lot of plants would no longer produce fruits we're use to, like berrys and such.
Also, I think we do need to keep an eye on the environment. Not to side track but I was under the impression most scientist agree the world is undergoing a warming period and this may (or is likely to?) be attributable to human activity?
Maher is just repeating real fears he has. Even I was concerned about the dieing of bees. But not due to Maher, but because of a BBC interview with bee keepers in the USA and England. They, if anyone, were being irresponsible. I don't know if they were trying to get research money or what, but they made it clear we could lose a lot of crops we're used to eating. Would we die off, no. But a lot of plants would no longer produce fruits we're use to, like berrys and such.
Also, I think we do need to keep an eye on the environment. Not to side track but I was under the impression most scientist agree the world is undergoing a warming period and this may (or is likely to?) be attributable to human activity?
Some good points Swivel. maybe a little overkill though.
I think theirs more then enough nuts in the world to pull off a sufficient nukejob to end the world as we know it. sure Ok.. it won't destroy the globe but what are we left with. I think Mahers point was more to emphasize the doomsday worship in most religions.
the core issue being when Maher asks the senetor if the "End Times" idea doesn't drain ones motivation to improve life on earth now. like say our enviroment.
global warming or not. I don't need anyone to confirm for me the effects that pollution has had in my own little part of town over the past forty some years. It seems and feels quite appalling. I guess that makes me one of them there Liberal environmentalists.
Like its a bad thing to give a shit about the water I drink.
I think theirs more then enough nuts in the world to pull off a sufficient nukejob to end the world as we know it. sure Ok.. it won't destroy the globe but what are we left with. I think Mahers point was more to emphasize the doomsday worship in most religions.
the core issue being when Maher asks the senetor if the "End Times" idea doesn't drain ones motivation to improve life on earth now. like say our enviroment.
global warming or not. I don't need anyone to confirm for me the effects that pollution has had in my own little part of town over the past forty some years. It seems and feels quite appalling. I guess that makes me one of them there Liberal environmentalists.
Like its a bad thing to give a shit about the water I drink.
But then going along with his own premise we should eliminate Science.
Does this make sense?
If you think so, you might be a member of the enviro-cult.
So you believe everything your enviro-cult leaders say, without question? Do you think that the environment is dirtier now than it was 100 years ago? Do you think we have less trees today than we did 100 years ago? Do you think that using paper results in lost forests? Do you think that global warming is worse than global cooling? Do you think that stasis can be reached in the environment? Do you think that recycling is good for the environment? Do you think that landfills are a problem? Do you think that DDT is poison?
If you answer yes to these questions, you belong to a cult based on the naturalistic fallacy and extreme worship of environment.
Another great parallel between the morons to the Left and the idiots on the Right: Religious people admit that nobody can know the mind of god, and then proceed to tell us about their personal relationship with him. Environmental scientists assure us that the weather is too complex for the most powerful of super-computers and that their models are woefully inadequate, but the enviro-cult spreads their drivel as if it is known fact.
Maher does a brilliant job of jumping over to the right and doubting, then settles back into his leftist lunacy. The hunt for CO2 is no different than the hunt for WMD's, it's just more expensive and will result in more deaths.
The bee thing probably has nothing to do with environmentalism. Bill Mahr isn't suggesting that he's an expert in bees, or even the environment, it's a stupid thing to harp on, considering the informal nature of his inquiry. I'm sure whatever the science reveals about the bee situation will be considered by him and any other skeptical person. It's not like the bee problem is a matter of faith, it's a real phenomenon. It's true if there were no bees, there would be a food shortage.
Global warming and pollution are not the end times, we can do something about them.
Has nothing to do with it. since Maher believes that religion is the cause of all these problems and we would be better off without it then it does not take much of a leap to come to the conclusion i have stated.
Tell you one thing, that would have Maher stumbling in his tracks.
Not that i care about any of this, just playing devils advocate.
Tell you one thing, that would have Maher stumbling in his tracks.
Not that i care about any of this, just playing devils advocate.
Last edited:
His hypocrisy is not stupid for me to harp on, no matter how casual his mistake is. The reason it needs to be pointed out is because the enviro-cultists aren't aware that they behave the exact same way that the religiously-crazed do. The parallels between CO2 fear-mongering and WMD fear-mongering to further a political and economic agenda seem obvious to me. The worship of the ancient on both sides is bizarre. For the Left it is primitive cultures and Far Eastern thought, for the Right it is ancient prophecy. Both groups of fanatics are lost in a fictional past that they create to suit their biased needs.
Keep in mind that I loved Maher's film. I think it is not just a good film, but an important film. I now place Maher in the same group as Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris; a collection of people that are brave enough to talk about religion for the dangerous and destructive force that it is.
I also think that the people on the far Left who make fun of the religious but are equally superstitious need to be mocked. The real damage done by the ban of DDT needs to be talked about. The horrid science and the tripe in "Silent Spring" are worse than what is in the Bible, because we have the contemporary knowledge to KNOW that "Silent Spring" is bullshit, but the cult members accept it as holy writ.
If it wasn't for the damage that both sides cause, I would find their hatred of one another amusing, because they act exactly the same. Exactly. Hippies scream and faint at a Gore speech for the same neurological reasons that Fundamentalists fall to the floor and vibrate at church. They are all overcome with the warm drugs of in-grouping and out-grouping and mass hysteria.
This is just ridiculous
I agree.
I agree and applaud Maher for stepping up and taking a swing. It's brave. I remember the first time I took a chance at the bat, in front of my then girl friend and all of her friends, missed all the balls 
But she didn't know what baseball was so it was OK I also remember the first time told my family, some of whom are now JWs, that I was atheist. So, in that sense, I can see how Maher has been building up to this. I just didn't think the film was all that great. It wasn't that funny and not that deep. I was surprised he hadn't heard the water analogy before.
But she didn't know what baseball was so it was OK I also remember the first time told my family, some of whom are now JWs, that I was atheist. So, in that sense, I can see how Maher has been building up to this. I just didn't think the film was all that great. It wasn't that funny and not that deep. I was surprised he hadn't heard the water analogy before.