Christian influence in society? Yes. A theocracy? No

Totally false. Please let me know how you got that idea.

True. Schools should not be teaching what is the right religion or the wrong religion. The government has no right to judge or teach your religious views or my religious view as being right.

I think we may be in agreement ... ?

 

climate change bringing about Doomsday is not at all supported by any fact at all. Neither is the idea that the government is the only way to save us from our sin. that is a religious belief.

Except that we're not. You want the government to make an exception for your cockamamie climate change religion.

 

Your "doomsday" thing is not what science says. So, I don't think you have a real issue there.

I have no idea what you mean by "government save us from our sin." I've never even heard of that.

Yes - For climate change I'm sticking to science that comes from an entire world of science.

I think we have a ways to go on science education. The emphasis should be on what science is, what it is based on, how/why it works so incredibly well, how to go about getting valid confirmation and how to consume science information, etc. There are plenty of examples that can be used in the teaching of science. It would probably be distracting to bring up topics as complex as climate change.

 

science is simply the best approximation of what we know now, but is always evolving, yes there are hucksters out and abo0ut promoting quackery, there always will be...climate change is an established fact, just we dont know all the established intricacy's..the other day i saw hershal walkers mocking of evolution, evolution does not claim men evovled from apes, but from a common ancestor, denying evolution is one thing but not even understanding what you deny seems very common

 

greenism has preached doomsday since I first heard of it probably longer.

It's not my doomsday thing I think it's stupid. It's from the climate change cultists.

you've just never thought about it this way because you don't accept it as a religious belief.

But you have preached specifically about government regulation being the only way to deal with pollution. You are an acolyte in this religion.

no you're not you're cherry picking a few facts or more likely your synod has Cherry picked them for you and you believe them because you are faithful follower.

well I think this social engineering that's occurring in science is distracting from science where people believe things are science that aren't really you are a prime example of this.

No leave this should not be telling you what science is that's not educating that's indoctrinating. The education should be the practice of science itself. I learned far more from doing various experiments and predicting things and recording data then I did that out of reading any other book.

When you have to preach a set of morals to apply to science or as you put it teach what science is that's unteaching. If someone must define it for you and you must accept that definition that is religion through and through to the extreme. That's exactly how theocratic and religious organization has worked since the dawn of time.

You don't agree with me I want your damn religion out of schools.

 

If information & ideas are censored, the people won't be armed with enough knowledge to decide what the truth is.

This is why dictators love censorship.

First, homeopathy is not a one-size-fits-all treatment. You don't just go to a store and buy what you think might work for you. You need to visit an experienced professional. A treatment for a specific disorder will often not be the right treatment for another person with the SAME disorder. Each person's prescription is tailored to the nuances of their condition & needs (which also includes their psychological state & make-up). An MD will spend a few minutes with a patient. A homeopath will typically spend at least an hour, even up to 2 or 3 hours, with a patient to fully understand their condition and to perfectly tailor which homeopathic medicine(s) to prescribe.

Second, how do you know they didn't try conventional medicine first and were not helped, so then they opted for alternative treatments? This is a frequent reason that people choose alternative medicine. Conventional medicine is an utter failure when it comes to "treating" (if we can call it that) serious & chronic illness.

Conventional medicine has become so dangerous in fact that many don't even visit a doctor, and go straight to alternative remedies----even home remedies. In fact, avoiding conventional medicine (except with acute care/emergency situations) is more likely than not to save your life. Approximately 800,000 deaths annually are attributed to iatrogenic (medically caused) incidents.

Their intentions may be noble, but they have no idea what's going on with the patients. They have no clue why the patient got sick and died. They just hook the patient up to a ventilator (which can itself cause permanent lung & brain damage), pump them full of drugs (more side effects), all the while performing these duties in a hospital setting that is saturated with wireless/microwave radiation & electric devices. The hospital is a horrible place to go if you're sick.

And no, absolutely none of the healthcare workers "contracted" Covid. The virus does not exist. No human/animal virus has ever been isolated. One must look at exposure to wireless radiation and/or vaccinations as the major culprit (assuming no comorbidities, which can also be due to EMF/5G and/or vaccinations).

So-called "Long Covid" is due to serious (or even permanent) damage inflicted on the body's nervous & metabolic system from EMF (particularly new 5G towers) and/or vaccinations.

NOTE: Comedian Bob Saget died about a month after receiving a booster. He tweeted about getting vaccinated prior to later receiving a booster, and encouraged others to vaccinate. He was 65. Many healthy and/or young people (including many athletes) have died suddenly despite being the picture of health.

HIV doesn't exist. No human/animal virus has ever been isolated. The so-called "anti-viral" drugs are expensive and a scam, and a means to milk this HIV scam for as long as they can for profit. Eg, Biktarvy costs around $3,783 for a supply of 30 tablets. Dr. Robert Willner even inoculated himself with the blood of an HIV patient on live TV (twice) in 1994 to prove HIV doesn't exist. And no, Magic Johnson never had HIV (1991). I don't know who/what agency was behind this PR stunt to perpetuate the dwindling HIV/AIDS fear, but I believe he agreed to do it for a lot of money (which he turned into multiple businesses, and is now worth ~$650 million).

 

I think care must be taken with charges like that.

The fact that someone/group said it sometime doesn't mean all who are in any way related can be so charged.

And, that goes both ways (all ways?) as there are cases such lots of Republicans, including on this board, charge Biden with trying to wipe out America financially with the power of inflation. However, we know that is absolutely false, as the factors causing inflation are not in his control. Plus, it's ludicrous to think that he would want to do that.

Surely that doesn't mean that all republicans are that ridiculous concerning economic issues, does it?

This is just a fact. When we reduce pollution, it's rarely by personal choice. We improved rivers by forcing corporations and cities to deal with their own pollution, rather than just pouring it into our waters. We improved air pollution by the same method - requiring corporations and others to meet air quality standards rather than just dumping their waste into the air.

The cheapest thing for a good capitalist to do is to dump pollutants in the cheapest way possible. And, that is a step toward their goal of maximizing profit.

We just have a ways to go.

Well, pick a topic, start a thread, state what you REALLY mean.

I think you need to work on what is and what is not science.

Improving science education really has nothing to do with teaching morals. And, that's almost always what you and I lobby for.

Science is a process. It's a good idea to have our population understand what that process is all about. Otherwise, people can't even tell the difference between science and morals or engineering or even religion!!

 

True. And, that is what happens when our education system removes books and topics of education from our schools.

There are no standards of testing for efficacy or product labeling for homeopathy. And, there are no standards of care, either.

The idea of calling that medicine is ridiculous.

Homeopathy pushes for people to go to homeopathy as the first step.

So, that is what I pointed out.

Your description of science based medicine is ludicrous. For example, patients are not put on ventilators unless it is a last resort - a last resort that is not available to homeopathy. And, medicine is HIGHLY tested for safety and efficacy before ever prescribing it - something that is NOT true for homeopathy.

This is just BLATANTLY false, and shows the depth of the problem with homeopathy.

People die after eating dinner, too.

The very idea that this one event proves anything about medicine is an example of how crazy homeopathy can get.

This is why modern science based medicine has huge efforts focusing on testing medical products and has continuing programs of gathering data with the objective of understanding causes of health problems.

Homeopathy has NONE of that.

This is more abject ridiculousness.

 

Alternate reality aside I stand by what I said.

Thus saith the lord.

Praise be to the Lord.

And the devil will try to tempt you.

Repent your evil ways

See it's exactly like any other religion. It's just your prophets are criminals.

I stated what I really mean. You're religion has no place in schools. But you have to pretend it's fact and force it on everybody.

Yeah indoctrination is common in all religions.

Then why are you trying to push your religion as fact you did it here in this post. I mocked you for it but it'll probably soar over your head.

The irony is palpable.

Like having a def person explain music to me.

 

I've given specifics.

If you have other solutions to problems such as pollution, I'm MORE THAN READY to listen.

 

yeah there's entire cathedrals dedicated to specific that doesn't mean your religion is less of a religion it means it's more like them

solutions to what some religious problem that doesn't really exist?

 

No need to tell someone their religion is wrong .. and schools have been calling religious belief "myth" since there were schools in this nation.. and no friend .. Climate change is not a Religion .. got some confusion going on along the way ... is those rapture ready folks doing the doomsday cult thing .. more confusion.

 

Climate change is a doomsday cult I was being charitable calling it a religion.

 

Sorry mate .. Climate change is not a person .. and so can not be a member of a cult .. sounds like you took a wrong turn at the reality gate .. after which inanimate objects were able to assume the characteristics of people.

 

I didn't say it was a person or a member of a cult so pointless point noted I guess.

 

I think maybe G.O. is the one who took the wrong turn and should be giving his advice to himself rather than to you.

 

I agree that the rapid climate change our planet has been experiencing is caused by human civilization. Certainly climate change has been occurring since climate began but the trend towards a warming planet has increased dramatically since industrialization began.

I don’t see a doomsday for humanity. What I see is dramatic climate change that is going to cause shifts in population and geographic location for humanity. The circumstances will become less hospitable the more global temperature increases. The amount that the population decreases and relocation occurs will be in proportion to how far climate change advances. If the temperatures hit a worst case scenario we would see populations declining all over the world with migration generally moving inland and toward the poles.

The rate of species extinction will continue to rise as larger animals have a more difficult time surviving through rapid climate change. Humans are able to adapt to almost every environment so it is unlikely that the species will die off. For me I think a highly technological society would continue with the wealthiest nations mastering zero emissions and sustainable energy while reducing human impact on the planet. The less wealthy nations will likely experience collapse as populations migrate to better living conditions.

I think that there is a fascination with the end of civilization in our culture through entertainment and through religion so it wouldn’t be surprising if there were a focus on a doomsday scenario among different groups in society but to think that all people who agree with the concept that climate change is anthropogenic form a cult seems a bit of a stretch. Well honestly it’s just not true. Perhaps there are some groups that have a cult like nature, I don’t know, but to categorize everyone that way is not realistic.

 

this seems more emotional than based on science.

this is really based on a religious belief that our environment is harmonious it isn't. Changes in climate have caused demographic changes since the beginning of demographics.

There is no Harmony there's just peaceful times between when the climate is killing us. Finger is nothing you can do to please any God to extend those peaceful times it's really rather out of your control.

So this is more like you Spirit of the volcano thing. If we throw enough virgins into it maybe it won't erupt and that makes no difference.

the most likely cause of our Extinction will be failure to breed and since the greenism religion holds that is a virtue it will be the cause of Extinction rather than the stopgap measure.

Well the climate change as though it's leading to a catastrophe or caused by man is a scam and people are brainwashed into believing this with very little effort. All you really have to do is take a few studies Cherry could of course to give the worst possible outcome and present them to people who desperately want to show how intelligent they are and just like that you have people believing the emperor is wearing a magnificent suit of clothing. The people who are hit hardest by this children and that's the whole reason they focus on them because they're easy to brainwash they are more ready to believe in things without questioning them they haven't lose the long enough to know that you should be skeptical of this.

So chances are you were probably indoctrinated that with this nonsense since you were a little kid.

Members of cult never think they're in a cult they just think everyone outside of it just doesn't know what reality is and there's actually special words for them some cults call us worldly or the unclean and you're called calls us deniers it's just all a fancy word for heretic.

The more people like you that post the more certain I become that this is a cult you don't even question this ****. You use fake emotional words like a dramatic you don't explain what that means or how it's dramatic.

I've been manipulated by this garbage before it won't happen anymore.

 

What will be, will be
It won't be a triumph of people.
It will be a triumph of faith and military and the harshest treatment of minorities.
Twas ever thus. When you scratch the surface humans are the two legged form of competing animals for territory and sex.

 

Is exactly what you said.. "Climate Change is a Doomsday cult" if memory serves. ? that would definately be personification .

 

I think you're just being persnickety with language and that's kind of something someone with a weak position that they can't defend would do so I'll just quietly take the win.

 

Not at all persnickety .. just pointing out the gaping holes in your arguments ..and/or lack of argument .. crushing your position and its defensives .. you running from the playground crying "persnickety" .. and telling your Mommy you won .. Thats funny .. har har har.

 

The devil is in the details. If Global Warming/Climate Change is a "cult", then it must be a science-based cult.

Global warming was predicted as early as 1896.

Factoid: Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. By the middle 1900s, systematic measurements began which confirmed that human-produced carbon dioxide was accumulating in the atmosphere and other earth systems, like forests and the oceans. In 1988 it was finally acknowledged that climate was warmer than any period since 1880. By the end of the 1900s and into the early 2000’s the Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change was solidified as evidence from thousands of ground-based studies and continuous satellite measurements of land and ocean mounted in number revealing the expected temperature increase.

As the following video illustrates also, the effects of CO2 were known in the 1930's, and global warming (and its effects) was predicted in the 1950's, long before the development of computer modeling.

The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC


----------------------------------------------------

Factoid: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and various chlorofluorocarbons are all human-emitted heat-trapping gases. Among these, CO2 is of greatest concern to scientists because it exerts a larger overall warming influence than the other gases combined. The three main causes of global warming are: (1) Burning fossil fuels, (2) deforestation and (3) farming livestock.

Additional causes include population explosion, destruction of marine ecosystems and city development.

Earth's plant-life & oceans have been able to absorb much of the excess CO2 & heat (so far) which is why we're still alive. Do you see why we need to take care of our habitat?

----------------------------------------------------

As far as more modern predictions based on empirically & data-derived computer modeling, the models have been back-tested and shown to be quite reliable.

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
QUOTE: The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been? Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate. [...] The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections. [SOURCE]

Scientists can test how well climate models perform.
QUOTE: Scientists have been studying climate change for more than 50 years. Climate models have gotten better and better over time. One way to test how well models perform is to look at older models and see if their predictions came true. A study of 17 climate models going back to the early 1970s found that most of the models did a good job of predicting temperatures in the decades ahead. [SOURCE]

Scientists are more confident about some projections and less confident about others.
QUOTE: What is far less certain are the aspects of climate change that depend on people’s behavior. How much greenhouse gas will people add to the atmosphere, and how fast? Will people be able to adapt to climate changes? The answers depend on technology, economics, and policy. Because scientists cannot know the answers to these questions, they come up with a range of plausible scenarios and derive what outcomes might be expected from them.

Through observations and with the help of models, scientists are very certain that:

* Earth’s temperature is getting warmer due to human activity
* The impacts of climate change will be more costly and harmful the longer we wait to reduce emissions
* Climate models accurately reflect the main ways that greenhouse gases affect Earth’s climate system at the global level

Scientists are less certain about:
* Exactly how various emission scenarios will translate into local climate conditions
* Whether the climate might change in ways that did not occur in the past or that scientists have not been able to study because there are no records [SOURCE]

 

You're not pointing out any holes in my argument. You're getting lost in minutiae.

 

not really. The globe has been warning for 25,000 years.

The unscience-based cult religious belief comes in where you think it's all the sudden serious issue the only way to solve it is with government authoritarianism and that if we don't act in the next couple of months or years or whatever that there's going to be a point of no return.

None of the religious crap is based at all in the slightest on science. Part of the cult is believing that it is.