(January 11, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Drich Wrote:(January 8, 2016 at 2:25 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Your fundamental dishonesty continues to amaze. I know damn well you have seen the difference between agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist explained, so your last sentence is either another of your straw men or incontrovertible evidence that your comprehension is close to nil.
And evidence-based reasoning is now conformity? Perhaps. Conformity to reality. But group think? That's your territory, Sport.
I suppose that means your fellow Christians, who believe on insufficient evidence (at least those who haven't risen to the self-serving standards you outline in your A/S/K talking points) are what -- mavericks because they don't care about good evidence?
Ah, so your the snow flake. I knew I felt a chill in the air, thought it to be alpo, but now after your statment I see that your the one.
Again evidence based reasoning is not the issue. It is the conformity to use 'science' as a crutch. a "god of the gaps" in reverse to fill or filter/interpret all the evidence your world view provides in such away as to 'kill' God. As if one world view (science) precluded the other(God). It's the fact that all 'thought and reasoning based on 'evidence' stops at the feet of science and theory. and is not examined any further, that what makes you a conformist. You don't even know how to look past what science serves up critically.
Science says: Global Ice age by 2000 You buy a heavier coat, then in 2000 it says Global warming you buy sunblock, now it says global climate change your buying Al gore's Carbon credits to off set your carbon foot print.. Why? because this is the same science that 'killed god' and allowed you to live as an atheist. So now you worship and serve this new master, just not with those terms, oh, no that would have defeated the point of killing God to begin with.
Your every post is more nonsensical than the last, Snowflake. I'm the one who has trouble distinguishing between science as serving up provisional theories based on the evidence and accepting science as "Gospel truth" as you averred in a previous post? That's a fucking laugh. I have yet to see a shred of evidence from you that you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, so I wouldn't be too quick to make assumptions about what other people do or don't understand about science, my little semi-literate one-book pony.
Your last paragraph is especially cute since you are apparently completely unaware of how the global cooling "predictions" were largely the result of sloppy science journalism. As for climate science in general, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you are as willfully ignorant of that as you seem to be about virtually every other aspect of science I've seen you comment on.
Oh, and for the record, I have no particular dog in the fight on whether a god exists or not. Hence "agnostic atheist". Once you assholes provide something like good reasons for believing, I'll believe, Snowflake. What do you have, other than your usual self-serving A/S/K talking points?
