In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Drich]

...and if people in general do not live in vrooms world???

Sorry Drich, but people do in general live in Vroom's world, because that is the world of normal human psychology.

Vroom describe a state of perpetual fear. fear of speaking out lest someone else says some thing bad. fear of independence and fear of none hive minded thinking. how is this normal? are you all so intrenced into a collective that vrooms vision of the world is accurate? if so it is already too late. I think vroom speaks to crushed people while in some cases like with islam they live out as a majority it is still regional and once people shed oppression then leave vroom's world behind!

I say this to say Atheists out of every group should be free from vrooms world free from oppressive and restrictive rules and worry free of back biting and being ratted out by others.

 If you're human, it applies.

maybe to some sub conscious degree or another. but I can honestly says I do not consciously live this way and neither does anyone else I know.

You might live differently and everybody you know does as well. unless you can show me something different I have to agree to disagree. you may see it I certainly dont' not in my life.

 As noted, it applies to many devout Muslims and there is nothing stressed or exceptional about that group.  It also applies to devout Hindus.  And devout Buddhists.  These are not abnormal subgroups, Drich, you're just trying to find a way to weasel out of admitting that you were wrong.  Which, btw, means that you have been bested concerning scripture, if you hadn't been before with the tohu/bohu nonsense, or Min's point about children on the ark.  Not that I expect to get an acknowledgement from you.  You appear constitutionally incapable of admitting that you were wrong.  

because in this case i am not. what does hindus buddhists or muslims have to do with CHRISTIAN SCRIPTuRES?!!? you exceptions speak to sub sets of people my Scripture/hence my world view set me free from!!! How can you of all people not draw to corrleation between my not living in vroom's little world and my experience with God? and as a result how other who do not have the same experience I have with God IE muslims buddhist and hindus live under the boots of their oppressive regimes?!!? There is a reason I am free from vroom's doom and gloom! That because loving God come with a broom!!! and I can sweep away all of vroom boom boom!

First of all, even if the article you quoted claimed that 1975 was the first article on global warming, that would only point to one of our two papers being wrong.  It wouldn't indicate which one was wrong.  So, by asserting that your paper proved mine wrong, you'd just be assuming that yours is right.

there is no right and wrong in my arguement. it is the fact that there are so many wrong nothing is right. as it is just a matter of time before what is said is proven wrong. there is fact, and there is what is being presented as fact today. which again point to faith.. if you has 1/2 as much faith in God as you do science you would have your proof of God. that's the point I make each and every time we discuss this.

 But then, I don't have to point that out to a genius like you, do I?  Even if your interpretation had been right regarding what your paper said, you would still have had to show that each paper cited by my article did not predict warming, and I rather doubt you would have done so. But fortunately we don't have to concern ourselves with such niceties as I have already pointed out that you are doubly wrong in interpreting your article as refuting the one I cited.  First, as noted in your paper itself, the 1975 paper wasn't the first to predict global warming, so your own article refutes you.

you are wrong it says it is not the first to predict co2 causing a rise in temp. the paper of 1975 is indeed the first mentioning of the term global warming!!!

 Second, as pointed out to you as well, the paper you cited did not claim that it was the first paper to predict a warming of the climate, only that it was the first the author could find that used the term "global warming" (and the search wasn't even conclusive, as noted, some of the papers cited in my article aren't even indexed by the database he used).  So, rather than proving you right, it simply proves that you have reading comprehension issues.  So, no, you are still wrong.  

i just said what yu said and i'm still wrong.. make sense i'll own up to being wrong if you do here.
[quote]
I'm not going to get into your rationalizations concerning primary and secondary sources because, as noted, I think they are just rationalizations you use to avoid being honest with yourself, and also, most times you end up being wrong anyway.  By the way, this bullshit about selective quoting is bullshit because in the cases I've brought, there was nothing selective about your quoting -- you were just plain claiming things that the article either didn't say, or about which the article said something contradictory.  That kind of selective quoting is called "lying" and "quoting out of context" respectively, both of which render your argument null and void.

this is not a rationalization this is how structured research is compiled. this is also how peer reviewed scrutiny is preformed. You always poop on what you do not understand. in 3 months you will beating me over the head with 2ndary and primary sources. just like when I introduced the lexicon and concordances to you backwards monkies. you pooped on me for weeks now I see you people use the very same materials!!!

This is nothig new, you can truly adit when I a right or am doing something 'smarter' than you do them of course not it f's with the persona you all have worked so hard to keep me under, so when I do make one mistake out of 10 you can blow things up as if nothing I say or do is ever correct... funny how that always work in one direction huh?

I am being fair.  You were attacking science, not what the media says science is.  

calling bull shit here. the two work together in 1980 even in 1990 there was no google there was no research there was no access to the 2 papers that said global warming was a possiblity when all of the media bombarded one with stories of doom and gloom, and the comming ice age. I remember one winter it got so cold in central Fl the ground literally froze. not to mention almost singal handedle wiped out our whole produce business in one winter. it changed the world I lived in people lost jobs it was the end and here we go to school field trip to the 'science center' to watch a film with captian kirk telling us of this ice age that we have comming...

If media and science were not working together then where was the objections? where was the the guys who wrote those two articles? in truth just like with the global warming clowns in 1998 (hottest summer ever and the state caught fire and burned for like 3 months) it made sense it would never get cold again. it just made sence and the media found every scientist they could put on tv or quote in a magazine article they could and sold it to EVERYONE just like what they are doing now. I'm sorry if you are too young to remember but I am not. i will not forget how everyone was preaching the sky was going to freeze over and 2/3 of everythign was going to be covered in snow!

If the media was wrong about what the science said, then it's doubly irrelevant.

then your an idiot.. if it was wrong then quoting the same 'scientific method' what makes you thik it is right now? has our track record improved?

 How society's general dependence on the media for information about science affects society's views on the science is an important question, but it's not the one under consideration.

because you know the bottom falls out of your arguement otherwise.

 And beyond the media representations, the science was generally available to anyone who wanted to examine it.  It's not like the science was only talked about in closed door meetings.  So, as to the question you raised with your satirical OP, it renders what the media said, as opposed to what science and scientists said, irrelevant.  If you don't understand that, then you don't even understand your own argument.

BULLSHIT! in 1980 there was n access to scientific research! are you too young to remember a time without google? did you not know the average person's exposure to scientific research began and ended with whatever the encyclopedia had to say?!?! if it was not in there they a trip to the science center to hear a lecture or to be placed on a quarterly news letter was it! and THEY WERE The ONES PLAYING THE SHATTNER ICE AGE VIDEO!!!

You are programed to skew information so you can proceed as if you are always right is yur problem you just edit and cut fact till your assertin is correct. look at all the cutting you had to do to what I said to appear correct AND THEN Demand I amit fault! I purposely set my situation with in a set of well defined parameters as those parameters demand a singular answer. You cut those parameters out and ou can reshape the facts any way you like.

I will not let you do that.

---

---

Now, given the utter crapfest of ignorance, mistakes, idiocy, and plain egotistical obstinance you've displayed so far, I'm not altogether sure if I will continue to respond.  In spite of yourself, you've managed to demonstrate only two things, a) that I have been for the most part engaging you constructively over the past year, contrary to your claims otherwise, and b) that you are every bit the deluded idiot that I have been maintaining that you are.

Feel free to respond or not, as you see fit.  I may or may not display a further retrenchment from constructively engaging you in future.

I understand. you do you.