So...Why Didn't The Rapture Happen?

[McSpunckle]

The great thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it.

Don't try to equate science to religion. They're complete opposites. If you disproved global warming, I would change my mind. Happily. But you're going to need more than some asinine argument that's completely devoid of facts and evidence. And Darwin V. Lamarck? Seriously? Nobody is still arguing that.

And we're not all vehemently against religion. Some of my closest friends are Christians. While my atheist friends were getting stoned, they were in Mississippi helping victims of Katrina, or helping people after the floods here, or volunteering basically anywhere they can help. They're great people, and I have nothing but respect for them and their faith. But they aren't sitting around on a message boards pretending windmills and energy efficient lightbulbs somehow diminish our freedom and wealth.

In conclusion:

[bubstance]

.

[plhogan]

I don't know what's worse, the strawman that all Christians are indignant assholes who blindly moralize and push their faith on everyone or the evil environmentalists who are only concerned with destroying the American Dream.

Are these really the people you encounter in your day to day lives? Or are you painting the entire opposition that way to support your argument?

[bubstance]

.

[plhogan]

That post wasn't directed at you, those questions at the end were rhetorical. Your post didnt even exist when I started writing.

Even if it were though I don't understand what you mean.

[bubstance]

.

[Gearmond]

i'm convinced that the internet is a sort of great equalizer.

atheists are usually more annoying/vocal online than in real life, and protestants/catholics are usually more annoying/vocal in real life.


both are generalizations, but one can be proven by going on any internet forum, the other you must seek out the vocal ones.

[Blackened Soul]

i'm convinced that the internet is a sort of great equalizer.

atheists are usually more annoying/vocal online than in real life, and protestants/catholics are usually more annoying/vocal in real life.


both are generalizations, but one can be proven by going on any internet forum, the other you must seek out the vocal ones.

I agree, actually. Of course I come from a catholic family so I'm a bit biased. I have to say though the one nice thing about online is you can go "click" and the page magically disappears and you can go about your day unfettered

[Gearmond]

and you can also ignore the noisy religious.

who often times are condemned for their methods in their own damn scripture.

thats why i don't worry about 'em too much.

[dubkitty]

science and religion are supposed to work differently. in the real world one can see that many use or interpret science in the same way that fundamentalists use religion: they treat particular texts or data sets as dicta (and resist outside analysis of those core documents, cf. the Mann climate documents which have been as closely guarded as the design of LDS undergarments), regard dissent from revealed truth as heresy, treat unbelievers and their works as evil, and attempt to use law and social engineering to force their beliefs on the public as a whole.

[dubkitty]

why no Rapture? as i alluded to earlier, i don't really think it even matters. for the preponderant majority of humans it's not going to matter when the Day of Judgement is, assuming there even is one...99% of us are just gonna be hanging around the airport waiting anyhow.

[McSpunckle]

science and religion are supposed to work differently. in the real world one can see that many use or interpret science in the same way that fundamentalists use religion: they treat particular texts or data sets as dicta (and resist outside analysis of those core documents, cf. the Mann climate documents which have been as closely guarded as the design of LDS undergarments), regard dissent from revealed truth as heresy, treat unbelievers and their works as evil, and attempt to use law and social engineering to force their beliefs on the public as a whole.

What are they forcing on you, exactly? That's the part of the argument I don't get. Even if global warming is a hoax (it's not), nobody is -making- you do anything, and everything that's suggested actually ends up saving you money in the long term (like energy efficient appliances). Moreover, coal mining is filthy, as is extraction and use of all fossil fuels. What's the harm in eliminating them in favour of alternatives that are far better for the immediate environment, not just in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

It's the same argument as when the FDA lowered salt recommendations, and the conservatives said the government was trying to control what we ate. It's a recommendation, not a mandate.

But I digress. I have to go to work-- under my $25 a piece LED light bulbs.

[Blackened Soul]

science and religion are supposed to work differently. in the real world one can see that many use or interpret science in the same way that fundamentalists use religion: they treat particular texts or data sets as dicta (and resist outside analysis of those core documents, cf. the Mann climate documents which have been as closely guarded as the design of LDS undergarments), regard dissent from revealed truth as heresy, treat unbelievers and their works as evil, and attempt to use law and social engineering to force their beliefs on the public as a whole.