Global Warming and Belief in God

[Dawkinsrocks]

Can't you just process a few thoughts in your own head and come up with a conclusion?

If ecstasy was a significant threat to life and if maybe a million people take it each weekend around the world, why isn't there carnage in the clubs?

The numbers speak for themselves.

If logic doesn't help try googling it.

I am sure you will get there

 

[PLC1]

Can't you just process a few thoughts in your own head and come up with a conclusion?

If ecstasy was a significant threat to life and if maybe a million people take it each weekend around the world, why isn't there carnage in the clubs?

The numbers speak for themselves.

If logic doesn't help try googling it.

I am sure you will get there

We know that tobacco is a significant threat to life, and that hundreds of millions of people worldwide are addicted to it. We also know that the effects aren't manifest until the addict has been smoking for years.

You say that you know that a million people take ecstasy, and maybe they do. I don't know. I'm not a part of the nightclub drug scene.

It's your argument, and I'm not even saying that you're wrong. What I'm saying is that you haven't proven it, and that googling it is not my responsibility. I support my arguments. You have done nothing to support yours.

Statements like this one:

Can't you just process a few thoughts in your own head and come up with a conclusion?

tell me that you don't have a real argument at all, at least not one you can support. Usually, personal attacks like the above indicate that the poster is totally devoid of logic and fact, and simply posting an unsupported opinion.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ecstasy has been around for over 20 years now.

Next

 

[PLC1]

Ecstasy has been around for over 20 years now.

Next

And? Can you substantiate the claim that people who have taken Ecstasy for 20 years have suffered no ill effects?

And while your at it, try to back this one up:

For example, most of the anti-drugs science is sponsored by the drinks industry because recreational drugs are a big threat to their revenues.

That's quite a claim. I would have thought that the "anti drug science", if it is biased at all, would be so because of government funding and the war on drugs.

But, that might not be right either. The government tends to base decisions on politics rather than on science anyway.

And even the "drinks industry", meaning, I suppose, the makers of alcoholic beverages, acknowledge that overuse of their products can cause some serious problems.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The answers are so obvious it is too tiresome to write them down

Sorry

 

[PLC1]

The answers are so obvious it is too tiresome to write them down

Sorry

Meaning, of course, that you have no way of supporting your arguments, or engaging in a real debate.

Here's the equation:

VO = O x SF

Where VO is the value of an opinion, O is the opinion, and SF is the number of supporting facts. Anything times zero is zero, of course, and that's the value of any unsupported opinions including yours.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ok, if you can't use a working knowledge of the world with some elementary logic try this.

Google number per annum of deaths from taking ecstasy. Then google number of deaths per annum from eating peanuts.

Then compare the two numbers.

If you need further help (that I am qualified to give) come back to me.

 

[PLC1]

Ok, if you can't use a working knowledge of the world with some elementary logic try this.

Google number per annum of deaths from taking ecstasy. Then google number of deaths per annum from eating peanuts.

Then compare the two numbers.

If you need further help (that I am qualified to give) come back to me.

Sorry, kid, I'm not doing your homework for you.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It is not my homework

Most rational people know that if ecstasy was a real big killer it would be in the news.

It isn't

 

[Shotgun314159]

No one can prove God.
I can prove 2+4=4.

I don't have to "believe" in science as a religion.
I can prove it.

Anyone that says sciene is a religion is a religious *****.
Trying to pull the rest if in your shiet "beliefs".

Tis CRAPOLA.

 

[GenSeneca]

Meaning, of course, that you have no way of supporting your arguments, or engaging in a real debate.

Here's the equation:

VO = O x SF

Where VO is the value of an opinion, O is the opinion, and SF is the number of supporting facts. Anything times zero is zero, of course, and that's the value of any unsupported opinions including yours.

And they just keep coming...

 

[Federal Farmer]

No one can prove God.

Are you prepared to DIS-prove God?

Tis CRAPOLA.

And you sling it just about as badly as any I've ever seen.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

That tired old nonesense about disproving god.

You can't prove that little green men didn't make the universe so I gues by FF's 'logic' he must believe that they did

 

[Shotgun314159]

I can prove 2+2=4

There is no "Belief System" required.
Science is not a Religion.
Anyone saying.

Science is the lefts Religion.
Is clueless.

Science is about facts.
God is about beliefs.

Global Warming is Real.
Man is contributing to it.
What you believe, is irrevelent.

Tis all about facts.
Sorry.

 

[PLC1]

I can prove 2+2=4

There is no "Belief System" required.
Science is not a Religion.
Anyone saying.

Science is the lefts Religion.
Is clueless.

Science is about facts.
God is about beliefs.

Global Warming is Real.
Man is contributing to it.
What you believe, is irrevelent.

Tis all about facts.
Sorry.

All of the above is correct, except for the first statement.

2 + 2 may = 4, or it may not.

If you mix 2 cups of water and 2 cups of dirt, you don't get four cups of mud.

Nothing is absolute, not ever.