Scot Dutchy wrote:Thinking long term was he. FFS.

Alan B wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thinking long term was he. FFS.

Oh, I dunno? 6000 years isn't all that long...

OlivierK wrote:

If it were true that the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas did have a significant negative effect on our environment, it would make sense for us to modify our behavior. But it appears that we are just in the upper range of a natural temperature cycle. It is not at all clear that the small amount of additional CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is detrimental to the environment. It is humbling to remember that when God was judging the earth with a global flood that He was creating inexpensive fuel sources for future generations.

Dr Alan White @ AiG

tolman wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

If it were true that the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas did have a significant negative effect on our environment, it would make sense for us to modify our behavior. But it appears that we are just in the upper range of a natural temperature cycle. It is not at all clear that the small amount of additional CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is detrimental to the environment. It is humbling to remember that when God was judging the earth with a global flood that He was creating inexpensive fuel sources for future generations.

Dr Alan White @ AiG

And this is coming from someone who's a qualified chemist, and doesn't really have the partial excuse of ignorance some people have.

I wonder, would he knowingly misrepresent science just for money, as well as for religion and personal convenience?

Scot Dutchy wrote:Why not. These days people do anything for money.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

tolman wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

If it were true that the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas did have a significant negative effect on our environment, it would make sense for us to modify our behavior. But it appears that we are just in the upper range of a natural temperature cycle. It is not at all clear that the small amount of additional CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels is detrimental to the environment. It is humbling to remember that when God was judging the earth with a global flood that He was creating inexpensive fuel sources for future generations.

Dr Alan White @ AiG

And this is coming from someone who's a qualified chemist, and doesn't really have the partial excuse of ignorance some people have.

I wonder, would he knowingly misrepresent science just for money, as well as for religion and personal convenience?

Why not. These days people do anything for money.

ANUNNAKI: LEGACY OF THE GODS: Internet Radio Show

Interviewer and Irish megalithic site investigator JAMES SWAGGART queries Anthropologist Sasha Alex Lessin and Advanced Beings researcher Janet Kira Lessin on the giant seemingly immortal Anunnaki, who told the Sumerians they were gods. Click the arrow on the icon below to hear the show.

The Anunnaki came from the planet Nibiru to Earth 450,000 years ago to mine gold to send back to Nibiru and powder into an atmospheric shield for Nibiru.

300,000 years ago, they added copper, clay and a few Homo Erectus genes to their genome to adapt it for a race of slaves–that’s us– to mine and then slave for them.

They interbred with us, involved us in recurrent wars, let the Deluge of 10,500 years ago drown most of us and wiped out many of us in their own cities in nuclear strikes and fallout.

Most Anunnaki left Earth by 600 BCE or so, but some stayed and, through the line of us they favored–the planetary oligarchy–rule still, though covertly and enforce the Anunnaki policies of war, debt, derogation of women, slavery and greed that they implanted thousands of years ago and still implement on Earth.

ANUNNAKI gODS CREATED DOGMA,PATRIOTISM, RELIGION & FANACTICISM TO ADDICT YOU TO THEM
.
by Janet Kira Lessin, Founder, World Peace Association
.
When the Anunnaki gods created war they also created political fanaticism and religion to secure loyalty and alliances with their branded people (foreskin or no foreskin on their penises) to their gods. These are systems of mind control--psychological manipulation utilizing guilt and shame around food, sex and pleasure, a system that acts like a virus infecting families through generations that continue to this day.

The point that destroys atheism. ... Atheism has no evidence.

There is zero logical evidence to conclude there is no God.
There is zero logical evidence for all of atheists scenarios ( fsm, pink unicorn, flying teacup... Etc)
There is zero logical evidence to conclude that if a fsm does not exist there is no God.
There is zero logical evidence to even conclude that is a logical argument.
Sum total of atheist evidence: zero
Sum total of atheist logic: zero

Therefore the atheist asks: do you have evidence?

Problem: atheist has no consistent standard to measure evidence.. Which leads to dismissal of evidence contrary to their presuppositions

Therefore because of the unfounded belief there is no God the atheist is biased towards all evidence for God. Dismissing all evidence for God through inconsistent and lying standards.

So the atheist with no evidence for God and no evidence against God decides in his self proclaimed wisdom to believe their is no God

Therefore since the belief claim was made in ignorance... To be atheist, to even claim agnostic atheist is simply the supreme height of ignorance.

The bible speaks well of the fool who says there is no God. They are fools.. Willingly ignorant fools.

Atheism is the protest of the ignorant.

Aca wrote:beat this, heathen

The point that destroys atheism. ... Atheism has no evidence.

There is zero logical evidence to conclude there is no God.
There is zero logical evidence for all of atheists scenarios ( fsm, pink unicorn, flying teacup... Etc)
There is zero logical evidence to conclude that if a fsm does not exist there is no God.
There is zero logical evidence to even conclude that is a logical argument.
Sum total of atheist evidence: zero
Sum total of atheist logic: zero

Therefore the atheist asks: do you have evidence?

Problem: atheist has no consistent standard to measure evidence.. Which leads to dismissal of evidence contrary to their presuppositions

Therefore because of the unfounded belief there is no God the atheist is biased towards all evidence for God. Dismissing all evidence for God through inconsistent and lying standards.

So the atheist with no evidence for God and no evidence against God decides in his self proclaimed wisdom to believe their is no God

Therefore since the belief claim was made in ignorance... To be atheist, to even claim agnostic atheist is simply the supreme height of ignorance.

The bible speaks well of the fool who says there is no God. They are fools.. Willingly ignorant fools.

Atheism is the protest of the ignorant.

Agrippina wrote:Yesterday the leader of our opposition party caused a storm among her atheist voters with this nonsense on twitter:

Calilasseia wrote:

Aca wrote:beat this, heathen

The point that destroys atheism. ... Atheism has no evidence.

There is zero logical evidence to conclude there is no God.
There is zero logical evidence for all of atheists scenarios ( fsm, pink unicorn, flying teacup... Etc)
There is zero logical evidence to conclude that if a fsm does not exist there is no God.
There is zero logical evidence to even conclude that is a logical argument.
Sum total of atheist evidence: zero
Sum total of atheist logic: zero

Therefore the atheist asks: do you have evidence?

Problem: atheist has no consistent standard to measure evidence.. Which leads to dismissal of evidence contrary to their presuppositions

Therefore because of the unfounded belief there is no God the atheist is biased towards all evidence for God. Dismissing all evidence for God through inconsistent and lying standards.

So the atheist with no evidence for God and no evidence against God decides in his self proclaimed wisdom to believe their is no God

Therefore since the belief claim was made in ignorance... To be atheist, to even claim agnostic atheist is simply the supreme height of ignorance.

The bible speaks well of the fool who says there is no God. They are fools.. Willingly ignorant fools.

Atheism is the protest of the ignorant.

Who the fuck posted this retarded shit? Let me guess ... it was on Facebook. A favourite place for religiotards to condemn their keyboard electrons to eternal damnation by stupidity.

Shrunk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Yesterday the leader of our opposition party caused a storm among her atheist voters with this nonsense on twitter:

WTF does that even mean? That she thinks atheists don't believe theists exist?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Yesterday the leader of our opposition party caused a storm among her atheist voters with this nonsense on twitter:

WTF does that even mean? That she thinks atheists don't believe theists exist?

Looks to me like she's saying atheists don't believe that theists believe. Which I guess would mean that they think theists don't exist. Not sure where she's getting that from, I totally accept that she believes idiotic mumbo-jumbo. Guess that means I'm not a fundamentalist?

Agrippina wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Yesterday the leader of our opposition party caused a storm among her atheist voters with this nonsense on twitter:

WTF does that even mean? That she thinks atheists don't believe theists exist?

Looks to me like she's saying atheists don't believe that theists believe. Which I guess would mean that they think theists don't exist. Not sure where she's getting that from, I totally accept that she believes idiotic mumbo-jumbo. Guess that means I'm not a fundamentalist?

I used to think she was a pretty well-educated person, and also liberal, based on her activism in the 1970s and 80s. It seems that maturity has turned her into yet another privileged, and bigoted, white person. Note the way the "servant" has to travel on the trailer behind the vehicle and not inside with the "boss." That on top of her rant about "atheist fundamentalists" which is a euphemism for "terrorists." She doesn't want to say that in case she alienates the muslims who are voting for her party because of the failure of the ruling party to deliver. So she'll attack the only minority group that will never have a voice because even though we are free to not believe, our children, in government schools, are not exposed to world-view ideas. She knows there will never be a liberal party of freethinking, educated people, so she'll go for that group, the few that there are. She did bring down the wrath of that minority on her head though, and then backtracked, removing the tweets, and offering some half-baked apology about being "misunderstood." Stupid person. I'm not voting for her anymore. I'm going to vote for the guys in red overalls just to piss her off.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Yesterday the leader of our opposition party caused a storm among her atheist voters with this nonsense on twitter:

WTF does that even mean? That she thinks atheists don't believe theists exist?

Looks to me like she's saying atheists don't believe that theists believe. Which I guess would mean that they think theists don't exist. Not sure where she's getting that from, I totally accept that she believes idiotic mumbo-jumbo. Guess that means I'm not a fundamentalist?