Where do religious folk who are climate deniers reconcile this?

[cnm]

With regard to manufacturing this piece of machinery he obviously is.

But then he is inferior with regard to making fire from two pieces of wood or making a blow pipe.

 

[cnm]

Creation is evidence of a creator.

You don't know that. Stop being so scared.

 

[cnm]

Got one? But I won't accept the universe exists just because it does. Nothing that we know of or can point to "just exists".

You're too scared to accept 'We don't know'.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

But then he is inferior with regard to making fire from two pieces of wood or making a blow pipe.

You mean the bicycle maker, I assume? Yeah. He is. So what?

 

[Dr Grump]

A rain forest tribesman who one day finds a bicycle (that has washed down the Amazon), that he has no idea at all what such a thing could be would naturally, logically and with good reason think this thing was designed and made, for some reason he can't possibly fathom, by a superior being.
He would of course be correct though he would have no way of knowing there was no deity involved.

That makes him much smarter and superior to you to who sees the whole universe around you and sees no point, purpose or reason for it at all. It's just there because it's there. Period.

You have the yearning seeking mind of a Doberman Pinscher.

I used to be a police man. I once asked a dog handler why they didn't use Doberman's as police dogs (we use German Shepherd's) because I thought them more ferocious and more likely to make an offender think twice about doing something stupid. He said they had thought about using them, but they were too smart. They point blank refused to attack anybody with a firearm.

At the end of the day, the Amazonian tribesman, if he so wished, could be shown the source of the bike and how it was made.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You don't know that. Stop being so scared.

You don't know otherwise either and of the two theories, creation without a creator and creation that necessarily needs a creator, your view makes about as much sense as chocolate filled rat poison candies.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You're too scared to accept 'We don't know'.

You're repeating yourself. I assume that of the few ideas you have you've already run out of steam. That's unfortunate.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I used to be a police man. I once asked a dog handler why they didn't use Doberman's as police dogs (we use German Shepherd's) because I thought them more ferocious and more likely to make an offender think twice about doing something stupid. He said they had thought about using them, but they were too smart. They point blank refused to attack anybody with a firearm.

At the end of the day, the Amazonian tribesman, if he so wished, could be shown the source of the bike and how it was made.

It's my illustration and we haven't gotten to the end of the day. I could choose lots of different ways to illustrate my point.

The point is people, not atheists, can't conceive of something that has no source or serves no purpose. What thinking component therefore do atheists lack?
And why do they fear the concept of a supreme being?

 

[Dr Grump]

No, you believe. You don't know for a fact. Nobody does. If it is fact, show your god to me. And please, no cop out about how i have to believe in him for him to show himself to me.

I surmise. I Intuit. I logically deduce and empirically infer. You are intellectually dead so how can anyone show you anything?

You don't want to know and you don't want to use your sense of reason, if you have one at all.
You only believe in what you can hold in your hand or be shown.

What is logical about believing in a being that goes abracadabra and suddenly everything is there? I am intellectually curious. Just because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't mean I am not curious of the world. To say so like you did, is intellectually vacuous.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Trump's greatest accomplishment has been to wake people up to the slow usurpation of America by globalists and MItt Romney-type scum.
Guys like Bush and Romney can't wait for America to truly die so they can loot and exploit it like a spoiled heir goes to bed every night hoping the old man will be dead by morning so they can start to greedily take what they don't deserve or didn't help build.

You should have said from the outset you were a conspiracy theorist. Would have saved us both a lot of wasted time.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'll be happy to hear anyone who has a better hypothesis than a super intelligent being is responsible for all of creation.
Got one? But I won't accept the universe exists just because it does. Nothing that we know of or can point to "just exists".

I could actually believe a superior alien race might have something to do with it (although, currently knowing what we know about the time/space it is almost impossible), but not some omnipotent being. That is ridiculous.

As to your point - why, yes, it is called evolution.

 

[Dr Grump]

I used to be a police man. I once asked a dog handler why they didn't use Doberman's as police dogs (we use German Shepherd's) because I thought them more ferocious and more likely to make an offender think twice about doing something stupid. He said they had thought about using them, but they were too smart. They point blank refused to attack anybody with a firearm.

At the end of the day, the Amazonian tribesman, if he so wished, could be shown the source of the bike and how it was made.

It's my illustration and we haven't gotten to the end of the day. I could choose lots of different ways to illustrate my point.

The point is people, not atheists, can't conceive of something that has no source or serves no purpose. What thinking component therefore do atheists lack?
And why do they fear the concept of a supreme being?

Fear the concept of a supreme being? Hell, no, I would love there to be one. Seriously. That would certainly put a lot of questions to bed.
And I think I could more likely than not blow any illustrative point you have out the window.

As cnm said, it seems you fear the unknown so therefore have to make up some superior being to explain things when all I see is billions of years of chemical reactions.

As for Einstein, so he thought there was a god (apparently according to you). And? He is but a mere mortal.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What is logical about believing in a being that goes abracadabra and suddenly everything is there? I am intellectually curious. Just because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't mean I am not curious of the world. To say so like you did, is intellectually vacuous.

Oh, breaking out the atheist memes now? Classic. Mockery is always a real good way of winning a debate (in junior high).

Sorry if I can't conceive of something that covers the existence of everything we all know, see and experience.
Did you read my other posts on the matter? Come up with a better explanation and I'll change my views.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You should have said from the outset you were a conspiracy theorist. Would have saved us both a lot of wasted time.

You call it a conspiracy. Not me. It's just the elite jealousy regarding their set up.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I could actually believe a superior alien race might have something to do with it (although, currently knowing what we know about the time/space it is almost impossible), but not some omnipotent being. That is ridiculous.

As to your point - why, yes, it is called evolution.

Didn't you hear? Evolution has been debunked by Charles Darwin's own measuring stick.
Read Dr. Stephen Meyer on the matter. It's called science.

 

[Dr Grump]

What is logical about believing in a being that goes abracadabra and suddenly everything is there? I am intellectually curious. Just because I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't mean I am not curious of the world. To say so like you did, is intellectually vacuous.

Oh, breaking out the atheist memes now? Classic. Mockery is always a real good way of winning a debate (in junior high).

Sorry if I can't conceive of something that covers the existence of everything we all know, see and experience.
Did you read my other posts on the matter? Come up with a better explanation and I'll change my views.

Mockery? You mean comparing me to a Doberman wasn't?

Unlike you assertion of a god, at least there is scientific evidence of evolution.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Fear the concept of a supreme being? Hell, no, I would love there to be one. Seriously. That would certainly put a lot of questions to bed.
And I think I could more likely than not blow any illustrative point you have out the window.

As cnm said, it seems you fear the unknown so therefore have to make up some superior being to explain things when all I see is billions of years of chemical reactions.

Yes. He's said that over and over so I guess that makes it so despite
my own knowledge of my own feelings on the matter. But I guess you think you know better.

As for Einstein, so he thought there was a god (apparently according to you).

Not according to me. According to Einstein himself. He believed in the God that Baruch Spinoza spoke of. Crack a book and see.

And? He is but a mere mortal.

And what are you? An exceptional omniscient being? No.....that would make you God, in all likelihood. Yes, he is but a mortal with a few insights and knowledge you will never ever match or even begin to know of. It's one of the the insights that makes me think I am on the right track, unlike atheists.

 

[Dr Grump]

I could actually believe a superior alien race might have something to do with it (although, currently knowing what we know about the time/space it is almost impossible), but not some omnipotent being. That is ridiculous.

As to your point - why, yes, it is called evolution.

Didn't you hear? Evolution has been debunked by Charles Darwin's own measuring stick.
Read Dr. Stephen Meyer on the matter. It's called science.

I think it's called pseudoscience (my bold)
Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia

Meyer for ignoring much of the fossil record and instead focusing on a later stage to give the impression that all Cambrian life forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. In contrast, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' were typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the God the gaps argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.

This is all I need to know about Meyer.

Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the puesdoscientific and philosophical principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.

 

[Dr Grump]

And what are you? An exceptional omniscient being? No.....that would make you God, in all likelihood. Yes, he is but a mortal with a few insights and knowledge you will never ever match or even begin to know of. It's one of the the insights that makes me think I am on the right track, unlike atheists.

your appeal to authority is noted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Religious people do not deny climate change.
They know about why it's happing in the Bible.
Hint: It is not about fossil fuels.
It's about the world turning from God and becoming lawless.
But no one wants to hear or believe that.
Same thing happened when Noah warned them about the flood.
They would not believe it until it was too late.

The greed involved in the fossil fuel industry caused us, for one nation, to abandon building fuel efficient or electronic transportation and this is what has caused climate change. Greed is ungodly and the manner in which nations have put in lawless governments to control the resources increased the godless behavior. And now we face the penalty.

What nation had abandoned fuel efficiency?
Not the USA
We are merging and cooperating with natural gas, cleaner burning coal, wind and solar.

Energy.gov
Today, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced the selection of 35 projects totaling $73 million for bioenergy research and development (R&D). Funded through the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, these projects will help reduce the price of drop-in biofuels, lower the cost of biopower, and enable high-value products from biomass or waste resources.


DOE Announces Intent to Issue New Funding Opportunity for Tribal Energy Infrastructure Development
there are more listed and these are just the recent ones .

We started working on electric cars in the 70's due to the embargo but stopped. No doubt this was due to the oil lobby. So we could have had battery powered cars 25-30 years ago or at least hybrids.

The next logical step after gasoline powered engines was hybrids. But the powers that be went to electric also. If we vested our energy on hybrids they would be most of the autos sold today. Also I really do not trust the system as W. Bush pushed hydrogen powered vehicles and as soon as the Progs took over they nixed it. I wonder what lobby did that with the Progs in charge?

Yawn. Republicans were in power for 6 out of the 8 years Bush 2 was in office. And Bush 2 was an oil man.

Actually retard it was 4 of 8 years. Get your facts straight and of those 4 he never had more then 51 senators.