Science Is/As A Religion

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't speak for STH, but it seems pretty clear that he thinks its the work of fanatics, but he doesn't think it has anything to do with religion. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

You can't even speak for yourself, yet you never have any problem trying to put words into other peoples mouths. Do you think that might be a sign of schizophrenia or some other delusional mental illness?

I see you're still trying to avoid the question.

Am I? Or am I just picking at the sore that is named Sangha?

 

[Madeline]

You can't even speak for yourself, yet you never have any problem trying to put words into other peoples mouths. Do you think that might be a sign of schizophrenia or some other delusional mental illness?

I see you're still trying to avoid the question.

Am I? Or am I just picking at the sore that is named Sangha?

Who is impugning the mental stability of my friend Quantum Windbag?

Dun be such an ass, sangha.

 

[sangha]

One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them

 

[Madeline]

One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them

Did you really think this qualified as debate?

 

[sangha]

If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.

 

[Madeline]

If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.

You are wrong. He is an excellent debater. Stop behaving childishly here, and if he has tagged you for being wrong, then admit it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them

Did you really think this qualified as debate?

Give him a break, you are talking to Sangha.

 

[Madeline]

One doesn't pick at sores. One picks at scabs, and yes, I've left you with many scabs from many wounds so you probably are picking at them

Did you really think this qualified as debate?

Give him a break, you are talking to Sangha.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Intimidated? Charitable?

WTF is this guy?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I see you're still trying to avoid the question.

Am I? Or am I just picking at the sore that is named Sangha?

Who is impugning the mental stability of my friend Quantum Windbag?

Dun be such an ass, sangha.

windbag is impugning sangha's mental stability.

windbag is the ass. take it up with your friend windbag.

 

[L.K.Eder]

If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.

You are wrong. He is an excellent debater. Stop behaving childishly here, and if he has tagged you for being wrong, then admit it.

wtf is this shit, windbag is a windbag. if windbag tags someone for being wrong, then this has zero consequence. and it certainly does not mean that that someone is in fact wrong.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag. What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion? It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?

Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?

Well, seeing as I JUST stated in the very post you quoted that you can't distinguish this as political fanaticism or religious fanaticism, I think it's safe to assume I do believe the clip is the work of fanatics. As that other person mentioned: you're just avoiding the question and your mistake now.

The clip is absolutely fanaticism. What part of it do you interpret as RELIGIOUS, as you originally claimed it was?

 

[sangha]

You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag. What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion? It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?

Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?

Well, seeing as I JUST stated in the very post you quoted that you can't distinguish this as political fanaticism or religious fanaticism, I think it's safe to assume I do believe the clip is the work of fanatics. As that other person mentioned: you're just avoiding the question and your mistake now.

The clip is absolutely fanaticism. What part of it do you interpret as RELIGIOUS, as you originally claimed it was?

 

[HUGGY]

If QW is involved, it can't possibly be a debate.

You are wrong. He is an excellent debater. Stop behaving childishly here, and if he has tagged you for being wrong, then admit it.

Did you just call The Windbag a Masterbater???? That was childish!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You never elaborated, Quantum Windbag. What part of the youtube clip you posted has anything to do with religion? It's foolish that you are still incapable of distinguishing between religious and political fanaticism. Do you need me to post the definitions of "religion" again for you?

Are you trying to say that YouTube clip is not the work of fanatics?

Well, seeing as I JUST stated in the very post you quoted that you can't distinguish this as political fanaticism or religious fanaticism, I think it's safe to assume I do believe the clip is the work of fanatics. As that other person mentioned: you're just avoiding the question and your mistake now.

The clip is absolutely fanaticism. What part of it do you interpret as RELIGIOUS, as you originally claimed it was?

Remember the post where I said that Al Gore's disciples wanted to kill people who disagree with them, and you replied along the lines that he doesn't want to kill anyone? I can easily point out that Jesus never wanted to kill anyone, yet I would not attempt to deny that the people who follow him have not only killed, but did so in his name.

Labeling fanatics as being either religious or political trivializes the whole thing. In reality fanatics are religious about their beliefs, and religious fanatics are often extremely political. Where exactly do you draw the line between religion and political fanaticism?

Your prime criteria for a religion is a belief in the supernatural. Actually, I think you want religion to include belief in a Supreme Being, but I can easily point to many religions that believe in spirits, but do not believe in a Supreme Being. I am not sure how you can reconcile your insistence in belief in the supernatural with the existence of Buddhism, but that is your problem, not mine.

The disciples of anthropomorphic global warming believe that man and the emission of carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming, and that the result of this warming is the imminent loss of the Artic ice cap, the melting of all the ice in Greenland, and a catastrophic rise in sea level that will result in the loss of many coastal cities. If you think I am making any of this up I would point you to An Inconvenient Truth. That movie is full of lies and deliberate misrepresentations of fact, which has been proven in court, yet it is still touted as truth and pointed to as gospel.

The disciples of the prophet of AGW, aka Al Gore, are calling for everyone to convert to their belief, despite the fact that it is not based in truth, and insisting that they are the only people who know the Truth. They pray to gods that others will believe in the wisdom they lay out, and call for the death of non believers.

I am still waiting for you to define religion in such a way that it includes Scientology, which believes that all gods are ascended from lesser beings, essentially form us, and rejects the, as an organization, the specific requirement to believe in either a god, or even gods, yet somehow excludes AGW and its disciples.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Remember the post where I said that Al Gore's disciples wanted to kill people who disagree with them, and you replied along the lines that he doesn't want to kill anyone?

Not really.

Labeling fanatics as being either religious or political trivializes the whole thing. In reality fanatics are religious about their beliefs, and religious fanatics are often extremely political. Where exactly do you draw the line between religion and political fanaticism?

In the definition of the two words religion and politics. Once again you seem to exhibit your lack of understanding if you need to question where to draw the line between the two. You are correct in stating that religious people can and often do try to push their beliefs into the political realm, but that does NOT make them equal, and the opposite is not true. You don't see completely unrelated people pushing their political beliefs into religious groups of which they don't belong. Just because they share one thing in common does not make them equal, and your insinuation of such is poorly placed.

Your prime criteria for a religion is a belief in the supernatural. Actually, I think you want religion to include belief in a Supreme Being, but I can easily point to many religions that believe in spirits, but do not believe in a Supreme Being.

Actually I made no such claim. What my "criteria" is for religion is well stated in the DICTIONARY and ENCYCLOPEDIA definitions of the word. If you want to read those definitions you are struggling with as spirits, supreme being, or magic elves, be my guest. But then it's still your responsibility to back your claim and point out what part of that POLITICAL video contains relations to said spirits, supreme beings, magic elves, or any other aspect contained within the defined realm of RELIGION.

The disciples of anthropomorphic global warming believe that man and the emission of carbon dioxide is the sole cause of global warming, and that the result of this warming is the imminent loss of the Artic ice cap, the melting of all the ice in Greenland, and a catastrophic rise in sea level that will result in the loss of many coastal cities. If you think I am making any of this up I would point you to An Inconvenient Truth.

I honestly don't really care. You could tell me they are claiming the world is turning to cheese and are pushing THAT as factual. It STILL has nothing to do with religion.

The disciples of the prophet of AGW, aka Al Gore, are calling for everyone to convert to their belief, despite the fact that it is not based in truth, and insisting that they are the only people who know the Truth. They pray to gods that others will believe in the wisdom they lay out, and call for the death of non believers.

This is YOU pushing religious themes on a non-religious topic by using words like disciples, prophet, convert, pray to gods, and non believers. In all actuality, people who agree with Al Gore do not believe him to be a prophet. That's you pushing your ideas, not accurately representing their ideas. So again I ask: what part of the video contains RELIGIOUS tones? You are very good at complaining about the question, but not very good at answering it.

I am still waiting for you to define religion in such a way that it includes Scientology, which believes that all gods are ascended from lesser beings, essentially form us, and rejects the, as an organization, the specific requirement to believe in either a god, or even gods, yet somehow excludes AGW and its disciples.

Please see the various dictionary and encyclopedic references I have already provided, as every single one of them applies to scientology.