The Chicken Little Religion

[PoliticalChic]

Yup….the sky is falling!

Or…how ‘science’ has become their version of a religion, based on required faith, rather than proof.



1.Another of those strange inconsistencies is that the fearful among us flock to the Death Party, the one based on nihilism and meaninglessness. They fear their own death, but embrace those doctrines in the Democrat Party. Weird.

Liberals, in my experience, are fearful folks who need the bodyguard of big government because they are vulnerable, battered emotional hypochondriacs....they need to insure themselves against every societal misadventure that could occur. They call that 'empathy,' but it's actually neurosis. They have some sort of metaphorical bullet lodged near their heart, just waiting for a slight move which will end it all! Thus, the overwhelming feeling of incipient failure, and apprehension. And, recognizing their own weakness, they lash out at those willing to depend on themselves.
Leftism....the real 'opium of the masses.'



2. Leftism is the most dynamic religion of the last hundred years, and, in fact, they apply the term ‘science’ to the religion. Hence, they are ‘science believers.’ Their use of the word science is simply one more way to hide the political basis of their beliefs, just as they us terms like feminism, transgenderism, racism, and, well, every sort of radicalism. All of the ‘isms’ have the same collectivist, statist last act for society. There is no real science behind the Leftist, Democrat, Progressive movement. It is simply assigning the word science to doctrinaire beliefs, faith, dogma. Let’s start with the ‘Green New Deal’ that all the candidates support:

“The Green New Deal aims to eliminate all internal combustion engines, meaning nothing but electric cars could be sold – but it's left unsaid how all the power would be generated.” Green New Deal: Airplanes and 'farting cows' out, Infrastructure $ in

No problem for their ‘science believers.’ Magic will replace them.



3. Fearing the fate that, deep down, they may feel they deserve, they reach out to a party and doctrine that promises all sorts of good things to believers, as though it’s the life-preserver they yearn for. Nowhere is the theme more evident than in the destruction threatened by the global warmists.

To give them their due, they do have the sort of intensity one saw in the early Christians, facing death in the Roman Coliseum….

“Nothing exemplifies the rise of “science believer” as a progressive identity like global warming doomsayers. There is so much more at stake for them than the exact measurements of how much hotter the earth has grown over the past hundred years. They are a persecuted minority that sees how close we are to disaster: cities destroyed, animals extinct, plagues rampant, and humankind barely hanging on. They know the end is coming, because they can feel it in their hearts. Everyone asking for more proof before being required to drive Flintstones-style foot-powered cars is oppressing them and should be silenced.”
Derek Hunter, “Outrage, Inc.”

But the hand-wringers are mollified by their science religion.


4. The same individual who opined that ‘religion is the opium of the masses,’ was behind globalization.
“It is no coincidence that man-made global warming, or climate change, or whatever it's called this week, got very popular as an issue just as the Soviet Union fell. It is the top-down centralized government's last best hope of controlling the masses. And like other forms of socialist totalitarian worldviews, it is a religion as well.”
The Religion of Global Warming



The Left has corrupted science to the extent that what they claim as science….isn’t. It is their ‘religion, it requires faith in whatever they claim, and if you don’t toe the line, you are a heretic in the medieval meaning of the term….and get what heretics get.

 

[Votto]

The Godless religion of Leftism arguably started with Karl Marx. Here was a man who embraced the morals of Christianity, wanting to help the poor etc., but rejected the author of those morals. The result? The result were world leaders such as Stalin and Mao who adopted many of his teachings as their own who murdered and slaughtered millions. They had no real interest in the morals of Marx, because I think Marx would have been appalled at their regimes, but what attracted these communist despots to the teachings of Marx was the godless potential of a fanaticism and control that could rival any religious belief. After all, for a state to track any and all financial transactions, and then decide how to redistribute those funds according to what is "fair" and "righteous", the state must have full control of every aspect of ones life and full control over what should be considered moral. This moral standard must consume society to justify the regime and dictates to them what the state considers to be moral that should be followed since the state cannot be inerrant with their moral conclusions. For you see, their moral conclusions are based in science. C. S. Lewis, are Christian author, was but a prophet when he wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So as with every religion, there are beliefs. The Godless atheist then thinks to themselves, since I don't believe in a God I only follow what science will teach me. In other words, religion is based only on beliefs that are illogical, impractical, and plain stupid. Therefore, religion is the sole contributor to the problems of today. People fight and die in wars because of religion, people reject science because of religion which leads to more death and destruction, etc. However, if one were to look more carefully at what kills the most people or could potentially kill more people, those issues revolve around science and not religion. For example, what has the potential to destroy human civilization? Is it not weapons of mass destruction? Where did those come from? Was it not science. As the creator of the A-bomb once said, "I have become death" And many people fear global warming. So what causes global warming? You guessed it, science. Science found a way to exploit fossil fuels for our benefit.

So at the end of the day, the silly little story about two people in the Garden of Eden being told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge without wisdom brings death, is the ultimate truth we should be adhering to, but the atheist is completely blind to these truths.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Godless religion of Leftism arguably started with Karl Marx. Here was a man who embraced the morals of Christianity, wanting to help the poor etc., but rejected the author of those morals. The result? The result were world leaders such as Stalin and Mao who adopted many of his teachings as their own who murdered and slaughtered millions. They had no real interest in the morals of Marx, because I think Marx would have been appalled at their regimes, but what attracted these communist despots to the teachings of Marx was the godless potential of a fanaticism and control that could rival any religious belief. After all, for a state to track any and all financial transactions, and then decide how to redistribute those funds according to what is "fair" and "righteous", the state must have full control of every aspect of ones life and full control over what should be considered moral. This moral standard must consume society to justify the regime and dictates to them what the state considers to be moral that should be followed since the state cannot be inerrant with their moral conclusions. For you see, their moral conclusions are based in science. C. S. Lewis, are Christian author, was but a prophet when he wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So as with every religion, there are beliefs. The Godless atheist then thinks to themselves, since I don't believe in a God I only follow what science will teach me. In other words, religion is based only on beliefs that are illogical, impractical, and plain stupid. Therefore, religion is the sole contributor to the problems of today. People fight and die in wars because of religion, people reject science because of religion which leads to more death and destruction, etc. However, if one were to look more carefully at what kills the most people or could potentially kill more people, those issues revolve around science and not religion. For example, what has the potential to destroy human civilization? Is it not weapons of mass destruction? Where did those come from? Was it not science. As the creator of the A-bomb once said, "I have become death" And many people fear global warming. So what causes global warming? You guessed it, science. Science found a way to exploit fossil fuels for our benefit.

So at the end of the day, the silly little story about two people in the Garden of Eden being told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge without wisdom brings death, is the ultimate truth we should be adhering to, but the atheist is completely blind to these truths.

The only alteration I would make in that well constructed post is to remind that Rousseau and the French Revolution was the origin of the anti-religion revolution.


And Coulter described this bunch thus:
From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…


Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.
And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

the Catechism: you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck

 

[rightwinger]

Why trust science when you have a leader who believes....

Vaccines cause autism
Global warming is a hoax
Swallowing disinfectants will cure COVID 19
You can nuke a hurricane and blow it away
Exercise is bad for you because you have a limited supply of energy

 

[Hollie]

The Godless religion of Leftism arguably started with Karl Marx. Here was a man who embraced the morals of Christianity, wanting to help the poor etc., but rejected the author of those morals. The result? The result were world leaders such as Stalin and Mao who adopted many of his teachings as their own who murdered and slaughtered millions. They had no real interest in the morals of Marx, because I think Marx would have been appalled at their regimes, but what attracted these communist despots to the teachings of Marx was the godless potential of a fanaticism and control that could rival any religious belief. After all, for a state to track any and all financial transactions, and then decide how to redistribute those funds according to what is "fair" and "righteous", the state must have full control of every aspect of ones life and full control over what should be considered moral. This moral standard must consume society to justify the regime and dictates to them what the state considers to be moral that should be followed since the state cannot be inerrant with their moral conclusions. For you see, their moral conclusions are based in science. C. S. Lewis, are Christian author, was but a prophet when he wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So as with every religion, there are beliefs. The Godless atheist then thinks to themselves, since I don't believe in a God I only follow what science will teach me. In other words, religion is based only on beliefs that are illogical, impractical, and plain stupid. Therefore, religion is the sole contributor to the problems of today. People fight and die in wars because of religion, people reject science because of religion which leads to more death and destruction, etc. However, if one were to look more carefully at what kills the most people or could potentially kill more people, those issues revolve around science and not religion. For example, what has the potential to destroy human civilization? Is it not weapons of mass destruction? Where did those come from? Was it not science. As the creator of the A-bomb once said, "I have become death" And many people fear global warming. So what causes global warming? You guessed it, science. Science found a way to exploit fossil fuels for our benefit.

So at the end of the day, the silly little story about two people in the Garden of Eden being told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge without wisdom brings death, is the ultimate truth we should be adhering to, but the atheist is completely blind to these truths.

The only alteration I would make in that well constructed post is to remind that Rousseau and the French Revolution was the origin of the anti-religion revolution.


And Coulter described this bunch thus:
From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…


Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.
And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

the Catechism: you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck

"Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.''

^^^ Harun Yahya Academy graduate.

BTW, the Theory of Evolution doesn't address creation.

You really are, "that stupid''.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Repent!!
The end is near!!!!

But.....for Leftism's religion, 'repent' has done a 180° turn!



5. While the Judeo-Christian version of religion never reversed itself as far as its basic tenets, the Ten Commandments, the Church of Science Believers has done exactly that, from cooling to warming.

“In the 1970s, the idea of global cooling was a commonly written about scientific probability. “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth,” a 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World” stated. It predicted famine, doom, and gloom and everything we hear now associated with global warming, only from the exact opposite cause.


“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it,” it continued. “In England, farmers have seen their growing seasons decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss of grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.” We were all going to die.

… “evidence” that “an Ice Age will result from a slow warming and rising of the ocean that is now taking place.” …“the glacial thermostat, the present interglacial stage is well advanced; the earth is now heading into another Ice Age.”
Betty Friedan, “The Coming Ice Age: A True Scientific Detective Story,” Harper’s Magazine, September 1958, From the Archive | 1958/the-the-ing-ice-age/.age/.


But government school trains the simpletons to go along with whatever the mantra is at the time.

 

[Hollie]

Repent!!
The end is near!!!!

But.....for Leftism's religion, 'repent' has done a 180° turn!



5. While the Judeo-Christian version of religion never reversed itself as far as its basic tenets, the Ten Commandments, the Church of Science Believers has done exactly that, from cooling to warming.

“In the 1970s, the idea of global cooling was a commonly written about scientific probability. “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth,” a 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World” stated. It predicted famine, doom, and gloom and everything we hear now associated with global warming, only from the exact opposite cause.


“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it,” it continued. “In England, farmers have seen their growing seasons decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss of grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.” We were all going to die.

… “evidence” that “an Ice Age will result from a slow warming and rising of the ocean that is now taking place.” …“the glacial thermostat, the present interglacial stage is well advanced; the earth is now heading into another Ice Age.”
Betty Friedan, “The Coming Ice Age: A True Scientific Detective Story,” Harper’s Magazine, September 1958, From the Archive | 1958/the-the-ing-ice-age/.age/.


But government school trains the simpletons to go along with whatever the mantra is at the time.

1. While the Judeo-Christian version of religion never reversed itself as far as its basic tenets,

Probably true. A flat earth is as true today as it was 2,000 years ago.

 

[Votto]

The Godless religion of Leftism arguably started with Karl Marx. Here was a man who embraced the morals of Christianity, wanting to help the poor etc., but rejected the author of those morals. The result? The result were world leaders such as Stalin and Mao who adopted many of his teachings as their own who murdered and slaughtered millions. They had no real interest in the morals of Marx, because I think Marx would have been appalled at their regimes, but what attracted these communist despots to the teachings of Marx was the godless potential of a fanaticism and control that could rival any religious belief. After all, for a state to track any and all financial transactions, and then decide how to redistribute those funds according to what is "fair" and "righteous", the state must have full control of every aspect of ones life and full control over what should be considered moral. This moral standard must consume society to justify the regime and dictates to them what the state considers to be moral that should be followed since the state cannot be inerrant with their moral conclusions. For you see, their moral conclusions are based in science. C. S. Lewis, are Christian author, was but a prophet when he wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So as with every religion, there are beliefs. The Godless atheist then thinks to themselves, since I don't believe in a God I only follow what science will teach me. In other words, religion is based only on beliefs that are illogical, impractical, and plain stupid. Therefore, religion is the sole contributor to the problems of today. People fight and die in wars because of religion, people reject science because of religion which leads to more death and destruction, etc. However, if one were to look more carefully at what kills the most people or could potentially kill more people, those issues revolve around science and not religion. For example, what has the potential to destroy human civilization? Is it not weapons of mass destruction? Where did those come from? Was it not science. As the creator of the A-bomb once said, "I have become death" And many people fear global warming. So what causes global warming? You guessed it, science. Science found a way to exploit fossil fuels for our benefit.

So at the end of the day, the silly little story about two people in the Garden of Eden being told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge without wisdom brings death, is the ultimate truth we should be adhering to, but the atheist is completely blind to these truths.

The only alteration I would make in that well constructed post is to remind that Rousseau and the French Revolution was the origin of the anti-religion revolution.


And Coulter described this bunch thus:
From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…


Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.
And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

the Catechism: you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck

Darwin essentially captures the thinking of the modern day atheist in this quote.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So you see, the problem with the world is ignorance and only ignorance is our adversary as where the knowledge of science can fix all our ills. But what I find is, the more knowledge we obtain, the more we realize we don't know. In this regard, knowledge is a Pandora's box of sorts because of it's infinite nature. So when geneticists go fishing about trying to construct the perfect crop and then later realize that there attempt has sterilized the plant, causing cross contamination and sterilization of other like plants, the horrors of science are quickly realized. But often it is much more subtle than that.

Consider this quote from Darwin.

There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

So here we see Darwin talk about helping the genetically inferior in society, which will ultimately weaken the said society, much like farmers not wanting to cross breed genetically inferior live stock. After all, it is all based upon science. However, to not help those who are human and genetically flawed and slaughter them as you would a genetically defective cow, would be "evil". It is odd to hear a man like Darwin talk about nobility and moral concepts such as evil. However, the Nazi regime was an ardent student of Darwin and simply threw away the religious based concepts of nobility and evil and went into hospitals to murder the genetically inferior, which hindered the resources of the state and when allowed to breed increases their numbers.


As for the French revolution, compare that revolution to that of the US revolution. The French revolution was based upon materialism. The French merely wanted to round up the "rich", and kill them and take their stuff. That was it, it was a revolution based upon material desire, much like we see the Left today wanting to do the same to the top 1%. So where did the revolution take them? It took them right into the clutches of Napoleon, a world conquering despot.

Conversely, the American revolution was constructed around the notion of a desire for freedom, which meant a limited government, and God given natural rights. After all, the more laws the less freedom. The rich fat cats, or land owners such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, put their very lives on the line and risked being hanged as they fought for a more righteous government that respected our innate God given rights. The result? The result was centuries of prosperity and hope for the rest of the world of possibly doing the same.

The two revolutions are like night and day.

Today, the Left are the French as they are after more stuff and more laws, which can only end in despotism as did the French

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Godless religion of Leftism arguably started with Karl Marx. Here was a man who embraced the morals of Christianity, wanting to help the poor etc., but rejected the author of those morals. The result? The result were world leaders such as Stalin and Mao who adopted many of his teachings as their own who murdered and slaughtered millions. They had no real interest in the morals of Marx, because I think Marx would have been appalled at their regimes, but what attracted these communist despots to the teachings of Marx was the godless potential of a fanaticism and control that could rival any religious belief. After all, for a state to track any and all financial transactions, and then decide how to redistribute those funds according to what is "fair" and "righteous", the state must have full control of every aspect of ones life and full control over what should be considered moral. This moral standard must consume society to justify the regime and dictates to them what the state considers to be moral that should be followed since the state cannot be inerrant with their moral conclusions. For you see, their moral conclusions are based in science. C. S. Lewis, are Christian author, was but a prophet when he wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So as with every religion, there are beliefs. The Godless atheist then thinks to themselves, since I don't believe in a God I only follow what science will teach me. In other words, religion is based only on beliefs that are illogical, impractical, and plain stupid. Therefore, religion is the sole contributor to the problems of today. People fight and die in wars because of religion, people reject science because of religion which leads to more death and destruction, etc. However, if one were to look more carefully at what kills the most people or could potentially kill more people, those issues revolve around science and not religion. For example, what has the potential to destroy human civilization? Is it not weapons of mass destruction? Where did those come from? Was it not science. As the creator of the A-bomb once said, "I have become death" And many people fear global warming. So what causes global warming? You guessed it, science. Science found a way to exploit fossil fuels for our benefit.

So at the end of the day, the silly little story about two people in the Garden of Eden being told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge without wisdom brings death, is the ultimate truth we should be adhering to, but the atheist is completely blind to these truths.

The only alteration I would make in that well constructed post is to remind that Rousseau and the French Revolution was the origin of the anti-religion revolution.


And Coulter described this bunch thus:
From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…


Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.
And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

the Catechism: you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck

Darwin essentially captures the thinking of the modern day atheist in this quote.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So you see, the problem with the world is ignorance and only ignorance is our adversary as where the knowledge of science can fix all our ills. But what I find is, the more knowledge we obtain, the more we realize we don't know. In this regard, knowledge is a Pandora's box of sorts because of it's infinite nature. So when geneticists go fishing about trying to construct the perfect crop and then later realize that there attempt has sterilized the plant, causing cross contamination and sterilization of other like plants, the horrors of science are quickly realized. But often it is much more subtle than that.

Consider this quote from Darwin.

There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

So here we see Darwin talk about helping the genetically inferior in society, which will ultimately weaken the said society, much like farmers not wanting to cross breed genetically inferior live stock. After all, it is all based upon science. However, to not help those who are human and genetically flawed and slaughter them as you would a genetically defective cow, would be "evil". It is odd to hear a man like Darwin talk about nobility and moral concepts such as evil. However, the Nazi regime was an ardent student of Darwin and simply threw away the religious based concepts of nobility and evil and went into hospitals to murder the genetically inferior, which hindered the resources of the state and when allowed to breed increases their numbers.


As for the French revolution, compare that revolution to that of the US revolution. The French revolution was based upon materialism. The French merely wanted to round up the "rich", and kill them and take their stuff. That was it, it was a revolution based upon material desire, much like we see the Left today wanting to do the same to the top 1%. So where did the revolution take them? It took them right into the clutches of Napoleon, a world conquering despot.

Conversely, the American revolution was constructed around the notion of a desire for freedom, which meant a limited government, and God given natural rights. After all, the more laws the less freedom. The rich fat cats, or land owners such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, put their very lives on the line and risked being hanged as they fought for a more righteous government that respected our innate God given rights. The result? The result was centuries of prosperity and hope for the rest of the world of possibly doing the same.

The two revolutions are like night and day.

And that ignorance is on display anyplace the Left reigns.


Did you see this?

"George Takei: ‘When You Defend So-Called Biological Sex, You Sound Scientifically Ignorant’​

George Takei: ‘When You Defend So-Called Biological Sex, You Sound Scientifically Ignorant’




The Left's 'science believers' feel entitled to make up anything, and claim is is science, and 'proven.'


This is a poster, yesterday:
“Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers

 

[Votto]

The Godless religion of Leftism arguably started with Karl Marx. Here was a man who embraced the morals of Christianity, wanting to help the poor etc., but rejected the author of those morals. The result? The result were world leaders such as Stalin and Mao who adopted many of his teachings as their own who murdered and slaughtered millions. They had no real interest in the morals of Marx, because I think Marx would have been appalled at their regimes, but what attracted these communist despots to the teachings of Marx was the godless potential of a fanaticism and control that could rival any religious belief. After all, for a state to track any and all financial transactions, and then decide how to redistribute those funds according to what is "fair" and "righteous", the state must have full control of every aspect of ones life and full control over what should be considered moral. This moral standard must consume society to justify the regime and dictates to them what the state considers to be moral that should be followed since the state cannot be inerrant with their moral conclusions. For you see, their moral conclusions are based in science. C. S. Lewis, are Christian author, was but a prophet when he wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So as with every religion, there are beliefs. The Godless atheist then thinks to themselves, since I don't believe in a God I only follow what science will teach me. In other words, religion is based only on beliefs that are illogical, impractical, and plain stupid. Therefore, religion is the sole contributor to the problems of today. People fight and die in wars because of religion, people reject science because of religion which leads to more death and destruction, etc. However, if one were to look more carefully at what kills the most people or could potentially kill more people, those issues revolve around science and not religion. For example, what has the potential to destroy human civilization? Is it not weapons of mass destruction? Where did those come from? Was it not science. As the creator of the A-bomb once said, "I have become death" And many people fear global warming. So what causes global warming? You guessed it, science. Science found a way to exploit fossil fuels for our benefit.

So at the end of the day, the silly little story about two people in the Garden of Eden being told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge without wisdom brings death, is the ultimate truth we should be adhering to, but the atheist is completely blind to these truths.

The only alteration I would make in that well constructed post is to remind that Rousseau and the French Revolution was the origin of the anti-religion revolution.


And Coulter described this bunch thus:
From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…


Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.
And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

the Catechism: you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck

Darwin essentially captures the thinking of the modern day atheist in this quote.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So you see, the problem with the world is ignorance and only ignorance is our adversary as where the knowledge of science can fix all our ills. But what I find is, the more knowledge we obtain, the more we realize we don't know. In this regard, knowledge is a Pandora's box of sorts because of it's infinite nature. So when geneticists go fishing about trying to construct the perfect crop and then later realize that there attempt has sterilized the plant, causing cross contamination and sterilization of other like plants, the horrors of science are quickly realized. But often it is much more subtle than that.

Consider this quote from Darwin.

There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

So here we see Darwin talk about helping the genetically inferior in society, which will ultimately weaken the said society, much like farmers not wanting to cross breed genetically inferior live stock. After all, it is all based upon science. However, to not help those who are human and genetically flawed and slaughter them as you would a genetically defective cow, would be "evil". It is odd to hear a man like Darwin talk about nobility and moral concepts such as evil. However, the Nazi regime was an ardent student of Darwin and simply threw away the religious based concepts of nobility and evil and went into hospitals to murder the genetically inferior, which hindered the resources of the state and when allowed to breed increases their numbers.


As for the French revolution, compare that revolution to that of the US revolution. The French revolution was based upon materialism. The French merely wanted to round up the "rich", and kill them and take their stuff. That was it, it was a revolution based upon material desire, much like we see the Left today wanting to do the same to the top 1%. So where did the revolution take them? It took them right into the clutches of Napoleon, a world conquering despot.

Conversely, the American revolution was constructed around the notion of a desire for freedom, which meant a limited government, and God given natural rights. After all, the more laws the less freedom. The rich fat cats, or land owners such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, put their very lives on the line and risked being hanged as they fought for a more righteous government that respected our innate God given rights. The result? The result was centuries of prosperity and hope for the rest of the world of possibly doing the same.

The two revolutions are like night and day.

And that ignorance is on display anyplace the Left reigns.


Did you see this?

"George Takei: ‘When You Defend So-Called Biological Sex, You Sound Scientifically Ignorant’​

George Takei: ‘When You Defend So-Called Biological Sex, You Sound Scientifically Ignorant’




The Left's 'science believers' feel entitled to make up anything, and claim is is science, and 'proven.'


This is a poster, yesterday:
“Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers

When it comes to "proving" something, the world has very little to offer outside a math class.


The reason belief is so important is that no matter what those beliefs may be, it is the said belief system that is the sole structure that allows human beings to take perceived facts, give those facts value, and use them to make sense of the world. This then leads to us taking action. Action never comes devoid of such beliefs. For example, you cannot prove the smoking causes cancer, all you can do it show correlations. Naturally, everyone believes it causes cancer because the evidence is overwhelming but still not enough to prove anything. So most people avoid smoking or are trying to quit

So at the end of the day we are left with our beliefs because we are unable to prove most everything around us. In addition, the universe is infinite, making it impossible for finite beings to know everything, much less prove it.

So as you can see, belief is what enables us to live our lives without going completely mad.

So what forms those beliefs? Those not of faith would have us believe that they only live their lives based on facts and not beliefs, but this is a lie, even if they believe it to be the truth. At the end of the day, it comes down to what we value. More specifically, whose opinions do we value and why? Case in point are two historical issues, slavery and abortion. Are either good or bad? Should either be embraced? Well if we look at our history, slavery was once embraced by society. As a result, most during that time viewed it as OK, but not ideal, hence those in opposition to it. But a century later after slavery was made illegal, the notion of slavery has been adamantly rejected by society as evil.
Now let's look at abortion. Before Roe vs. Wade, abortion was seen as immoral or evil. However, decades after the state allowing abortion, abortion is now seen as Ok, but not ideal.

So as we can see, the authority of the state has shifted public morality because the majority of society respects that authority. So you will find that our morality is largely based upon those we respect in authority over us. It's just how we are wired. At the same time, it is bone chilling frightening to know we are such lemmings.

But as the Bible points out, we are all sheep who have chosen a Shepherd, but all those who come as a shepherd other than Christ are but crooks and murderers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Godless religion of Leftism arguably started with Karl Marx. Here was a man who embraced the morals of Christianity, wanting to help the poor etc., but rejected the author of those morals. The result? The result were world leaders such as Stalin and Mao who adopted many of his teachings as their own who murdered and slaughtered millions. They had no real interest in the morals of Marx, because I think Marx would have been appalled at their regimes, but what attracted these communist despots to the teachings of Marx was the godless potential of a fanaticism and control that could rival any religious belief. After all, for a state to track any and all financial transactions, and then decide how to redistribute those funds according to what is "fair" and "righteous", the state must have full control of every aspect of ones life and full control over what should be considered moral. This moral standard must consume society to justify the regime and dictates to them what the state considers to be moral that should be followed since the state cannot be inerrant with their moral conclusions. For you see, their moral conclusions are based in science. C. S. Lewis, are Christian author, was but a prophet when he wrote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

So as with every religion, there are beliefs. The Godless atheist then thinks to themselves, since I don't believe in a God I only follow what science will teach me. In other words, religion is based only on beliefs that are illogical, impractical, and plain stupid. Therefore, religion is the sole contributor to the problems of today. People fight and die in wars because of religion, people reject science because of religion which leads to more death and destruction, etc. However, if one were to look more carefully at what kills the most people or could potentially kill more people, those issues revolve around science and not religion. For example, what has the potential to destroy human civilization? Is it not weapons of mass destruction? Where did those come from? Was it not science. As the creator of the A-bomb once said, "I have become death" And many people fear global warming. So what causes global warming? You guessed it, science. Science found a way to exploit fossil fuels for our benefit.

So at the end of the day, the silly little story about two people in the Garden of Eden being told not to eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge without wisdom brings death, is the ultimate truth we should be adhering to, but the atheist is completely blind to these truths.

The only alteration I would make in that well constructed post is to remind that Rousseau and the French Revolution was the origin of the anti-religion revolution.


And Coulter described this bunch thus:
From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…


Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.
And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

the Catechism: you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck

Darwin essentially captures the thinking of the modern day atheist in this quote.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So you see, the problem with the world is ignorance and only ignorance is our adversary as where the knowledge of science can fix all our ills. But what I find is, the more knowledge we obtain, the more we realize we don't know. In this regard, knowledge is a Pandora's box of sorts because of it's infinite nature. So when geneticists go fishing about trying to construct the perfect crop and then later realize that there attempt has sterilized the plant, causing cross contamination and sterilization of other like plants, the horrors of science are quickly realized. But often it is much more subtle than that.

Consider this quote from Darwin.

There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

So here we see Darwin talk about helping the genetically inferior in society, which will ultimately weaken the said society, much like farmers not wanting to cross breed genetically inferior live stock. After all, it is all based upon science. However, to not help those who are human and genetically flawed and slaughter them as you would a genetically defective cow, would be "evil". It is odd to hear a man like Darwin talk about nobility and moral concepts such as evil. However, the Nazi regime was an ardent student of Darwin and simply threw away the religious based concepts of nobility and evil and went into hospitals to murder the genetically inferior, which hindered the resources of the state and when allowed to breed increases their numbers.


As for the French revolution, compare that revolution to that of the US revolution. The French revolution was based upon materialism. The French merely wanted to round up the "rich", and kill them and take their stuff. That was it, it was a revolution based upon material desire, much like we see the Left today wanting to do the same to the top 1%. So where did the revolution take them? It took them right into the clutches of Napoleon, a world conquering despot.

Conversely, the American revolution was constructed around the notion of a desire for freedom, which meant a limited government, and God given natural rights. After all, the more laws the less freedom. The rich fat cats, or land owners such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, put their very lives on the line and risked being hanged as they fought for a more righteous government that respected our innate God given rights. The result? The result was centuries of prosperity and hope for the rest of the world of possibly doing the same.

The two revolutions are like night and day.

And that ignorance is on display anyplace the Left reigns.


Did you see this?

"George Takei: ‘When You Defend So-Called Biological Sex, You Sound Scientifically Ignorant’​

George Takei: ‘When You Defend So-Called Biological Sex, You Sound Scientifically Ignorant’




The Left's 'science believers' feel entitled to make up anything, and claim is is science, and 'proven.'


This is a poster, yesterday:
“Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers

When it comes to "proving" something, the world has very little to offer outside a math class.


The reason belief is so important is that no matter what those beliefs may be, it is the said belief system that is the sole structure that allows human beings to take perceived facts, give those facts value, and use them to make sense of the world. This then leads to us taking action. Action never comes devoid of such beliefs. For example, you cannot prove the smoking causes cancer, all you can do it show correlations. Naturally, everyone believes it causes cancer because the evidence is overwhelming but still not enough to prove anything. So most people avoid smoking or are trying to quit

So at the end of the day we are left with our beliefs because we are unable to prove most everything around us. In addition, the universe is infinite, making it impossible for finite beings to know everything, much less prove it.

So as you can see, belief is what enables us to live our lives without going completely mad.

So what forms those beliefs? Those not of faith would have us believe that they only live their lives based on facts and not beliefs, but this is a lie, even if they believe it to be the truth. At the end of the day, it comes down to what we value. More specifically, whose opinions do we value and why? Case in point are two historical issues, slavery and abortion. Are either good or bad? Should either be embraced? Well if we look at our history, slavery was once embraced by society. As a result, most during that time viewed it as OK, but not ideal, hence those in opposition to it. But a century later after slavery was made illegal, the notion of slavery has been adamantly rejected by society as evil.
Now let's look at abortion. Before Roe vs. Wade, abortion was seen as immoral or evil. However, decades after the state allowing abortion, abortion is now seen as Ok, but not ideal.

So as we can see, the authority of the state has shifted public morality because the majority of society respects that authority. So you will find that our morality is largely based upon those we respect in authority over us. It's just how we are wired. At the same time, it is bone chilling frightening to know we are such lemmings.

But as the Bible points out, we are all sheep who have chosen a Shepherd, but all those who come as a shepherd other than Christ are but crooks and murderers.

My objection is to the corruption of terms such as 'fact' and 'proven.'

None of these fit those terms, as the Religion of Leftism uses them: global warming, evolution, transgenderism.

And their use of the term 'racism' fits in there somewhere, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. As a rule, whenever a view is advanced as science or based on an academic study, the first hint that it is fake is if it supports the collectivist views of the international Left, the increase of power by government over individuals, and if it restricts liberty.



Global warming ‘science’ fits all of the above.

One reason that ‘global cooling’ gave way to ‘global warming’ is that the latter had no solution that could be blamed on civilization “so treating everyone who drives a car as though he’s a Bond villain with a personal weather control machine wasn’t at the forefront of the activists’ mind. They were too busy trying to save the whales from capitalism to recognize the opportunity that saving the planet by destroying capitalism presented.”
Hunter, Op. Cit.



“The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality,”…
Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975, http:// www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf.

Seems a redundant refrain.

January 25, 2006 ... while at the Sundance film festival, "politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next ten years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said."
2006: Al Gore Does Sundance


BTW...in 1988, Ted Danson crowed that we had only ten years to save the oceans.

Just more acolytes of the religion of ‘science believers.’

 

[MarcATL]

This seems to be a thread of a trolling nature.

Only way to prove it to the far rightwing MODs is to create an equivalent from the left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This seems to be a thread of a polling nature.

Only way to prove it to the far rightwing MODs is to create an equivalent from the left.

1. See if you can find anything in my posts that you can refute. It appears you cannot.

2. A thread from the other side??? Why? I provided the other side in my posts.

3. There is no 'far right' in this country.....only a far Left. It appears that you are an adherent to said cult.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. There are a number of ways to cast the Religion of the Left in the correct perspective. The most basic is that it advances death, rather than life.



“The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.”
David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture."







Recently, Trump’s HHS tossed the article of faith of what the Left calls ‘science,’ transgenderism. Here’s why:

“The real-world effects of prioritizing gender identity in health care became clear after a 32-year-old pregnant woman went to the emergency room complaining of abdominal pains and claiming to be a man.

The attending nurse treated the patient as a man, based on the electronic medical record, and the end result was a stillborn baby in a case first reported by The New England Journal of Medicine in May 2019.

“That’s one example where confusion over what the meaning of sex is—whether it’s based on biology or based on gender identity—can have some real-world and in this case tragic consequences.”
HHS Scraps Obama Rules on Gender Identity, Abortion



How kind to refer to the Left's articles of faith as simply 'confusion.'
Confusion is when you mistake your car key for your house key.
As in the absurd transgender view above, it is murder.
Quite a religion, their 'science' is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. If one has any doubt at the attempt that Leftist 'science' has to proclaim itself a religion, or at least cloak themselves in a religious simulation, take a peek at this, in Scientific American:

“It is fair to say that citizens and politicians intend for Miami, and indeed the whole State of Florida, to exist well beyond 2100. Same for New York City, Boston, Washington D.C., London, Shanghai, Amsterdam, Mumbai and so on. Yet the same people discount staggering losses these places face beyond 2100. That’s wrong, and immoral too. That’s because a crucial fraction of airborne carbon from the industrial revolution, plus that coming this century and next, will persist for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The CO2 stemming from just 150 years ago to a mere two centuries ahead may commit the world by inertia to tens of thousands of years of impacts.” Robert Wilder and Daniel M. Kammen, “Exposed: The Climate Fallacy of 2100,” Scientific American, October 19, 2016, https:// blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/exposed-the-climate-fallacy-of-2100/.


“That’s wrong, and immoral too.”

‘Moral’ relates to an aspect of religion, not of science. Science tells us what we can do, not what we should do. Morality is about what we should do, that's the province of religion.


Unless the science believer sees their views as that of a religion.
And......they do.
That's why we call them 'science believers.'

 

[rightwinger]

What is it with Conservatives and science?

They think Science was created just to make them look bad

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. It actually makes sense......the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives/Leftists hate the founding religion of our nation......because they have a religion of their own......and hate competition.

All the trapping of a religion:

• “Original sin: Mankind is responsible for the prophesied disasters, especially those of us who live in suburbs and drive our SUVs to strip malls and chain restaurants.
• 
  
• The need for atonement and repentance: We must impose a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which will raise the cost of everything and stunt economic growth.
• 
  
• Rituals: We must observe Earth Day, and we must recycle.
• 
  
• Indulgences: Private jet-fliers like Al Gore and sitcom heiress Laurie David can buy carbon offsets to compensate for their carbon-emitting sins.
• 
  
• Prophecy and faith in things unseen: Advocates say we must act now before it is too late.

Believers in this religion have flocked to conferences in Durban, Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto, and Copenhagen, and the global warming clergy is preaching apocalyptic disaster. Rich countries must come up with $100 billion each year to help poor countries cope with the effects of climate change. This is essential because in 2017, we are told, global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible."
The Religion of Global Warming



Remember when the Left ridicules the Judeo-Christian religion, they're doing so from their very own pulpit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Derek Hunter:

“As climate has evolved into a religion, former vice president Al Gore has emerged as its pope. Pope Goreus I, as he should be known, has made hundreds of millions of dollars during his crusade against greed in the name of the planet. “ “How Al Gore Amassed a $200-Million Fortune After Presidential Defeat,” Financial Post, May 6, 2013, Financial Post news/how-gore-gore-amassed-a-200-lion-for-tune-after-presi-tial-de-feat.


“In 2006, Gore described the climate as “a true planetary emergency,” with the Associated Press reporting “politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce green- house gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.” Jaclyn Schiff, “2006: Al Gore Does Sundance,” Associated Press, January 26, 2006, 2006: Al Gore Does Sundance.





All those dire predictions have one thing in common: they didn’t happen. Even Sting eventually stopped singing about the rain forests when we didn’t all run out of breathable air, but the Holy Church of Global Warming simply repackaged itself and devotees kept singing right along.”



But…..they learned to look less foolish: their predictions of doom now are in the hundred year range.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. One should never look for consistency in the pronouncements of the international Left/Democrat Party. While making global warming a religion and we must organize government policies based on this religion……

…..they still claim to favor ‘separation of church and state.’





“One of the most dangerous features of the global warming religion is its level of intimidation of the heretics, the non-believers. For example, former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers." Many climatologists have been intimidated into silence, or have had calls to punish them go out.

There is much at stake in getting people to believe in the global warming religion -- so much so that some scientists, using government grants, are fraudulently manipulating climate data and engaging in criminal activity, as revealed in what has been called "Climategate" or "Fakegate." Disclosure of the Climategate e-mails in November 2009 showed how the global warming clergy was willing to distort evidence and suppress dissenting views in the interest of the faith.





H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) once said, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Global warmists cannot produce believable or sustainable hobgoblins with science, so they must turn to religion.” The Religion of Global Warming



Welcome, science believers!!!