If only they actually treated modern scientists well. Its just the same bullshit again 500 years after that crap happened, and yet they still haven't learned. If you refuse to recognize the patterns of reality, how will you recognize the patterns of reality?
Right? its like, well, we may have been completely and totally wrong, if not flat out evil and cruel, but we will rebury you as a hero 500 years from now. And now they do the same thing to modern scientists. Talk about blindness.
Oil always occurs in pockets in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary is depositing over time, and is never deep in the mantle. Life is made of hydrocarbons, and when packed down with a shit-ton of pressure, it forms coal and oil. Some of the lighter forms of coal even show shapes that show it was at one point plant material. There is nothing magic about it, it is simple science.
A super volcano is devastating, but it takes weeks for the ash to spread globally. Apart from killing everyone within a few miles of every major city in russia and the US and every other civilized country, and then killing them with radioactive fall out in the following couple of weeks, nukes could kill everyone alive, whereas a super volcano would just destroy the area it is in, and spread some bad issues for a lot of people, wide swaths of humanity would be absolutely fine. Nuclear winter holds no life.
Climate models are falsifiable, but we went over this earlier, you do not understand that a single condition is not the only factor, you must look at everything all the time. Hence CO2 200 years ago didn't do anything while it does now because the method by which we add it to the atmosphere. Natural variation is accounted for in these models, a fact which you seem to be neglecting.
Actually, I am attending a 4 year public university for mechanical engineering. I am getting it at a steal. I just wasn't born into a rich family, and have nothing to work off of. I am also not eligible for military service due to a medical condition. There was no choice about it, I either did not go to college, or go into massive debt. That is what it is like when you are born poor, and have literally nothing to work up from. I chose to make a future for myself, and sadly the only way to do that in america is to be born with well-off parents who build you a savings account, go into the military, or acquire a shit-ton of debt.
Actually, I examined all of those sites in the past, and found all of their arguments to be ignorant of basic scientific principles, largely inconclusive, and having many of the same logical issues you are having. You are clearly no climate scientist, nor are the owners of the site, hell, yall barely understand chemistry, thermodynamics, physics, or any of that, nor are you adequately educated as to what climate models do. Its like talking to a old Amish person about specific software, or something equally as dismal. Seriously, I have been keeping tabs on Wattsupwiththat.com for a while, waiting for them to post anything at all that might actually help their point, but have found no such information. I understand it all right, but you don't have a clue.
Do you eat babies in your spare time? or do you just smash them against walls and rip fetuses out of mothers because god tells you to? Do you hang people in trees just because they weren't born your race? If you don't, I am surprised. I have provided all good arguments, you have provided nothing. Just because the truth takes many words to say does not make it rambling. Have fun raping children mr. black book of death banger.
Liberals accept science. Science is reality. Conservatives do not. So you could either say that liberals have a reality bias, or that reality has a liberal bias. Conservatives have a bias against reality, or vice versa. The KKK were not little angels protecting the way of life for southerners, and science is true, based on elaborate logical underpinnings. Bias is a relative thing, and not always a bad thing when talking about a bias towards or against things that are as true as we can possibly achieve.
If you believe that to be true then you have never met an atheist, or never actually listened to an explanation of their beliefs about morality. You ignore every single argument I make, say our moral code is based on nothing when I have explained exactly what it is based on in clear and concise language, and you have claimed that if your morality isn't based on a book that tells people to kill for god then they are bad people.
I fail to see how anything you said was right, or even remotely logical. You keep repeating yourself, and I keep disproving and countering every argument in new ways hoping they you might actually read and understand any of them. Instead you ignore everything I write and just accuse atheists of having a moral code to justify what they would do anyways. I have never met an atheist who believes that way, or acts in such a matter and I know hundreds of atheists. I also know hundreds of christians from my time as one of them, and every single one of them bends what the bible says to meet their actions. Serial killers take passages directly from the bible, word for word and do them, exactly as stated. Christains constantly ignore thousands of bible passages, whatever they don't feel applies to them.
Now listen to me here, you came into a conversation ignoring the beliefs and arguments of others, dismissing them and claiming your own system to be the only way without any logical justification or reasoning. Even the statement "Nothing that you have posted gives me any reason to believe that you are any different" just goes to show that you didn't even read anything I have written, nor would you care if you did. Your beliefs are static and you do not open them to debate, instead just insulting me and millions of other good people, as well as ignoring the facts and statistics and logical constructions and everything else. People like you are the reason that people like me, an eagle scout, honors student, community servant, a helper and good person by every respect of the word, can still be called a devil by a christian just because I am an atheist, even though they abuse children, do nothing for their fellow man, and inhibit the future survival of humanity. How the fuck I am the bad person in that mix, I haven't the faintest fucking clue, unless your definition of bad person is "follows the bible, even if it means being a cruel, sick son of a bitch who destroys everything good for humanity just because the bible says to" and a bad person is "anyone who deviates slightly from cultural norms, isn't a devout christian, and everyone else".
I make no assumptions, I have been down these arguments with thousands of people thousands of times, and I get one of two responses- yours, or they break down in tears upon realizing their religion is crap, and start the painful, long deconversion process. You do not walk into a debate and refuse the option to be wrong, because then you are not debating, but trying to convert others and ignoring everything they say, or dismissing it. Like I said, get over yourself.
You are absolutely retarded. You don't even know what an atheist is, much less anything about the science or morals that we follow.
There is nothing random about the universe that is at all relevent to how we live our lives. You kill someone, people fucking suffer, and atheists understand that, and do not want to see others suffer. As I have said, life on earth matters, for hundreds of reasons, I posted like 5 page post on it earlier that you even admitted you did not read. There is no reason it wouldn't matter when you commit an immoral act, it will always matter. We atheists just think that an immoral act is not how you feel, your sexual orientation, your race, sex, fashion preference, or simply because you don't believe in fairy tales, all things the bible says you should be put in an prison camp that is literally on fire for eternity and you will be tortured there forever. What the fuck is even remotely moral about wanting your fellow man to suffer for eternity? WHAT KIND OF SICK BASTARD would wish that on other people?
I started this conversation without anger or condemnation, but the more you call me immoral, and the more you insult me without just cause, the angrier I will get. Why would you hate someone jesus died to redeem? You wouldn't, but apparently homosexuals and black people and pretty much anyone christians happen to dislike at the time aren't on that list.
As to your story, I would not have run, because I would stand up for my beliefs, and WHENEVER I see a life in danger, I do everything I can to save it, even if the person wants me dead. That kind of care is called being human, and the courage to stand up for your beliefs in the face of death is called being human. But when your beliefs have no logical, factual, or any other kind of reasonable base, what confidence can you have in them besides blind faith? In history however, christian morals tend to be "They are different, lets kill them and torture them in public" And as long as a holy book can be used by millions of people as an excuse for evil, it itself is also. Sure it might have a few lines of beautiful storytelling, but in the end it is a load of bullshit and everyone knows it.
Help your fellow man, but work for truth, not for Mega-Hitler. Help your fellow man for their own sake, not for yours. Even if it means burning in hell, it is better to help all those around you than to let them suffer in this life, the only one we can be truly sure about.
Atheists understand that all actions have effects, and we use science to study what actions have what effects, when the answers aren't blatantly obvious (even then we often check). Like in making government policy, we would rather know for a definite, scientific fact what the effects of an action are, like getting rid of sex ed for an abstinence only program, we can show that it will help the spread of STIs and it will increase teen pregnancy and abortion rates, then we say, huh, that is bad, maybe we shouldn't do it. The christian type of action tends to be more of a "the bible says that sex is bad outside of marriage, which is a religious institution, and not legal without parental permission until 18, plus we don't want our children exposed to the real world, so lets do abstinence only, whether it ruins their lives and spreads disease or not".
When your justification is fine with causing that kind of damage, it is not a worthy justification for anything.
Now look, I will give you one more chance, respond properly without calling me some kind of devilish heathen, with an understanding of what I said and not just repeating your same stupid ass comments, or just don't comment. I really hate having to repeat myself to someone that believes in a magical santa claus in the sky that will grant my wishes if I torture myself or burn me in eternal hell if I don't do everything I can to ensure he can continue and spread his sadism and sick sense of pleasure from the pain of others.
And what do you think of the scientists that have had been killed by
You say morals cannot be justified without a higher power.
I state and explain that humanity is a justification for morals. If caring about humanity isn't enough to make you moral, what use are you to society, why should we not lock you up as a danger and throw away the key?
Humanistic morals are morals that fall in line with what is good for humanity, what is compassionate of others, what is natural and good. These morals often do justify human acts, but being human is not inherently evil or bad, it can be good for people. And I care about people more than I care about your fairy tale uber-Hitler.
You make assumptions about atheist morals without understanding them, while the christian morals are very blatantly set out for all too see, and I certainly understand them and I am simply commenting on their devastating effects. Christian morals are inherently bad for people, and humanistic morals are not as you think they are. They are carefully figured out morals that essential just say be good to yourself, those around you, society as a whole, be educated. Not rocket science. And yes, that means not murdering homosexuals, or hanging black people in your trees, or any of that stuff that is EASILY justified by the bible, but condoned as horrible by humanistic morality.
An atheist moral set is not justifying what we are going to do anyways, it is trying to do everything we can for humanity. Christian morals actually have a much greater tendency to end up being what believers want them to be, and not strait from the bible. We all know how terrible it would be if they were taken strait.
Also, I might add that logical, humanistic morality is based on a definite science, worked out by careful study and calculation to hurt few and help many, not made up by a bunch of drug pushing goat herders who heard voices and murdered their own children. And up until now I have avoided saying exactly what christian morality is.
Atheistic morals have nothing to do with the bullshit you mention, and there is no reason to think so, unless you happen to think that the bible is right when it says 'hate all those unlike oneself. I hope all of your children grow up and turn out to be gay, just so that you might one day understand.
You want to know what I think? You are one sick as mother fucking son of a bitch who wants to impose their religious beliefs on others, and believes himself so self-righteous that even if he was sent to prison for slaughtering babies you would still think you were in the right, as long as the bible said so. Are you going to send bears after children who make fun of bald guys too? Morals justified "by a higher power" have been used to justify literally every single tribal culture out there, and include acts such as cannibalism, genocides, infanticide, homicide, scuicide, sexual repression, persecution, violent polygamy, and so on. Your 'higher power' has been claimed by many and has justified whatever the culture wants it to justify. At least humanistic morals actually try to find fundamental truths about human nature, and comply with compassion and freedom, regardless of present cultural norms, at least we give a shit about truth and justice, not just the gang like, tribe like, cult like bullshit that you claim is all seeing. There is no higher power to justify you, just you there to justify yourself, and that is a dangerous cycle. I was once a christian, very much so, but I grew out of the fairy tales and bullshit, and went through the painful process of deconversion. Then my life got a lot better, and I felt very sorry for being such an asshole following a religion like that. You should too.
of course it would be unlikely if they had standard safety measures in place, and didn't over-tax the system. Instead they basically did everything possible to cause it, whether they realize it or not. I am all for drilling in the US, but do it right, spend an extra 10k for some safety measures that will save your rig which is putting out millions worth every week or so. Not exactly asking them to get ass-raped by over-safety, just to do something, anything at all really.
You are so retarded all I can do is dispell your idiocy and hope you don't come back.
The nuclear arsonal of just a few superpowers could kill all life on earth. Instantly. No supervolcano can do that, and meteors can, sure, but that is not the kind of change we are talking about.
The sun follows predictable patterns, which we have recorded and are part of climate change models. The warming of the earth is from more than just that one factor. Also, the seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth, not the sun. It may be summer up north, but in Aussiland it is fall, the beginning of winter.
There is not a single source of oil, but many. Methane is extremely simple, and likely to be found in many planets atmospheres. Oil is a combination of hundreds of different hydrocarbons of varying length and shape. Its most likely origin is from deposits of life that were burried by sedimentation and eventually compacted into coal or oil. There may be methane on titan, but there are not pits of tar or oil, there is a big difference mr. I can't think past the most basic and rudimentary attempts at logic.
There is only so much past life on earth, so there is only so much oil. end of story. Even so, anything you mine from the ground you will eventually run out of, by it gold, platinum, or oil. We can make oil ourselves though, it is not as good as strait gas, but it is carbon neutral and doesn't release as many nitrates into the air, and virtually no sulfides.
Nitrogen is about 76% of the air on earth. It is nice and inert, and doesn't do much. Our blanket of CO2, water vapor, and methane keeps the earth warm. it is nice. What is not nice, is when we increase CO2 or Methane, because then the earth heats, and warmer oceans mean more H2O in the air, keeping it even warmer. However, clouds do help reflect some light. Again, it is a complicated process, clearly WAY beyond your comprehension. You do not need to reach toxicity to have damaging effects, end of story.
Actually, I am in college, and plan on working on alternative energy, consumer products, and medical devices. I am currently only struggling because Americans have decided that if I want to do something with my life I need to be absolutely perfect, and put myself in such heaploads of debt that it will take a good part of my life to pay off, or I could just pull the money out of my ass, or save up 10 dollars that don't go towards cost of living each month to put towards going to college, so that I could get a degree by the time I am 50. Ass-fucks.
You are missing every single point about everything, and don't seem to be able to reason past the very most basic levels of reasoning, and seem incapable of handling facts and logical constructions that involve more than one single factor or level of logical construction. Please, if you are going to continue, consider the arguments out there, as I have looked at every single anti-global warming website and haven't found even the slightest reasonable argument against it, just a bunch of fuck-heads like you ranting about shit you couldn't possible understand.
Mao was actually confusionist, and Stalin was christian, but you don't have to be an atheist and the people of soviet russia were forced into state-theism, obeying the state as a god. That is not atheism. Just as christians tend to dismiss people who were not good enough christians, atheists will dismiss people who didn't even claim to be atheists.
The crime rate among atheists is incredibly low. In the US we account for only 2% of those in prison, yet 16% of the general population. At the same time, christians account for 73% of the population, but 84% of those in prison. Few good atheists? Mostly good atheists, with a few people who were misguided and needed help, or were driven to terrible crimes by the persecution of the ultimate bully-christians.
I don't have time for a long post now, but look, I am generally open to arguments anyone makes. I am not open however, to arguments I have spent hundreds of hours disproving, just to have them parroted at me again, and my arguments against them ignored in favor of more standard crap.
Hitler was most certainly a christian, he went to church regularly and he, like all politicians, spent a great deal of time talking about god in his speeches. History is an absolute science, not one which you can dismiss parts of as you please just because your pastor lied to you. We know history, and if you look it up in scholarly sources, you will find me right. and what of the crusades and dark ages?
the language is not insulting just because it says you are wrong, it also says why. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time parroting back mindless bullshit, then you would learn something and people would not get so mad at you for saying the same stupid things to them.
Whether you like it or not, humanistic morals help many people, and christian morals drive many into such a deep depression that they kill themselves. They are bullies, haters, and cruel when derived from the bible. Atheists have no such problem, only working out logic and reason, along with compassion. Atheists like me are eagle scouts, servers of the community, and christians who follow closely morals are bullies. That is the simple fact of the situation, and you ignore it and detract from it with everything you say, as if your pointless arguments about that stupid book make a difference. One of the main reasons I left religion was when I realized how many people were using it as an excuse to be cruel to others, in addition to all of its logical and scientific failings.
Actually, you appear to be the one misguided and misinformed, at every single level of debate you ignore important facts.
There are 6 billion people on earth. maybe more. That is a shit-ton of people, and we have massive industrial endeavors that change the face of the planet, from massive reservoir behind dams, to nuclear explosions, cities, and road networks. We certainly put a lot of crap into our air, and it is definitely enough to make a difference. Especially considering the rate at which we are doing it. What happens in hundreds of years by nature happens in a couple by man.
It doesn't matter if it is 1 ppm, but it is several hundred that have changed, and with the total heat that we get from the sun a day, even the slightest effect could add up very quickly with each passing day. Your ideas that nothing we will ever do is significant is ignorant, and does not take into account what we have done, and what we can see we are doing now.
Actually, they are shrinking in absolute price, and greater variety is good for a market, it means less shit goes to hell when one source is interrupted. Oil is definitely biogenic in origin, or wait, did god just put all the biological matter deep underground 5000 years ago for us to find? All of our sources can't begin to provide strictly for ourselves. in europe they pay as much as 8 bucks a gallon. You really think that using up a finite resource as if there is an infinite amount of it, and no consequences, is just plain stupid. It is not even that much cheaper really, and what are we going to make our plastics from when we run out of oil, because we burned it all?
If we are putting something harmful to a place into it, we are polluting, your argument doesn't make any since.
I am a man thank you, and you come off as someone who has been drinking the FOX coolaid and doesn't knoe the real facts, but is perfectly content spouting bullshit at everyone that challenges their peachy way of life, and also, I am not rich, atm I am struggling, so fuck you.
...? I said nothing that you said I did, and are making enormous assumptions. Allow me to address those, and explain.
I am a very happy person. I also don't get angry often, it takes quite a bit to push me over the edge. On the other hand, I have rarely met a christian who can tolerate me asking them about their beliefs without rushing into a frenzy. Homosexuals are not happy as christians, they suppress their natural urges and live a life of pain. Others kill themselves, due to the pain that christians harassment causes them. Those who question the bible, or ask questions at all. In fact, a good percentage of people are miserable not only within the faith, but outside of it due to your faith.
Not only happy, but I live a fulfilling life. I spend very much time inventing and creating things, helping humanity reach a better tomorrow, and working towards an end to suffering. I get fulfillment from helping people, as do most atheists. If someone does not get fulfillment from seeing their fellow man smile and be in good health, then he is not a man but a beast, as you appear to be.
Of the people you listed, only one accomplished anything real, and that is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Yes, christians can accomplish things, but not the average christian. You need to take your beliefs outside the realm of what the church or the bible has to say for that.
I made a several page proof of exactly why I am not squandering my existence, and the possiblitiy of a heat death to the universe is so far in the future it need not worry even us even 10^15 generations from now, and by then we will have likely designed some kind of work around. What worries me now is caring for my fellow man, and if you want to know the whole story, go back and read the posts above which you have exactly ignored in full. Also, I must note that that is a reality of the future, we can either try to stop it from happening somehow, maybe even in a way we are not capable of understanding with our present minds, or we can just pretend it doesn't exist, and squander our lives doing little or nothing to advance humanity.
As I said before, I am not an angry person, but at the moment I do grow angry, because you continue to reply to my posts without reading them, often with the intellectual rigor of a pile of horse shit. Because you refuse to entertain logic, and just throw at me the same, tired, crappy phrases at me that I have heard and disputed a million times before, and ignore the wonderful logic which I painstakingly wasted my time to write to you. You miss not only the point, but absolutely everything.
Morality is best when humanistic, and if you wish to debate it, you best have a point that isn't so full of holes it might as well be aerogel. The number of people whom suffer now, or have suffered in the past is far greater than the number of people who suffer from atheist, of which I can not even imagine one. Not only that, but prayer has been proven ineffective, and at times psychologically harmful. Your creation myths are garbage, your bible is simply a book written long ago by jesus' disciples, and mad men speaking to talking bushes after eating a shitload of shrooms. Christian communities are less supportive than others, and community is incredibly important when nobody in it has to live in constant fear that everyone else will find out they are not perfect, not as normal as them. Your personal relationship with god is also bullshit, I have a closer relationship with nature. Just sitting in the forest, looking up at the sky while sitting at my small, warm fire that I made from gathered and chopped wood on the ground, enjoying reality to its fullest, and picturing the vast and powerful forces of nature that can and do kill people, not just crazy stories made up by people with no understanding of the concept of undeniable truth from ages ago. and any atheist out there would be more than willing to spend days logically deconstructing and destroying every, single, last aspect of religion.
ugh. No, you are not hearing me right. Let me tell you a little story. The friend of a professor went home one night, drank a rum and coke, and woke up the next morning with a headache. The next day, he had a gin and coke, and woke up with a headach. On a third day, he drank a bourbon and coke. He awoke the next day with a headache. He then concluded that he must stop drinking coke, because it was giving him a headache, neglecting what we all know was caused by the alcohol he mixed with it.
This is somewhat similar to what you are doing with pieces of global warming. If CO2 is not the only factor in global heat content, then you can not assume that just because levels rose at some point in the past without temperatures rising, that they are unrelated, there are just other factors influencing the situation, which you are blind to. This is far more true for this situation than it is for the story I just told, and it is what you are doing.
I do agree that we are not the sole cause, but we are certainly one of the bigger players.
On your next point, although you would think so, you are dead wrong. And with the price of traditional cheap energy constantly rising, having diversity is important to the energy market. Don't hold all your eggs in one basket, you know? Else what happened in August '08 will happen again, except with energy. Plus, those alternative energies are growing in popularity and shrinking in price every day, and better yet, they are mostly safe to produce and create new jobs which add to the market, as opposed to buying energy from our terrorist friends, who want us to be dead.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If we are putting it out of our industrial equipment and cars, we are polluting it. The same would be true if factories spit out water. Pollution is a term of context.
Also, I am getting the feeling that you are a moron who is incapable of reading context, understanding basic concepts, or actually wanting to know anything. You come off more as a conceited dumb ass whose responses rely mostly on misconstruing what others say to fit your warped reality. Please, reply intelligently and with finesse next time, instead of like an angry bull in a china shop (and yes, I am aware that myth was busted, but it sounds cool).
So you ignore my main point, and now we are talking about the role of humans. Goodie.
Your first argument implies that CO2 is the only possible way heating can occur. That is just as stupid as what you said below that.
Also, I am not saying that all things were constant, I am saying that you can not make an argument that a single factor out of many is the only possible reason for anything. Like if we were releasing enormous amounts of CO2, but also huge amounts of ash, soot, and CFCs, then there are factors that slow the cooling. But at the same time these other factors decreased when we started regulating pollution, so that only CO2, CO, sulfides and nitrous oxides could be put into the atmosphere. See what happens when you ignore ALL of the factors?
Look, I also want cheap energy, but you neglect the economics of cheap energy. Technically a society can produce more and end up in poverty, due to the twisted bullshit in economics. It may sound crazy, but you seem like a nutjob, so let me explain. Cheap energy means that corporations can produce more for less, and make more profit. However, they will likely give that profit only to the top brass of the company, and hire maybe 1 or 2 new cheap workers, meanwhile that money is moved out of the economy, because the rich rarely spend everything they earn, but likely save up massive amounts that they will never use. Because this money is moved out of the economy, there is less to go around and people spend less, prices go up, and people companies lose profit. Sure it could also be good, but this is economics. Also, cheap energy can be good energy, it can help people.
If we have more efficient industries, then when the price of power rises because we have used up all the cheap shit, or all thats left happens to belong to sadistic terrorists, then it won't be as hard to get by. Or we could just keep living forever as if it will go on forever.
CO2 is plant food, but it is also pollution. We put more of it into the air than millions of years of life. If we eventually exhume all of it, then there will be a lot more in the air than is good for us, or for plants, as plants respirate too, more than they photosynthesize at night. Also, nitrous oxides and sulfides are not plant food, they are dangerous corosize acids that kill plants, and erode cement. They stink and cause asthma.
Water has a habit of collecting in bodies, CO2 has no such habit. It instead, helps trap more heat than we need.
Also, do you only read every 5th word of what I said, because your arguments neglect a good 4/5th of everything I said, and are utterly and totally retarded, misunderstanding and misconstrueing what I said, they also show absolutely no knowledge of science, in any field.
If their worldview was that there was no downside to dying, then they were not humanistic atheists, to whom the ultimate downside is death. Because without an afterlife, when you die, you lose the chance to advance humanity, you lose everything. Perhaps if they had been taught to care about others, and others had been taught to care about them, instead of hating them for being different, and torturing them, then maybe there would be a few less dead children.
Be it for the most insane psychopath or the most average joe, humanistic atheism is the ultimate for morality, and helps the most people. Sure, some things might still go wrong, but forcing everyone to control and stop themselves from being and acting human, just so that they don't have to be tortured for eternity?
You have literally ignored all of my argument except for one small line, which is not only irrelevant but inconclusive and your opinion on the matter is flat out wrong, especially considering the situation never would have come about if it had not been for the other children in the school hating and bullying those who are different so that they can earn gods love. Unless you are planning on killing a bunch of people soon, then perhaps you should consider my arguments as applied to you, and then examine them in reference to everyone else in society. Logical humanistic atheism is the best morality for humanity, as it does everything to help people, and nothing to hurt them. It allows minds to be free and people to be happy, and offers fair and just punishment for sins against humanity. It doe s not torture people, it does not kill the intelligent, and it cannot be used as an excuse to hurt people.
They also would not have cared even if they were devout christians (as many past christian serial killers haven't), because at times the pains of the physical world will drive anyone to such extremes, if the pain is bad enough. It is easy to deny such a fact as a spoiled rich whore, but it is hard to do so when you yourself have been through hell on earth.
You have not denied your crimes against humanity as defined by the differences I have previously stated, you have not denied a word that I said. Until you attempt to, which you will inevitably fail to succeed at, then you have indeed proved my points.
I have answered your questions despite your refusal to answer mine, and I have been patient with you. Do not push my patience, as you soon will if you neglect at least some kind of logical formation of an argument, and some kind of denial of my stable, previously stated points. The extremes are not the everyday, and while important, work differently than the averages. I have disputed your points on both, and you have ignored mine. This is reality, you can not expect others to run to your smallest whims. Debate fully, or not at all.
Actually, I made the first post here, and I was not talking about AGW. I was talking about the fact that the earth is, indeed, getting warmer. As far as total heat content goes, that is about as fact as it gets.
Also, on your last point, if there are thousands of different conditions that determine whether or not the earth is gaining or losing heat content, and CO2 has always (before humanity) been directly paired with volcanic activities or was a minor factor compared to much bigger factors, and then its position changed due to an enormous increase, then indeed its role might be irrelevant a long time ago but not now. This is not to say its not falsifiable, it is to say that it is not the singular factor in the truth or falsity of the final statement. Now if you were to say if all other things were held constant, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere had different effects over time, then we can deduce it is an irrelevant factor. This is, however, NOT the case. So the idea that people are causing global warming is indeed a falsifiable hypothesis. However, just claiming that one of the many factors that people have caused is irrelevant without respect to actual history and other factors, then it is not a valid criticism.
So actually, yes, it does falsify it, all other things held constant. However, in history all other things have not been constant. CO2 before human intervention was paired with reflective ash that ended up high in the atmosphere and reflected a great deal of heat that would otherwise have helped the earth warm, but the CO2 and ash condensed from the atmosphere at roughly similar times, so there was ANOTHER factor. Saying that if we only consider the factor of CO2 and ignore how the others change over time, is very similar to saying that if you run a red light, you will always cause an accident, and if it doesn't cause an accident when you do it once, it will never. However, the one you ran might have been in the middle of nowhere, and there was no danger, while the another is in a city, and running it you crash. Other factors are important, and all must be considered. Whether or not it is our fault, the earth is warming. I don't mind that much at all, as I would prefer warmer weather. I do however hate pollution, as it literally stinks, and I would very much not like it if the deep ocean currents stopped, as we would be losing a major future power source, and we would be risking very adverse future conditions, especially at the rate at which the increase is happening.
So yes, it is falsifiable, and yes, it the earth is warming, and it is very likely we have caused it. Even if we haven't, the reasons we think we caused it should be stopped anyways, so that us and our children can breath clean air and drink clean water, live in a more efficient and cheap world, doing more with less. Or maybe we should just dump shit-tons of CO2, nitrous oxides and sulfides into the atmosphere of our cities, so that our children can suffer from asthma and die, our water can taste like farts, and we can not even see the sky in our own cities. But hell, we don't want to hurt businesses that are making so much money, and filtering it out of the economy, shrinking the buying power of the average citizen as well as destroying their habitat (we all have to live somewhere). Sure it has been argued that humans are killing animals habitats, but super-corps are killing our habitats. But who gives a damn about any of that, our great grand children can worry about it, fuck the present, as long as your stock and commodity shares go up, right?
You have a point about statistics, but I still think there is some importance to them. Take your example, for example, how many close calls have texting drivers caused? how many people have had to swerve out of the way? These kinds of questions can't be easily answered, but are still important. The studies done of texting while driving in driving simulators have shown that it makes a slight increase in accidents, but a dramatic decrease in driving performance. If everyone texted while they drove, there would be nobody left to swerve out of the way, and a lot more accidents would be reported.
Lets think also about pregnancy rates and sexual education. If we ignore the statistics that say there is less teenage pregnancy with good sex ed, then there will be more teen pregnancy, no two ways about it. When we decide no statistics are important because a news company like FOX decides to tell its already apathetic, fact ignoring populace to ignore the few facts that they still follow, what the hell happens then?
Facts are important, and we should all be taught how to properly interpret them. Like how correlation doesn't imply causation, and that although typically people typically die after 8 months of a certain cancer, that not everyone does, and there are many factors that change their own chances. If we don't know how to interpret the facts, then we fail in our own lives, and as a society. If someone like FOX takes this, and uses it, what the fuck is to stop some of those morons from trying to ignore statistics and make our children's lives worse, our lives worse, and all that bullshit, because they feel that they can state facts don't matter and aren't true? What the hell will happen then? another factor accelerating the decline of reason in America.
Global warming is not a tautology. It is simple really. Calculate global heat content. Is it higher than last year? Is it getting steadily higher over the past few decades? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. But yes. Anyone who has a clue as to the density of water compared to air, and who has a clue about the heat capacity per mass of air compared to per mass of water, will understand the oceans hold more than 100x the heat of the air, and if they are getting 1 degree warmer, that is more significant than a 15 degree increase in air temp. Global warming is true beyond reasonable doubt for anyone that has a damn clue about the nature of reality. I have never seen a global warming denier fight the argument about warmer oceans.
The study of past evolution can be found false, but we know for a fact that evolution happens in many different ways even right now. We know for a fact that things are evolving right now in front of us. Evolution as we know it is a fact, picking details out of the distant past, that so far have all been found to be totally forged, or fake, and it makes logical sense. Sure it could be wrong, but the chances that are true are so small it is not even thinkable.
Both are falsifiable, but both are also true. Being a dumbass that pretends to understand thermodynamics and stating that it is by no means likely, does not make it right, and it does make you appear to be an ass.
We all live our lives as we wish to live them, and realize that statistics are incredibly important to making the world a better, easier place to live in. Sure, they can be wrong sometimes, but I would imagine the general public trusts them a lot less than they should actually be trusted. I mean, global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution, but we still have people who don't have a clue and doubt blatant facts because they don't understand things like the specific heat capacity of water, or that evolution isn't globs of crap off the ground suddenly turning into animals and people.
Sure, the numbers can sometimes be wrong, but they are not wrong 75% of the time. Not even 50% or 25%, but less. And yes, sometimes we are further off, but it is rare. Should we really ignore important numbers because their is a small chance they are wrong? I am not saying anyone should change everything about their lives due to a single number, but common, this is a bit crazy. I am not trying to be debatative here, just saying hey, it is what it is.
Are you mentally retarded? A higher power is not an ultimate punishment for being immoral. First of all, any moron can deduce it isn't likely to exist in the first place, and second of all it is so far off and insane it has a terrible history of actually forcing people to conform. More likely is the thousands of governments who have used totalitarian constructs to force citizens to obey or be hung at the gallows. In fact, this punishment by other people is one of the motivations for people to be moral. In order to survive, we need to get along with our neighbors, because it is damn hard to live solely off of yourself, especially in todays society where you must buy your food with money, that you must get from working and so on. Society is a major force pushing people to conform. If we conform by humanistic right and wrong, than we can at least tolerate each other logically, help each other and care. few people will be forced out of their natural selves without religion, those who deviate mildly will not be persecuted so strongly.
People are also born with a sense of empathy and compassion, sure about 1/100 people does not, but the rest of us at least care that others are suffering, and wish something could be done, and to cause pain would not do any good. And those who cause that pain will be punished by those who can't stand to see them do it. There is extensive game theory and evolutionary proofs of this. Sure, people will NEVER naturally follow christian morality, but that is because christian morality causes us pain and suffering, and those with a heart want it abolished, and those who are deviant are bullied to no end.
Humans who feel a natural urge to behave according to humanistic morality would be more likely to preserve their tribe. The more in the tribe who exhibit it, the more likely the tribe can continue itself. If people naturally followed christian morality, they would die in about a week. Society is only more stable when people follow a logical, humanistic morality that applies to the conditions of that society. Christianity will never come close to that, nor will any other established religion. Christian morality is so terrible, look at how unstable and short-lived all the christian totalitarians have been throughout time! That just goes to show it is as humanisticly immoral as is possible!
The purpose of morality is for us to get along with one another, to live productive lives for our species, and to ensure a decent treatment of all around us, whether we know them or not. Christianity and other moral systems that rely on a higher power do no such thing, so are clearly immoral as a general fact. Atheists, as it turns out, have one of the lowest crime rates in society. The few percent of criminals probably the rebellious youth who are just angry at society for oppressing them and their ideas. Society does a fine job at regulating itself in a real moral system, but in christianity, not so much.
If we follow a humanistic morality, and can carry on into the future and spread humanity forever. If not, we could some day not exist, and the universe is worthless. Now that, is about as great as a purpose can get.
There is indeed ultimate punishment for immoral people, they can have their lives taken from them. As long as they aren't religious, that is as great as a punishment can be. If they are christian however, what is to stop even the most insane of madmen from continuing on his rage? Nothing. What I say is true, and it might be unpleasant to some, but that doesn't make it less true. And what I have said, unlike your statement, has an elaborate logical underpinning proven by several fields of science and reinforced by studies and observations of present humans. What of that anonymous coward, what of that.
They killed themselves after killing others. No set of morality, be it biblical or real, could convince them not to be evil. But perhaps if they had not been shunned and bullied because they were different, they would not have become haters, and would not have committed such an atrocity.
I never watch MSNBC, and I do fact check CNN, with decent results. Typically I check through the scholarly databases or google scholar. Or in some cases, I can check a fact simply by testing it.
FOX posts a lot of interesting bullshit, the problem is that it all tends to be bullshit. MSNBC doesn't post anything worth checking or even watching, so I don't bother. FOX however always either misreads its source exaggerates, or flat out fucking lies. It is not a wild claim, and it is not out of the blue.
Because this is reality. You and I exist, we are right here talking. The chance that religions are true is far too small to think about, but even if there is a higher power besides the epic forces of nature, the idea of following the morals of a specific religion are insane.
There are two kinds of right and wrong: Religious and humanistic. Typically they conflict. The humanistic view is that things that are bad for humanity are immoral, things that show a lack of compassion or pure cruelty towards one another are wrong. The religious one is by the bible of that culture. If you follow the humanistic definitions of right and wrong, you can do more for humanity, you can preserve our species and help us travel to the stars.
Now why is that important? Well, we may be alone in the universe, if we aren't, we certainly don't know that for a fact yet. And until we do, we are the one life form in the universe that we know about. Without us, there could be nothing in the grand, massive, amazing universe that is conscious and self aware. As far as we know, this is a fact. The universe is only valuable if there is something to give it value, as value is a arbitrary label to which conscious beings attribute to things. In the case that humanity dies out, there is a chance that there is nothing else to give the universe value. Could you imagine the case in which the universe goes from having an extremely high value to virtually none? That, dear child, is why you should follow humanist morals in the big picture of things.
As far as the small picture, the reasons are just as solid. Everything we do in this reality has consequences, real ones. If we make a choice to ban some kind of literature or give our children a worse education, and as a result we have generations of intellectual stagnation, and persecution of scientists. The simple fact is that what we do has consequences. Logic, science, compassion can tell us how to make the best possible decision based on what we know. Religion is just throwing darts at the wall in the dark. If we so chose to establish religious morals as legal mandate, we will be creating devastating consequences for future generations. We have seen it innumerable times throughout history and the world.
I guess that is still kind of big picture. Let me narrow it down to each of our lives. Without a higher power, morals are based solely on the reality of our lives. They are based solely on our compassion for one another, our understanding, our caring, our future hopes and dreams as a society. We only have one life to give for our species, only one life to give to help advance our society and move towards a future in which people cannot be wiped from the universe. Hell, even if there is an afterlife, you only have this life to make a difference to this reality. In this life, you can either help humanity, make a difference, or waste away, fighting compassion, fighting humanity. Brutally hating those around you for arbitrary differences, or attributing biological processes to the root of all evil and sin. It is harmful to you, it is harmful to everyone else in society, and it is especially harmful to all those who deviate even slightly from the normal person, as the normal person is the only moral person in the eyes of the bible. By fighting humanity, you can possibly work towards its destruction. You might be one of the small factors not helping us arrive at a better tomorrow. As long as you are not using logic, science, math, reason, or compassion in your decision making process on what consists of morality, then you are being as immoral as it is possible to be in terms of humanistic moralism. You might argue that it is gods will, well I will ask you how you can read the mind of god, and why he would tell us to ignore the amazing brains to which your religion says he gave us, or why we should work so fervently against one another and the continuation of our species and the DNA molecule as a whole.
What basis for morality is their in a higher power? Why should ANY
Slashdot Mirror
If only they actually treated modern scientists well. Its just the same bullshit again 500 years after that crap happened, and yet they still haven't learned. If you refuse to recognize the patterns of reality, how will you recognize the patterns of reality?
Right? its like, well, we may have been completely and totally wrong, if not flat out evil and cruel, but we will rebury you as a hero 500 years from now. And now they do the same thing to modern scientists. Talk about blindness.
Oil always occurs in pockets in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary is depositing over time, and is never deep in the mantle. Life is made of hydrocarbons, and when packed down with a shit-ton of pressure, it forms coal and oil. Some of the lighter forms of coal even show shapes that show it was at one point plant material. There is nothing magic about it, it is simple science.
A super volcano is devastating, but it takes weeks for the ash to spread globally. Apart from killing everyone within a few miles of every major city in russia and the US and every other civilized country, and then killing them with radioactive fall out in the following couple of weeks, nukes could kill everyone alive, whereas a super volcano would just destroy the area it is in, and spread some bad issues for a lot of people, wide swaths of humanity would be absolutely fine. Nuclear winter holds no life.
Climate models are falsifiable, but we went over this earlier, you do not understand that a single condition is not the only factor, you must look at everything all the time. Hence CO2 200 years ago didn't do anything while it does now because the method by which we add it to the atmosphere. Natural variation is accounted for in these models, a fact which you seem to be neglecting.
Actually, I am attending a 4 year public university for mechanical engineering. I am getting it at a steal. I just wasn't born into a rich family, and have nothing to work off of. I am also not eligible for military service due to a medical condition. There was no choice about it, I either did not go to college, or go into massive debt. That is what it is like when you are born poor, and have literally nothing to work up from. I chose to make a future for myself, and sadly the only way to do that in america is to be born with well-off parents who build you a savings account, go into the military, or acquire a shit-ton of debt.
Actually, I examined all of those sites in the past, and found all of their arguments to be ignorant of basic scientific principles, largely inconclusive, and having many of the same logical issues you are having. You are clearly no climate scientist, nor are the owners of the site, hell, yall barely understand chemistry, thermodynamics, physics, or any of that, nor are you adequately educated as to what climate models do. Its like talking to a old Amish person about specific software, or something equally as dismal. Seriously, I have been keeping tabs on Wattsupwiththat.com for a while, waiting for them to post anything at all that might actually help their point, but have found no such information. I understand it all right, but you don't have a clue.
Do you eat babies in your spare time? or do you just smash them against walls and rip fetuses out of mothers because god tells you to? Do you hang people in trees just because they weren't born your race? If you don't, I am surprised. I have provided all good arguments, you have provided nothing. Just because the truth takes many words to say does not make it rambling. Have fun raping children mr. black book of death banger.
Liberals accept science. Science is reality. Conservatives do not. So you could either say that liberals have a reality bias, or that reality has a liberal bias. Conservatives have a bias against reality, or vice versa. The KKK were not little angels protecting the way of life for southerners, and science is true, based on elaborate logical underpinnings. Bias is a relative thing, and not always a bad thing when talking about a bias towards or against things that are as true as we can possibly achieve.
If you believe that to be true then you have never met an atheist, or never actually listened to an explanation of their beliefs about morality. You ignore every single argument I make, say our moral code is based on nothing when I have explained exactly what it is based on in clear and concise language, and you have claimed that if your morality isn't based on a book that tells people to kill for god then they are bad people.
I fail to see how anything you said was right, or even remotely logical. You keep repeating yourself, and I keep disproving and countering every argument in new ways hoping they you might actually read and understand any of them. Instead you ignore everything I write and just accuse atheists of having a moral code to justify what they would do anyways. I have never met an atheist who believes that way, or acts in such a matter and I know hundreds of atheists. I also know hundreds of christians from my time as one of them, and every single one of them bends what the bible says to meet their actions. Serial killers take passages directly from the bible, word for word and do them, exactly as stated. Christains constantly ignore thousands of bible passages, whatever they don't feel applies to them.
Now listen to me here, you came into a conversation ignoring the beliefs and arguments of others, dismissing them and claiming your own system to be the only way without any logical justification or reasoning. Even the statement "Nothing that you have posted gives me any reason to believe that you are any different" just goes to show that you didn't even read anything I have written, nor would you care if you did. Your beliefs are static and you do not open them to debate, instead just insulting me and millions of other good people, as well as ignoring the facts and statistics and logical constructions and everything else. People like you are the reason that people like me, an eagle scout, honors student, community servant, a helper and good person by every respect of the word, can still be called a devil by a christian just because I am an atheist, even though they abuse children, do nothing for their fellow man, and inhibit the future survival of humanity. How the fuck I am the bad person in that mix, I haven't the faintest fucking clue, unless your definition of bad person is "follows the bible, even if it means being a cruel, sick son of a bitch who destroys everything good for humanity just because the bible says to" and a bad person is "anyone who deviates slightly from cultural norms, isn't a devout christian, and everyone else".
I make no assumptions, I have been down these arguments with thousands of people thousands of times, and I get one of two responses- yours, or they break down in tears upon realizing their religion is crap, and start the painful, long deconversion process. You do not walk into a debate and refuse the option to be wrong, because then you are not debating, but trying to convert others and ignoring everything they say, or dismissing it. Like I said, get over yourself.
You are absolutely retarded. You don't even know what an atheist is, much less anything about the science or morals that we follow.
There is nothing random about the universe that is at all relevent to how we live our lives. You kill someone, people fucking suffer, and atheists understand that, and do not want to see others suffer. As I have said, life on earth matters, for hundreds of reasons, I posted like 5 page post on it earlier that you even admitted you did not read. There is no reason it wouldn't matter when you commit an immoral act, it will always matter. We atheists just think that an immoral act is not how you feel, your sexual orientation, your race, sex, fashion preference, or simply because you don't believe in fairy tales, all things the bible says you should be put in an prison camp that is literally on fire for eternity and you will be tortured there forever. What the fuck is even remotely moral about wanting your fellow man to suffer for eternity? WHAT KIND OF SICK BASTARD would wish that on other people?
I started this conversation without anger or condemnation, but the more you call me immoral, and the more you insult me without just cause, the angrier I will get. Why would you hate someone jesus died to redeem? You wouldn't, but apparently homosexuals and black people and pretty much anyone christians happen to dislike at the time aren't on that list.
As to your story, I would not have run, because I would stand up for my beliefs, and WHENEVER I see a life in danger, I do everything I can to save it, even if the person wants me dead. That kind of care is called being human, and the courage to stand up for your beliefs in the face of death is called being human. But when your beliefs have no logical, factual, or any other kind of reasonable base, what confidence can you have in them besides blind faith? In history however, christian morals tend to be "They are different, lets kill them and torture them in public" And as long as a holy book can be used by millions of people as an excuse for evil, it itself is also. Sure it might have a few lines of beautiful storytelling, but in the end it is a load of bullshit and everyone knows it.
Help your fellow man, but work for truth, not for Mega-Hitler. Help your fellow man for their own sake, not for yours. Even if it means burning in hell, it is better to help all those around you than to let them suffer in this life, the only one we can be truly sure about.
Atheists understand that all actions have effects, and we use science to study what actions have what effects, when the answers aren't blatantly obvious (even then we often check). Like in making government policy, we would rather know for a definite, scientific fact what the effects of an action are, like getting rid of sex ed for an abstinence only program, we can show that it will help the spread of STIs and it will increase teen pregnancy and abortion rates, then we say, huh, that is bad, maybe we shouldn't do it. The christian type of action tends to be more of a "the bible says that sex is bad outside of marriage, which is a religious institution, and not legal without parental permission until 18, plus we don't want our children exposed to the real world, so lets do abstinence only, whether it ruins their lives and spreads disease or not".
When your justification is fine with causing that kind of damage, it is not a worthy justification for anything.
Now look, I will give you one more chance, respond properly without calling me some kind of devilish heathen, with an understanding of what I said and not just repeating your same stupid ass comments, or just don't comment. I really hate having to repeat myself to someone that believes in a magical santa claus in the sky that will grant my wishes if I torture myself or burn me in eternal hell if I don't do everything I can to ensure he can continue and spread his sadism and sick sense of pleasure from the pain of others.
And what do you think of the scientists that have had been killed by
You say morals cannot be justified without a higher power.
I state and explain that humanity is a justification for morals. If caring about humanity isn't enough to make you moral, what use are you to society, why should we not lock you up as a danger and throw away the key?
Humanistic morals are morals that fall in line with what is good for humanity, what is compassionate of others, what is natural and good. These morals often do justify human acts, but being human is not inherently evil or bad, it can be good for people. And I care about people more than I care about your fairy tale uber-Hitler.
You make assumptions about atheist morals without understanding them, while the christian morals are very blatantly set out for all too see, and I certainly understand them and I am simply commenting on their devastating effects. Christian morals are inherently bad for people, and humanistic morals are not as you think they are. They are carefully figured out morals that essential just say be good to yourself, those around you, society as a whole, be educated. Not rocket science. And yes, that means not murdering homosexuals, or hanging black people in your trees, or any of that stuff that is EASILY justified by the bible, but condoned as horrible by humanistic morality.
An atheist moral set is not justifying what we are going to do anyways, it is trying to do everything we can for humanity. Christian morals actually have a much greater tendency to end up being what believers want them to be, and not strait from the bible. We all know how terrible it would be if they were taken strait.
Also, I might add that logical, humanistic morality is based on a definite science, worked out by careful study and calculation to hurt few and help many, not made up by a bunch of drug pushing goat herders who heard voices and murdered their own children. And up until now I have avoided saying exactly what christian morality is.
Atheistic morals have nothing to do with the bullshit you mention, and there is no reason to think so, unless you happen to think that the bible is right when it says 'hate all those unlike oneself. I hope all of your children grow up and turn out to be gay, just so that you might one day understand.
You want to know what I think? You are one sick as mother fucking son of a bitch who wants to impose their religious beliefs on others, and believes himself so self-righteous that even if he was sent to prison for slaughtering babies you would still think you were in the right, as long as the bible said so. Are you going to send bears after children who make fun of bald guys too? Morals justified "by a higher power" have been used to justify literally every single tribal culture out there, and include acts such as cannibalism, genocides, infanticide, homicide, scuicide, sexual repression, persecution, violent polygamy, and so on. Your 'higher power' has been claimed by many and has justified whatever the culture wants it to justify. At least humanistic morals actually try to find fundamental truths about human nature, and comply with compassion and freedom, regardless of present cultural norms, at least we give a shit about truth and justice, not just the gang like, tribe like, cult like bullshit that you claim is all seeing. There is no higher power to justify you, just you there to justify yourself, and that is a dangerous cycle. I was once a christian, very much so, but I grew out of the fairy tales and bullshit, and went through the painful process of deconversion. Then my life got a lot better, and I felt very sorry for being such an asshole following a religion like that. You should too.
Get over yourself, you are not god.
of course it would be unlikely if they had standard safety measures in place, and didn't over-tax the system. Instead they basically did everything possible to cause it, whether they realize it or not. I am all for drilling in the US, but do it right, spend an extra 10k for some safety measures that will save your rig which is putting out millions worth every week or so. Not exactly asking them to get ass-raped by over-safety, just to do something, anything at all really.
yea, kind of like saying as alive as George Washington, or as eloquent as George W. Bush, or as fat as a supermodel. That kind of thing.
I am surprised the middle east hasn't embraced apple, and their intense censorship. It seems like they would be a good match.
You are so retarded all I can do is dispell your idiocy and hope you don't come back.
The nuclear arsonal of just a few superpowers could kill all life on earth. Instantly. No supervolcano can do that, and meteors can, sure, but that is not the kind of change we are talking about.
The sun follows predictable patterns, which we have recorded and are part of climate change models. The warming of the earth is from more than just that one factor. Also, the seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth, not the sun. It may be summer up north, but in Aussiland it is fall, the beginning of winter.
There is not a single source of oil, but many. Methane is extremely simple, and likely to be found in many planets atmospheres. Oil is a combination of hundreds of different hydrocarbons of varying length and shape. Its most likely origin is from deposits of life that were burried by sedimentation and eventually compacted into coal or oil. There may be methane on titan, but there are not pits of tar or oil, there is a big difference mr. I can't think past the most basic and rudimentary attempts at logic.
There is only so much past life on earth, so there is only so much oil. end of story. Even so, anything you mine from the ground you will eventually run out of, by it gold, platinum, or oil. We can make oil ourselves though, it is not as good as strait gas, but it is carbon neutral and doesn't release as many nitrates into the air, and virtually no sulfides.
Nitrogen is about 76% of the air on earth. It is nice and inert, and doesn't do much. Our blanket of CO2, water vapor, and methane keeps the earth warm. it is nice. What is not nice, is when we increase CO2 or Methane, because then the earth heats, and warmer oceans mean more H2O in the air, keeping it even warmer. However, clouds do help reflect some light. Again, it is a complicated process, clearly WAY beyond your comprehension. You do not need to reach toxicity to have damaging effects, end of story.
Actually, I am in college, and plan on working on alternative energy, consumer products, and medical devices. I am currently only struggling because Americans have decided that if I want to do something with my life I need to be absolutely perfect, and put myself in such heaploads of debt that it will take a good part of my life to pay off, or I could just pull the money out of my ass, or save up 10 dollars that don't go towards cost of living each month to put towards going to college, so that I could get a degree by the time I am 50. Ass-fucks.
You are missing every single point about everything, and don't seem to be able to reason past the very most basic levels of reasoning, and seem incapable of handling facts and logical constructions that involve more than one single factor or level of logical construction. Please, if you are going to continue, consider the arguments out there, as I have looked at every single anti-global warming website and haven't found even the slightest reasonable argument against it, just a bunch of fuck-heads like you ranting about shit you couldn't possible understand.
Mao was actually confusionist, and Stalin was christian, but you don't have to be an atheist and the people of soviet russia were forced into state-theism, obeying the state as a god. That is not atheism. Just as christians tend to dismiss people who were not good enough christians, atheists will dismiss people who didn't even claim to be atheists.
The crime rate among atheists is incredibly low. In the US we account for only 2% of those in prison, yet 16% of the general population. At the same time, christians account for 73% of the population, but 84% of those in prison. Few good atheists? Mostly good atheists, with a few people who were misguided and needed help, or were driven to terrible crimes by the persecution of the ultimate bully-christians.
I don't have time for a long post now, but look, I am generally open to arguments anyone makes. I am not open however, to arguments I have spent hundreds of hours disproving, just to have them parroted at me again, and my arguments against them ignored in favor of more standard crap.
Hitler was most certainly a christian, he went to church regularly and he, like all politicians, spent a great deal of time talking about god in his speeches. History is an absolute science, not one which you can dismiss parts of as you please just because your pastor lied to you. We know history, and if you look it up in scholarly sources, you will find me right. and what of the crusades and dark ages?
the language is not insulting just because it says you are wrong, it also says why. Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time parroting back mindless bullshit, then you would learn something and people would not get so mad at you for saying the same stupid things to them.
Whether you like it or not, humanistic morals help many people, and christian morals drive many into such a deep depression that they kill themselves. They are bullies, haters, and cruel when derived from the bible. Atheists have no such problem, only working out logic and reason, along with compassion. Atheists like me are eagle scouts, servers of the community, and christians who follow closely morals are bullies. That is the simple fact of the situation, and you ignore it and detract from it with everything you say, as if your pointless arguments about that stupid book make a difference. One of the main reasons I left religion was when I realized how many people were using it as an excuse to be cruel to others, in addition to all of its logical and scientific failings.
Actually, you appear to be the one misguided and misinformed, at every single level of debate you ignore important facts.
There are 6 billion people on earth. maybe more. That is a shit-ton of people, and we have massive industrial endeavors that change the face of the planet, from massive reservoir behind dams, to nuclear explosions, cities, and road networks. We certainly put a lot of crap into our air, and it is definitely enough to make a difference. Especially considering the rate at which we are doing it. What happens in hundreds of years by nature happens in a couple by man.
It doesn't matter if it is 1 ppm, but it is several hundred that have changed, and with the total heat that we get from the sun a day, even the slightest effect could add up very quickly with each passing day. Your ideas that nothing we will ever do is significant is ignorant, and does not take into account what we have done, and what we can see we are doing now.
Actually, they are shrinking in absolute price, and greater variety is good for a market, it means less shit goes to hell when one source is interrupted. Oil is definitely biogenic in origin, or wait, did god just put all the biological matter deep underground 5000 years ago for us to find? All of our sources can't begin to provide strictly for ourselves. in europe they pay as much as 8 bucks a gallon. You really think that using up a finite resource as if there is an infinite amount of it, and no consequences, is just plain stupid. It is not even that much cheaper really, and what are we going to make our plastics from when we run out of oil, because we burned it all?
If we are putting something harmful to a place into it, we are polluting, your argument doesn't make any since.
I am a man thank you, and you come off as someone who has been drinking the FOX coolaid and doesn't knoe the real facts, but is perfectly content spouting bullshit at everyone that challenges their peachy way of life, and also, I am not rich, atm I am struggling, so fuck you.
...? I said nothing that you said I did, and are making enormous assumptions. Allow me to address those, and explain.
I am a very happy person. I also don't get angry often, it takes quite a bit to push me over the edge. On the other hand, I have rarely met a christian who can tolerate me asking them about their beliefs without rushing into a frenzy. Homosexuals are not happy as christians, they suppress their natural urges and live a life of pain. Others kill themselves, due to the pain that christians harassment causes them. Those who question the bible, or ask questions at all. In fact, a good percentage of people are miserable not only within the faith, but outside of it due to your faith.
Not only happy, but I live a fulfilling life. I spend very much time inventing and creating things, helping humanity reach a better tomorrow, and working towards an end to suffering. I get fulfillment from helping people, as do most atheists. If someone does not get fulfillment from seeing their fellow man smile and be in good health, then he is not a man but a beast, as you appear to be.
Of the people you listed, only one accomplished anything real, and that is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Yes, christians can accomplish things, but not the average christian. You need to take your beliefs outside the realm of what the church or the bible has to say for that.
I made a several page proof of exactly why I am not squandering my existence, and the possiblitiy of a heat death to the universe is so far in the future it need not worry even us even 10^15 generations from now, and by then we will have likely designed some kind of work around. What worries me now is caring for my fellow man, and if you want to know the whole story, go back and read the posts above which you have exactly ignored in full. Also, I must note that that is a reality of the future, we can either try to stop it from happening somehow, maybe even in a way we are not capable of understanding with our present minds, or we can just pretend it doesn't exist, and squander our lives doing little or nothing to advance humanity.
As I said before, I am not an angry person, but at the moment I do grow angry, because you continue to reply to my posts without reading them, often with the intellectual rigor of a pile of horse shit. Because you refuse to entertain logic, and just throw at me the same, tired, crappy phrases at me that I have heard and disputed a million times before, and ignore the wonderful logic which I painstakingly wasted my time to write to you. You miss not only the point, but absolutely everything.
Morality is best when humanistic, and if you wish to debate it, you best have a point that isn't so full of holes it might as well be aerogel. The number of people whom suffer now, or have suffered in the past is far greater than the number of people who suffer from atheist, of which I can not even imagine one. Not only that, but prayer has been proven ineffective, and at times psychologically harmful. Your creation myths are garbage, your bible is simply a book written long ago by jesus' disciples, and mad men speaking to talking bushes after eating a shitload of shrooms. Christian communities are less supportive than others, and community is incredibly important when nobody in it has to live in constant fear that everyone else will find out they are not perfect, not as normal as them. Your personal relationship with god is also bullshit, I have a closer relationship with nature. Just sitting in the forest, looking up at the sky while sitting at my small, warm fire that I made from gathered and chopped wood on the ground, enjoying reality to its fullest, and picturing the vast and powerful forces of nature that can and do kill people, not just crazy stories made up by people with no understanding of the concept of undeniable truth from ages ago. and any atheist out there would be more than willing to spend days logically deconstructing and destroying every, single, last aspect of religion.
And sure, some
ugh. No, you are not hearing me right. Let me tell you a little story. The friend of a professor went home one night, drank a rum and coke, and woke up the next morning with a headache. The next day, he had a gin and coke, and woke up with a headach. On a third day, he drank a bourbon and coke. He awoke the next day with a headache. He then concluded that he must stop drinking coke, because it was giving him a headache, neglecting what we all know was caused by the alcohol he mixed with it.
This is somewhat similar to what you are doing with pieces of global warming. If CO2 is not the only factor in global heat content, then you can not assume that just because levels rose at some point in the past without temperatures rising, that they are unrelated, there are just other factors influencing the situation, which you are blind to. This is far more true for this situation than it is for the story I just told, and it is what you are doing.
I do agree that we are not the sole cause, but we are certainly one of the bigger players.
On your next point, although you would think so, you are dead wrong. And with the price of traditional cheap energy constantly rising, having diversity is important to the energy market. Don't hold all your eggs in one basket, you know? Else what happened in August '08 will happen again, except with energy. Plus, those alternative energies are growing in popularity and shrinking in price every day, and better yet, they are mostly safe to produce and create new jobs which add to the market, as opposed to buying energy from our terrorist friends, who want us to be dead.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If we are putting it out of our industrial equipment and cars, we are polluting it. The same would be true if factories spit out water. Pollution is a term of context.
Also, I am getting the feeling that you are a moron who is incapable of reading context, understanding basic concepts, or actually wanting to know anything. You come off more as a conceited dumb ass whose responses rely mostly on misconstruing what others say to fit your warped reality. Please, reply intelligently and with finesse next time, instead of like an angry bull in a china shop (and yes, I am aware that myth was busted, but it sounds cool).
So you ignore my main point, and now we are talking about the role of humans. Goodie.
Your first argument implies that CO2 is the only possible way heating can occur. That is just as stupid as what you said below that.
Also, I am not saying that all things were constant, I am saying that you can not make an argument that a single factor out of many is the only possible reason for anything. Like if we were releasing enormous amounts of CO2, but also huge amounts of ash, soot, and CFCs, then there are factors that slow the cooling. But at the same time these other factors decreased when we started regulating pollution, so that only CO2, CO, sulfides and nitrous oxides could be put into the atmosphere. See what happens when you ignore ALL of the factors?
Look, I also want cheap energy, but you neglect the economics of cheap energy. Technically a society can produce more and end up in poverty, due to the twisted bullshit in economics. It may sound crazy, but you seem like a nutjob, so let me explain. Cheap energy means that corporations can produce more for less, and make more profit. However, they will likely give that profit only to the top brass of the company, and hire maybe 1 or 2 new cheap workers, meanwhile that money is moved out of the economy, because the rich rarely spend everything they earn, but likely save up massive amounts that they will never use. Because this money is moved out of the economy, there is less to go around and people spend less, prices go up, and people companies lose profit. Sure it could also be good, but this is economics. Also, cheap energy can be good energy, it can help people.
If we have more efficient industries, then when the price of power rises because we have used up all the cheap shit, or all thats left happens to belong to sadistic terrorists, then it won't be as hard to get by. Or we could just keep living forever as if it will go on forever.
CO2 is plant food, but it is also pollution. We put more of it into the air than millions of years of life. If we eventually exhume all of it, then there will be a lot more in the air than is good for us, or for plants, as plants respirate too, more than they photosynthesize at night. Also, nitrous oxides and sulfides are not plant food, they are dangerous corosize acids that kill plants, and erode cement. They stink and cause asthma.
Water has a habit of collecting in bodies, CO2 has no such habit. It instead, helps trap more heat than we need.
Also, do you only read every 5th word of what I said, because your arguments neglect a good 4/5th of everything I said, and are utterly and totally retarded, misunderstanding and misconstrueing what I said, they also show absolutely no knowledge of science, in any field.
If their worldview was that there was no downside to dying, then they were not humanistic atheists, to whom the ultimate downside is death. Because without an afterlife, when you die, you lose the chance to advance humanity, you lose everything. Perhaps if they had been taught to care about others, and others had been taught to care about them, instead of hating them for being different, and torturing them, then maybe there would be a few less dead children.
Be it for the most insane psychopath or the most average joe, humanistic atheism is the ultimate for morality, and helps the most people. Sure, some things might still go wrong, but forcing everyone to control and stop themselves from being and acting human, just so that they don't have to be tortured for eternity?
You have literally ignored all of my argument except for one small line, which is not only irrelevant but inconclusive and your opinion on the matter is flat out wrong, especially considering the situation never would have come about if it had not been for the other children in the school hating and bullying those who are different so that they can earn gods love. Unless you are planning on killing a bunch of people soon, then perhaps you should consider my arguments as applied to you, and then examine them in reference to everyone else in society. Logical humanistic atheism is the best morality for humanity, as it does everything to help people, and nothing to hurt them. It allows minds to be free and people to be happy, and offers fair and just punishment for sins against humanity. It doe s not torture people, it does not kill the intelligent, and it cannot be used as an excuse to hurt people.
They also would not have cared even if they were devout christians (as many past christian serial killers haven't), because at times the pains of the physical world will drive anyone to such extremes, if the pain is bad enough. It is easy to deny such a fact as a spoiled rich whore, but it is hard to do so when you yourself have been through hell on earth.
You have not denied your crimes against humanity as defined by the differences I have previously stated, you have not denied a word that I said. Until you attempt to, which you will inevitably fail to succeed at, then you have indeed proved my points.
I have answered your questions despite your refusal to answer mine, and I have been patient with you. Do not push my patience, as you soon will if you neglect at least some kind of logical formation of an argument, and some kind of denial of my stable, previously stated points. The extremes are not the everyday, and while important, work differently than the averages. I have disputed your points on both, and you have ignored mine. This is reality, you can not expect others to run to your smallest whims. Debate fully, or not at all.
Actually, I made the first post here, and I was not talking about AGW. I was talking about the fact that the earth is, indeed, getting warmer. As far as total heat content goes, that is about as fact as it gets.
Also, on your last point, if there are thousands of different conditions that determine whether or not the earth is gaining or losing heat content, and CO2 has always (before humanity) been directly paired with volcanic activities or was a minor factor compared to much bigger factors, and then its position changed due to an enormous increase, then indeed its role might be irrelevant a long time ago but not now. This is not to say its not falsifiable, it is to say that it is not the singular factor in the truth or falsity of the final statement. Now if you were to say if all other things were held constant, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere had different effects over time, then we can deduce it is an irrelevant factor. This is, however, NOT the case. So the idea that people are causing global warming is indeed a falsifiable hypothesis. However, just claiming that one of the many factors that people have caused is irrelevant without respect to actual history and other factors, then it is not a valid criticism.
So actually, yes, it does falsify it, all other things held constant. However, in history all other things have not been constant. CO2 before human intervention was paired with reflective ash that ended up high in the atmosphere and reflected a great deal of heat that would otherwise have helped the earth warm, but the CO2 and ash condensed from the atmosphere at roughly similar times, so there was ANOTHER factor. Saying that if we only consider the factor of CO2 and ignore how the others change over time, is very similar to saying that if you run a red light, you will always cause an accident, and if it doesn't cause an accident when you do it once, it will never. However, the one you ran might have been in the middle of nowhere, and there was no danger, while the another is in a city, and running it you crash. Other factors are important, and all must be considered. Whether or not it is our fault, the earth is warming. I don't mind that much at all, as I would prefer warmer weather. I do however hate pollution, as it literally stinks, and I would very much not like it if the deep ocean currents stopped, as we would be losing a major future power source, and we would be risking very adverse future conditions, especially at the rate at which the increase is happening.
So yes, it is falsifiable, and yes, it the earth is warming, and it is very likely we have caused it. Even if we haven't, the reasons we think we caused it should be stopped anyways, so that us and our children can breath clean air and drink clean water, live in a more efficient and cheap world, doing more with less. Or maybe we should just dump shit-tons of CO2, nitrous oxides and sulfides into the atmosphere of our cities, so that our children can suffer from asthma and die, our water can taste like farts, and we can not even see the sky in our own cities. But hell, we don't want to hurt businesses that are making so much money, and filtering it out of the economy, shrinking the buying power of the average citizen as well as destroying their habitat (we all have to live somewhere). Sure it has been argued that humans are killing animals habitats, but super-corps are killing our habitats. But who gives a damn about any of that, our great grand children can worry about it, fuck the present, as long as your stock and commodity shares go up, right?
You have a point about statistics, but I still think there is some importance to them. Take your example, for example, how many close calls have texting drivers caused? how many people have had to swerve out of the way? These kinds of questions can't be easily answered, but are still important. The studies done of texting while driving in driving simulators have shown that it makes a slight increase in accidents, but a dramatic decrease in driving performance. If everyone texted while they drove, there would be nobody left to swerve out of the way, and a lot more accidents would be reported.
Lets think also about pregnancy rates and sexual education. If we ignore the statistics that say there is less teenage pregnancy with good sex ed, then there will be more teen pregnancy, no two ways about it. When we decide no statistics are important because a news company like FOX decides to tell its already apathetic, fact ignoring populace to ignore the few facts that they still follow, what the hell happens then?
Facts are important, and we should all be taught how to properly interpret them. Like how correlation doesn't imply causation, and that although typically people typically die after 8 months of a certain cancer, that not everyone does, and there are many factors that change their own chances. If we don't know how to interpret the facts, then we fail in our own lives, and as a society. If someone like FOX takes this, and uses it, what the fuck is to stop some of those morons from trying to ignore statistics and make our children's lives worse, our lives worse, and all that bullshit, because they feel that they can state facts don't matter and aren't true? What the hell will happen then? another factor accelerating the decline of reason in America.
Global warming is not a tautology. It is simple really. Calculate global heat content. Is it higher than last year? Is it getting steadily higher over the past few decades? If yes, then yes. If no, then no. But yes. Anyone who has a clue as to the density of water compared to air, and who has a clue about the heat capacity per mass of air compared to per mass of water, will understand the oceans hold more than 100x the heat of the air, and if they are getting 1 degree warmer, that is more significant than a 15 degree increase in air temp. Global warming is true beyond reasonable doubt for anyone that has a damn clue about the nature of reality. I have never seen a global warming denier fight the argument about warmer oceans.
The study of past evolution can be found false, but we know for a fact that evolution happens in many different ways even right now. We know for a fact that things are evolving right now in front of us. Evolution as we know it is a fact, picking details out of the distant past, that so far have all been found to be totally forged, or fake, and it makes logical sense. Sure it could be wrong, but the chances that are true are so small it is not even thinkable.
Both are falsifiable, but both are also true. Being a dumbass that pretends to understand thermodynamics and stating that it is by no means likely, does not make it right, and it does make you appear to be an ass.
We all live our lives as we wish to live them, and realize that statistics are incredibly important to making the world a better, easier place to live in. Sure, they can be wrong sometimes, but I would imagine the general public trusts them a lot less than they should actually be trusted. I mean, global warming is like 99.99999% true, same with evolution, but we still have people who don't have a clue and doubt blatant facts because they don't understand things like the specific heat capacity of water, or that evolution isn't globs of crap off the ground suddenly turning into animals and people.
Sure, the numbers can sometimes be wrong, but they are not wrong 75% of the time. Not even 50% or 25%, but less. And yes, sometimes we are further off, but it is rare. Should we really ignore important numbers because their is a small chance they are wrong? I am not saying anyone should change everything about their lives due to a single number, but common, this is a bit crazy. I am not trying to be debatative here, just saying hey, it is what it is.
Are you mentally retarded? A higher power is not an ultimate punishment for being immoral. First of all, any moron can deduce it isn't likely to exist in the first place, and second of all it is so far off and insane it has a terrible history of actually forcing people to conform. More likely is the thousands of governments who have used totalitarian constructs to force citizens to obey or be hung at the gallows. In fact, this punishment by other people is one of the motivations for people to be moral. In order to survive, we need to get along with our neighbors, because it is damn hard to live solely off of yourself, especially in todays society where you must buy your food with money, that you must get from working and so on. Society is a major force pushing people to conform. If we conform by humanistic right and wrong, than we can at least tolerate each other logically, help each other and care. few people will be forced out of their natural selves without religion, those who deviate mildly will not be persecuted so strongly.
People are also born with a sense of empathy and compassion, sure about 1/100 people does not, but the rest of us at least care that others are suffering, and wish something could be done, and to cause pain would not do any good. And those who cause that pain will be punished by those who can't stand to see them do it. There is extensive game theory and evolutionary proofs of this. Sure, people will NEVER naturally follow christian morality, but that is because christian morality causes us pain and suffering, and those with a heart want it abolished, and those who are deviant are bullied to no end.
Humans who feel a natural urge to behave according to humanistic morality would be more likely to preserve their tribe. The more in the tribe who exhibit it, the more likely the tribe can continue itself. If people naturally followed christian morality, they would die in about a week. Society is only more stable when people follow a logical, humanistic morality that applies to the conditions of that society. Christianity will never come close to that, nor will any other established religion. Christian morality is so terrible, look at how unstable and short-lived all the christian totalitarians have been throughout time! That just goes to show it is as humanisticly immoral as is possible!
The purpose of morality is for us to get along with one another, to live productive lives for our species, and to ensure a decent treatment of all around us, whether we know them or not. Christianity and other moral systems that rely on a higher power do no such thing, so are clearly immoral as a general fact. Atheists, as it turns out, have one of the lowest crime rates in society. The few percent of criminals probably the rebellious youth who are just angry at society for oppressing them and their ideas. Society does a fine job at regulating itself in a real moral system, but in christianity, not so much.
If we follow a humanistic morality, and can carry on into the future and spread humanity forever. If not, we could some day not exist, and the universe is worthless. Now that, is about as great as a purpose can get.
There is indeed ultimate punishment for immoral people, they can have their lives taken from them. As long as they aren't religious, that is as great as a punishment can be. If they are christian however, what is to stop even the most insane of madmen from continuing on his rage? Nothing. What I say is true, and it might be unpleasant to some, but that doesn't make it less true. And what I have said, unlike your statement, has an elaborate logical underpinning proven by several fields of science and reinforced by studies and observations of present humans. What of that anonymous coward, what of that.
They killed themselves after killing others. No set of morality, be it biblical or real, could convince them not to be evil. But perhaps if they had not been shunned and bullied because they were different, they would not have become haters, and would not have committed such an atrocity.
I never watch MSNBC, and I do fact check CNN, with decent results. Typically I check through the scholarly databases or google scholar. Or in some cases, I can check a fact simply by testing it.
FOX posts a lot of interesting bullshit, the problem is that it all tends to be bullshit. MSNBC doesn't post anything worth checking or even watching, so I don't bother. FOX however always either misreads its source exaggerates, or flat out fucking lies. It is not a wild claim, and it is not out of the blue.
Because this is reality. You and I exist, we are right here talking. The chance that religions are true is far too small to think about, but even if there is a higher power besides the epic forces of nature, the idea of following the morals of a specific religion are insane.
There are two kinds of right and wrong: Religious and humanistic. Typically they conflict. The humanistic view is that things that are bad for humanity are immoral, things that show a lack of compassion or pure cruelty towards one another are wrong. The religious one is by the bible of that culture. If you follow the humanistic definitions of right and wrong, you can do more for humanity, you can preserve our species and help us travel to the stars.
Now why is that important? Well, we may be alone in the universe, if we aren't, we certainly don't know that for a fact yet. And until we do, we are the one life form in the universe that we know about. Without us, there could be nothing in the grand, massive, amazing universe that is conscious and self aware. As far as we know, this is a fact. The universe is only valuable if there is something to give it value, as value is a arbitrary label to which conscious beings attribute to things. In the case that humanity dies out, there is a chance that there is nothing else to give the universe value. Could you imagine the case in which the universe goes from having an extremely high value to virtually none? That, dear child, is why you should follow humanist morals in the big picture of things.
As far as the small picture, the reasons are just as solid. Everything we do in this reality has consequences, real ones. If we make a choice to ban some kind of literature or give our children a worse education, and as a result we have generations of intellectual stagnation, and persecution of scientists. The simple fact is that what we do has consequences. Logic, science, compassion can tell us how to make the best possible decision based on what we know. Religion is just throwing darts at the wall in the dark. If we so chose to establish religious morals as legal mandate, we will be creating devastating consequences for future generations. We have seen it innumerable times throughout history and the world.
I guess that is still kind of big picture. Let me narrow it down to each of our lives. Without a higher power, morals are based solely on the reality of our lives. They are based solely on our compassion for one another, our understanding, our caring, our future hopes and dreams as a society. We only have one life to give for our species, only one life to give to help advance our society and move towards a future in which people cannot be wiped from the universe. Hell, even if there is an afterlife, you only have this life to make a difference to this reality. In this life, you can either help humanity, make a difference, or waste away, fighting compassion, fighting humanity. Brutally hating those around you for arbitrary differences, or attributing biological processes to the root of all evil and sin. It is harmful to you, it is harmful to everyone else in society, and it is especially harmful to all those who deviate even slightly from the normal person, as the normal person is the only moral person in the eyes of the bible. By fighting humanity, you can possibly work towards its destruction. You might be one of the small factors not helping us arrive at a better tomorrow. As long as you are not using logic, science, math, reason, or compassion in your decision making process on what consists of morality, then you are being as immoral as it is possible to be in terms of humanistic moralism. You might argue that it is gods will, well I will ask you how you can read the mind of god, and why he would tell us to ignore the amazing brains to which your religion says he gave us, or why we should work so fervently against one another and the continuation of our species and the DNA molecule as a whole.
What basis for morality is their in a higher power? Why should ANY