Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Nah, there's no proof CO2 raises temps. Nevermind the fact it's a greenhouse gas which is irrefutable. And then there is the pesky data. Study the chart....carefully.
data doesnt matter to our resident et brainiacs because scientists gather data and they are just "religous zealots".
Thank you. At best it's a contributing factor, but what is the primary driver(s)? I'm all for cutting carbon emissions, but let's do it in a sensible way, and for the right reason. The right reason is we want a cleaner environment, not we're all gonna' die.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
There were slaves in the 16th century, I'm shocked .
Absolutely SHOCKING
This is not my point. You know that too. My point is freethinker poster show how Galileo have science, but the bible talk about flat earth. Then I show in my link how the religion justify slavery.
So for to all the posters talking about freethinker is have "religion" about the climate, you are wrong.
Phoenix, read this book, then you can talk to dittohead Lucrum to read the book too.
http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=181
Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship
Hector Avalos
"In this immensely wide-ranging and fascinating study, Avalos critiques the common claim that the abolition of slavery was due in large part to the influence of biblical ethics. Such a claim, he argues, is characteristic of a broader phenomenon in biblical scholarship, which focuses on defending, rather than describing, the ethical norms encountered in biblical texts.
The first part of Avalosâs critique explores how modern scholars have praised the supposed superiority of biblical ethics at the cost of diminishing or ignoring many similar features in ancient Near Eastern cultures. These features include manumission, fixed terms of service, familial rights, and egalitarian critiques of slavery. At the same time, modern scholarship has used the standard tools of biblical exegesis in order to minimize the ethically negative implications of many biblical references to slavery.
The second part of the book concentrates on how the Bible has been used throughout Christian history both to maintain and to extend slavery. In particular, Avalos offers detailed studies of papal documents used to defend the Churchâs stance on slavery. Discussions of Gregory of Nyssa, Aquinas and Luther, among others, show that they are not such champions of freedom as they are often portrayed.
Avalosâs close readings of the writings of major abolitionists such as Granville Sharp, William Wilberforce and Frederick Douglass show an increasing shift away from using the Bible as a support for abolitionism. Biblical scholars have rarely recognized that pro-slavery advocates could use the Bible just as effectively. According to Avalos, one of the complex mix of factors leading to abolition was the abandonment of the Bible as an ethical authority. The case of the biblical attitude to slavery is just one confirmation of how unsuitable the Bible is as a manual of ethics in the modern world."
The intentional ignorance amazes me. It's like one has to try to be that stupid.
Part of the problem is the conservative mind does not accept new things easily. Ten, twenty years ago there was more reason to doubt. No more. But the conservative mind just can't change.