Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
Misfit28
Well-known member
I'm not sure you truly understand how the scientific process works.
In science, views change based on evidence. Not only is there no evidence to support religion, the basic dogma never changes based on evidence (or lack thereof). Sure translations and applications can change, but the basics never do.
B5150
Legend
im not sure you won't argue with anyone that does not agree with you.
In science the observed evidence changes as there is greater ability to observe and or a bias in observation and reporting as well.
There was observation of the life of Christ with more or less observation and bias in reporting well.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
Back on topic guys 
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
LiftWithDonuts
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
Bought a new trump shirt today
Edit: yes that is trump on top of a dinosaur, wearing a make America great again hat and holding some kind of rifle while waving the American flag
Bought a new trump shirt today
Edit: yes that is trump on top of a dinosaur, wearing a make America great again hat and holding some kind of rifle while waving the American flag
JudoJosh
Pro Virili Parte
In science, there exist avenues for which evidence can be presented and what science believes to be true can change. In fact, in science the most prestigious awards go to those who change paradigms we have previously believed to have been true.
Does religion carry with it a similar self correcting mechanism?
This is not to say or suggest religion is bad or that science trumps religion, but only to point out that the two are not comparable with respect to how inconsistency's and contradictions are handled. Science is an attempt to explain and understand the world around us. Religion is an attempt to offer moral and ethical guidance and to give meaning and purpose to ones life.
Its a science v philosophy scenario or in other words, apples and oranges.
The issues arise when apples pretend to be oranges or, when religion pretends to be science and vice versa
Piston Honda
Well-known member
Piston Honda
Well-known member
And shockingly little observation of his resurrection and public appearances thereafter. With all of the common resurrections of the time period, like Lazarus and others, that phenomena must not have merited recording by numerous public officials.
To say nothing of the cataclysmic consequences of the sun standing still during a battle in the Old Testament. No historical figure recorded the dramatic gravitational effects that must have caused.
ax1
Legend
I never heard of him, usually I put my faith in Dr. Phil.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Piston Honda
Well-known member
Or Dr. Demento
ax1
Legend
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Why do so many supervillians have advanced degrees?
Misfit28
Well-known member
Maybe they're just misunderstood, and aren't actually evil at all.
Interesting question, though.
Gutterpump
Banned
Because genius's can't be contained by ethics. True scientists know no boundaries
Source: Stranger Things (amazing series)
BamBam0319
Well-known member
ALERT! ALERT!
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
B5150
Legend
doesnt change what I said. Both contradict and are inconsistent and what you said doesn't make it less true.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
Does anyone know where the hell Hillary has been lately? It's like she just dropped off the face of the earth lol. Not complaining obviously but I'm honestly curious
but I'm honestly curious
ax1
Legend
Does anyone know where the hell Hillary has been lately? It's like she just dropped off the face of the earth lol. Not complaining obviously
I do, Trump went and handed out food, Hitlery rested due to multiple lifelong illnesses and injuries to the scalp, and Obama played several more rounds of golf.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
I can imagine how this campaign would wear anyone out. Its a good time to rest and refresh before things get crazy soon.
Of course Hitlery could have done what Trump did, hand out food, make sure the cameras are there so people can see on TV, and then later in the day continue on the campaign trail and brag about how great and compassionate of a human being you are and how the other two are filthy lazy human pieces of carcass.
B5150
Legend
Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people.
as I have stated numerous times I am intelligent enough recognize the distinction between literal and interpretive. Many, even Christians, don't take it literally. Link is just to elaborate on my point and I take no ownership in it credibility
Invalid Link Removed
Piston Honda
Well-known member
Piston Honda
Well-known member
Obama was told by the governor not to come down as the President's visit would consume resources they could ill afford
Misfit28
Well-known member
Any references to those appearances besides the Bible? They're mostly blurry on my phone, so maybe there are.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
1) you must only pay attention to liberally biased media outlets.
2) he passed out rations, supplies, and toys for children (oh hey there's your play-doh!)
3) he literally showed up with an 18-wheeler full of $75,000 worth of stuff paid for by himself. Where the **** is Hillary?
True. I guess he could've donated (like Taylor swift's $1 million donation), or contributed to the efforts in other ways. Instead, he continued his vacation. Awesome.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
Here's someone's account of what actually happened in case you care about knowing the truth.
Invalid Link Removed
In case the screenshot is as blurry on your screen as it is on mine, here's the link: Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
In case the screenshot is as blurry on your screen as it is on mine, here's the link: Invalid Link Removed
B5150
Legend
i personally don't know any other resources historical or religious that are reference to such events. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Maybe for my own edification I'll begin a research quest myself.
"The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, and others have done an especially good job of detailing that evidence.1 It is the aim of this article to offer a sort of synthesis of some of their key points and show the strength of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
A method commonly used today to determine the historicity of an event is "inference to the best explanation." William Lane Craig describes this as an approach where we "begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation of that evidence." In other words, we ought to accept an event as historical if it gives the best explanation for the evidence surrounding it"
Invalid Link Removed
You can dismiss the many investigations of the evidence if you wish. I really am not persuaded to influence you or anyone else and am completely content in my own appreciation of the evidence and otherwise own beliefs.
Piston Honda
Well-known member
Maybe don't live and build below sea level while electing Republicans who deny the climate change that leads to devastating flooding and relief efforts that we all subsidize
rtmilburn
Well-known member
Maybe dont believe evey bullsh!t spouted out of the @$$es of the goverment, claiming global warming is man made. All in attempt to scare us in order to further their control, especially when evidence suggest that humans have almost zero effect on global warming (notice i did say we do have an effect but its minimal at best. Also notice i did say that global warming is real too.) However that is good advice, people shouldnt be building below sea level especially when they are right next to the ocean.
jimbuick
Legend
I'm not going to pretend to be incredibly well versed in Hilary's medical history, but if I'm not mistaken it was because a clot was discovered when she had MRIs for that concussion.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
Wait are you really blaming the people who are being directly affected by this crisis right now?
Piston Honda
Well-known member
I'd say the same thing to the hicks who live in Tornado Alley - move.
Piston Honda
Well-known member
General wisdom:
"All of this is actually the fun of conspiracy theories—if and when you decide that they’re true, every fact that supports the theory is gospel, while every fact that contradicts it is proof of just how deep it runs."
--Dan Solomon, Texas Monthly
"All of this is actually the fun of conspiracy theories—if and when you decide that they’re true, every fact that supports the theory is gospel, while every fact that contradicts it is proof of just how deep it runs."
--Dan Solomon, Texas Monthly
ax1
Legend
Mark my words....in 20 years once people are desensitized to the current bs, they are going to scare us back into "global cooling" and fear monger us like Maurice Strom did back in the 80's and how Texas will be a sheet of ice if we dont hand over more tax money to the saviors of the earth. Then, 20 more years its hell is coming to earth all over again.
Typical liberal/corporate (just to be fair, mainstream conservative and so called "middle" all do this is well) controlled media....sell people on fear for profit$$$$. Question the science, or brings scientists with opposing vews to the agenda, bring out the innermost leaked documents from those who are at the forefront of the agenda to show data had been manipulated and its all a ponzi scheme then throw the tin foil conspiracy theory label on and discard the discussion.
Anyways flood NYC, my property upstate is going to skyrocket!!!!! LOL
ax1
Legend
The term "conspiracy theory" was created by the CIA in 1967 as a form of psych ops to simply discredit those who oppose the official story and misinform the general population and hide state secrets.
Keep in mind, by law the CIA can post whatever propaganda they want into the media since the 50's through Mockingbird, and then further propelled and strengthened officially by law by the Obama administration.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
***
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
***
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
***
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
***
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
***
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
***
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Here are screenshots of part of the memo released in 1976 under the Freedom of Information Act requested by the New York Times:
Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
***
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
***
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
***
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
***
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
***
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
***
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Here are screenshots of part of the memo released in 1976 under the Freedom of Information Act requested by the New York Times:
Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:
- Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy
- Have Invalid Link Removed attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports
- Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
- Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
- Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
- Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate
- Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
- Accuse theorists of being politically motivated
- Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
Piston Honda
Well-known member
Sounds like a conspiracy theory
rtmilburn
Well-known member
I never said global warming isn't real, because it totally is. The earth has been raising in temperature since late 1990s. However the science strongly suggest that humans have a minimal impact.
To put this in to comparison 1 large dairy farm produces more green house gases then all of the UK.
Another thing is, at the beginning of this global warming scientists orginally stated that the earth is finally returning to it natural state. It state of where it was before the ice age. (Now i dont think this is necessarily the case but i thinks is a strong possibility)
Now i not gonna use these number to prove anything, as i know very well that 1 location doesn't be any means prove anything. However boise idaho (where i live) had it best winter in a decade and this summer is the coldest summer in over 20 years so far.
There is also evidence that the earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming, caused by many factors; such as planetary alignment, volcanic activity, solar activity, etc, etc. Is it not possible that we could be in the middle of a warming cycle? Not to mention in the 70s and early 80s people were scared of global cooling and a possibility of another ice age.
halfahardon
Member
Global Warming and the Tooth Fair. Both equally Legit !
Jiigzz
Legend
Except no-one is really asking for money, they're asking people to be more cognizant of the way they live and behave (corporations mostly). What might surprise you is that the researchers I work with don't make a lot of coin by stating facts, and all of the guys is genuinely concerned for what the face of the earth will look like in the next 20 years.
The problem is, your hate for the government causes you to question anything acknowledged by them, but that doesn't make it false.
Jiigzz
Legend
Except no-one is really asking for money - for at least shouldn't be. What might surprise you is that the researchers I work with don't make a lot of coin by stating facts, and all of the guys is genuinely concerned for what the face of the earth will look like in the next 20 years.
The problem is, your hate for the government causes you to question anything acknowledged by them, but that doesn't make it false.
The planet does seem to go through cycles, and maybe the term is not that accurate, but there are things people should be doing in order to protect the planet for future generations. I'm definitely all for that.
rtmilburn
Well-known member
No the amount of methane released by large dairy farms is very very very high and methane is much much more damaging then co2
ax1
Legend
Yeah....look into Al Gore for starters when it comes to investments and money.
This has nothing to do with "hate for government." The solutions presented are all about taxation, connections and power. They do not address the very issues they pretend to be concerned about. We are talking trillions of dollars here and alot of global power at stake. Climategate back during Copenhagen several years back is just one example of how much is at stake and what people/governments are willing to do to gain power. Scientists have been bought and paid for and bullied globally as well. This is a big story I can spend a whole week posting info here but I have no time.
Jiigzz
Legend
How do you know these reports were not created by someone just like you? It's quite easy to do given enough time and motive. Not saying they're not legit, but just something to be mindful of.
Further, bear in mind i'm not from the US, and many of these "global warming conferences" involve scientists from all throughout Europe and other areas outside of the US - so unless you think the CIA has huge reach and influence all around the world and to every single global warming researcher, some of these things don't actually apply. I can tell you now the guy I speak to regularly on the subject is not afraid of being eliminated by the CIA, and can do his own research on the subject.
Jiigzz
Legend
I get what you're saying, and can see that side as well, but look at it from a micro perspective and consider that each individual researcher is their own person who won't see any of the money generated through tax, and many will still say we need to do more to control the issue at hand. Sure, money may be generated through increased taxes, but many of these researchers views won't change because of that.
Jiigzz
Legend
Exactly. We simply don't really know what is going on, but something definitely is.
ax1
Legend
They came directly from the government through FOIA, so you make it whatever you want it to be. Good luck.
ax1
Legend
Its called nature...it always changes and there is nothing we can do to stop it or always predict its course and what solar activity does to our planet.
Now your statement "We simply dont know really what is going on" has been my exact position the entire time.