Abortion

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html]"The Charade of Josh McDowell" by Gordon Stein[/url]

The Secular Web is owned and operated by Internet Infidels, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. Naturalism is the "hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." As such, "naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities," such as gods, angels, demons, ghosts, or other spirits, "or at least none that actually exercises its power to affect the natural world."[1] And without miraculous interventions into nature from a spiritual realm, neither prayer nor magick are more effective than a placebo.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to disregard this as it comes from a site that is completely slanted towards it's own agendas, however I do realize that my admitting this means that you will completely disregard any christian sources that I would have.

This simply means that I will have to refine my methodology, and not use as biased of sources.

However this does not change a single view of mine.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They point to a common ancestor not a single creator. There isn't any positive evidence anywhere of a creator.

There you go again, blocking out a very valid possibility, simply because it isn't what is commonly accepted. They can point to BOTH.

Hardly compelling evidence, all of those could be created by... anything. Gravitational pull, black holes, etc.

Could you describe the method by which gravitational attraction could give rise to the background radiation? I don't think you'll be able to.

Please tell me you did not just cite that propagandist Al Gore.

In the 1970's everyone was afraid of Global cooling, today we have global darkening contesting Global warming (Though it doesn't get it's press time because it isn't PC).

In truth, the Ice caps are getting thicker (Once not a PC thing to say, but none-the-less true),

and the plight of the polar bears is simple propaganda so that the WWF, Greenpeace, and all those other eco morons can look like they are actually useful for something.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
There you go again, blocking out a very valid possibility, simply because it isn't what is commonly accepted. They can point to BOTH.

I'm not blocking out anything. You're inventing things. Similarity points to a common ancestor not to single creator. The ONLY thing it points to specifically is a common ancestor, besides that one can claim it points to literally anything.

Because he has a political bias it makes the facts less true? He did not lie in the presentation, so his personal opinion is largely irrelevant.

A U.K. high court judge says Al Gore's film about global warming could be distributed to schools only if teachers issue a warning before showing it to students, reports the BBC and the Daily Mail.

The judge says that Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” promotes “partisan political views” and contains “nine scientific errors” that are not supported by mainstream scientific consensus. But he went on to say that the government could still send the film to schools—only if teachers warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming.

Without informing students about other views on the subject, the government would have been breaching education laws, the judge says.

The Oscar-winning documentary was distributed along with four other short films to 3,500 U.K. secondary schools in February. Gore’s film was also sent to schools in Wales and Scotland.

The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, who is a member of the New Party. "I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools,” Dimmock says.

The nine errors alleged by the judge include:

Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributed to global warming. The court says the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

Also of the suggestions that Mr. Gore has made he practices few... if any of them... Unlike Ed Bagley Jr. who actually practices what he preaches.

But don't take my word for it.. Use Google look it up.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Also of the suggestions that Mr. Gore has made he practices few... if any of them... Unlike Ed Bagley Jr. who actually practices what he preaches.

Who cares? How is that relevant to anything he says?

Also of the suggestions that Mr. Gore has made he practices few... if any of them... Unlike Ed Bagley Jr. who actually practices what he preaches.

I assume you are making a painfully blatant reference to the seemingly outrageous amount of energy that Mr. Gore uses in his home each month? Were you aware (I've been reading John Stewart's book) that Gore is carbon neutral? He uses solar & wind power for the majority of the need at his home, conserves what he can (he uses compact-fluorescent bulbs, etc.) and purchases offsets so that whatever energy he pulls from the grid is supplied by renewable, green sources. He does practice what he preaches, but he is rich, so it just seems extravagant.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I assume you are making a painfully blatant reference to the seemingly outrageous amount of energy that Mr. Gore uses in his home each month? Were you aware (I've been reading John Stewart's book) that Gore is carbon neutral? He uses solar & wind power for the majority of the need at his home, conserves what he can (he uses compact-fluorescent bulbs, etc.) and purchases offsets so that whatever energy he pulls from the grid is supplied by renewable, green sources. He does practice what he preaches, but he is rich, so it just seems extravagant.

But I don't really think that Al Gore's questionable character (and questionable it is) has any bearing...his little propaganda film is obviously just that, but again, only a very, very few people would deny that global warming takes place.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC

The best example of dicipline is roman soldiers.

You are aware most Romans were gay right?

Originally posted by Nactous
You are aware most Romans were gay right?

that is irrelevent. should I say "Roman soldiers going into battle?"

Is it now? So is your attack on Senior Gore.

Not on the subject that we had gotten to talking about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If Penn and Teller are to trust, Al Gore actually buys offsets from his own company...which is a bit of an odd thing.

But I don't really think that Al Gore's questionable character (and questionable it is) has any bearing...his little propaganda film is obviously just that, but again, only a very, very few people would deny that global warming takes place.

And I don't. It is a natural phenomenon that humans humans have a negligible effect on.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Not on the subject that we had gotten to talking about.

Fighting with someone you may frequently have sex with doesn't make you disciplined, but anyway, back on topic.

"You get one life, one. One ever. In all eternity.
Give me ONE good reason why "Have it your way." isn't a good outlook"

Not only is that the biggest load of bullshit 'philosophy' I've ever heard it might even stand as one of the worst outlooks as well. Yeah sure, you'll live life life like you want to but it'll be an unpopular,short one....

How do you know that what you want will be unpopular? How can you know that your life will be short? Why do you automatically assume that the things I want are bad?

Bottom line, if you live you life just out for yourself, you put your needs in front of eveyone else's. Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Also reckless(as in the 'you only get on life'😉 people adopt such philosophy, and there's a reason they use the motto, "Live everyday like its your last."

If you put everyone before yourself, you're not going to have any kind of a life. Stupid outlook.

I put myself first so that I can be more useful to people that DO need me, people important to me, not any random human, who I couldn't care less about.

Originally posted by Nactous
Not only is that the biggest load of bullshit 'philosophy' I've ever heard it might even stand as one of the worst outlooks as well. Yeah sure, you'll live life life like you want to but it'll be an unpopular,short one....

Unpopular? Oh, so besides having questionable video game taste, you live your life afraid of what people think of you?

Sad.

Also, prove that living life however you choose leads to a short life. Since you've made the claim, you must have proof.

I'm here, I have no health or life problems, at all.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you put everyone before yourself, you're not going to have any kind of a life. Stupid outlook.

I put myself first so that I can be more useful to people that DO need me, people important to me, not any random human, who I couldn't care less about.

Unpopular? Oh, so besides having questionable video game taste, you live your life afraid of what people think of you?

Sad.

Also, prove that living life however you choose leads to a short life. Since you've made the claim, you must have proof.

I'm here, I have no health or life problems, at all.

-AC

Unpopular in-terms of being with people not opinions, who the hell wants to go though life alone because no one likes your "me, me, me" attitude, and if you act like an ass and/or say, try to force your own opinions on them then that's what probably is going to happen. But then again people who are selfish and full of themselves don't need real friends do they,there's always mirrors they can talk to.

If your living life just to "have a good time" then your more open to try things,correct?

Originally posted by Nactous
Unpopular in-terms of being with people not opinions, who the hell wants to go though life alone because no one likes your "me, me, me" attitude, and if you act like an ass and/or say, try to force your own opinions on them then that's what probably is going to happen. But then again people who are selfish and full of themselves don't need real friends do they,there's always mirrors they can talk to.

If your living life just to "have a good time" then your more open to try things,correct?

You are missing the point.

All your assumptions are bullshit, because there are millions of peoples' lives, including mine, that prove you wrong.

You are looking at it wrong. It's not a choice between putting everyone before yourself, or being a totally selfish ego-maniac. There is a balance, you know.

You clearly lack the life experience to be judging. I asked you a question, and you haven't answered:

"Also, prove that living life however you choose leads to a short life. Since you've made the claim, you must have proof.".

I'm fine, I'm here, I'm enjoying my life and the people in it very much. It's swell. Where's your theory now?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are missing the point.

You clearly lack the life experience to be judging. I asked you a question, and you haven't answered:

-AC

I believe I answered your answer with a question.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are looking at it wrong. It's not a choice between putting everyone before yourself, or being a totally selfish ego-maniac. There is a balance, you know.

Funny thing, all the people who say that a totally selfish ego-maniacs.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm fine, I'm here, I'm enjoying my life and the people in it very much. It's swell. Where's your theory now?

-AC