Could Al be wrong?

Aaron wrote:So you agree that America is a Christian nation AND Science is no more a proven then religion.

No, that is not what I said. I asked a question- which you (again) ducked.

But we do note that you say that religion is not proven. Keli and Armon and Sheik Ben will likely disagree with you, but don't let them sway you. You're entitled to your opinion.

Well Aaron you and I certainly part ways on these two points.

America is not a Christian nation.

Science builds upon proven facts. Man is the cause of global warming which will cause x,y, & z is a theory some scientists currently believe to be the case. Others disagree with them.

They don't have the kind of wealth, money & power behind them that AlGore does.

Aaron wrote:So you agree that America is a Christian nation AND Science is no more a proven then religion. BMD will likely disagree with you but don't let him sway you. You're entitled to your opinion.

Your planet must be very interesting.... weird, but interesting.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you agree that America is a Christian nation AND Science is no more a proven then religion.

No, that is not what I said. I asked a question- which you (again) ducked.

But we do note that you say that religion is not proven. Keli and Armon and Sheik Ben will likely disagree with you, but don't let them sway you. You're entitled to your opinion.

This is the science thread. Wasn't it you who touted thread purity so perhaps you should leave the religious questions to the religious threads.

You're no different BMD on this topic then the good pastor is on the religious question.

Both of you subscribe to the "You better believe me because I am absolutely 100% correct and if you don't agree you're wrong" theory and neither of you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt your religion. Both of you require faith on the part of your parishioners to swallow the message without question.

And just like the religion of Christianity has it's Jimmy Swaggart’s and Jim Bakers of the world, the religion of global warming has it's Al Gore's and John Edwards spouting off their “Do as I say, not as I do” tripe which does nothing but hurt their message while they themselves turn a nice, tidy personal profit and spend it on back alley blowjobs and carbon consuming homes.

The next time you criticize the good reverend, perhaps you should ‘pull the beam out of your own eye’ first.

Enjoy your day skippy.

Aaron wrote:You're no different BMD on this topic then the good pastor is on the religious question.

Both of you subscribe to the "You better believe me because I am absolutely 100% correct and if you don't agree you're wrong" theory and neither of you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt your religion. Both of you require faith on the part of your parishioners to swallow the message without question.

And just like the religion of Christianity has it's Jimmy Swaggart’s and Jim Bakers of the world, the religion of global warming has it's Al Gore's and John Edwards spouting off their “Do as I say, not as I do” tripe which does nothing but hurt their message while they themselves turn a nice, tidy personal profit and spend it on back alley blowjobs and carbon consuming homes.

The next time you criticize the good reverend, perhaps you should ‘pull the beam out of your own eye’ first.

Enjoy your day skippy.

Ah, Aaron, since when were Al Gore and John Edwards scientists?

Not to mention the fact that nothing either of them says, does, or gets, has anything to do with the validity of global climate change.

Tell that to the masses professor.

Aaron wrote:So is it your contention that consensus science is the standard Sodbuster?

HA, ...................

Sherman's ONLY contention is that the Democrat Leadership's consenus on anything and everything is the only Standard to be recognized.

,

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So you agree that America is a Christian nation AND Science is no more a proven then religion.

No, that is not what I said. I asked a question- which you (again) ducked.

But we do note that you say that religion is not proven. Keli and Armon and Sheik Ben will likely disagree with you, but don't let them sway you. You're entitled to your opinion.

This is the science thread. Wasn't it you who touted thread purity so perhaps you should leave the religious questions to the religious threads.

No, I have not touted thread purity- nor any other purity.

Purity is but an illusion.

Once again, Ziggy is wrong as shown by the post below, which is referenced here.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:This is the religion forum. Why do people believe in the God of the Bible?

But wasn’t it you who told me to bring it on, to tell you who the real Ziggy is?

ziggy wrote:
So tell us, Aaron, who is the real Ziggy?

Put your forum degree in psychology to work- along with your previously demonstrated psychic powers. Tell us about the real Ziggy- the one behind the "facade".

Folks, pull up a chair, get out that cold 6-pack, prop your feet up, and get ready for a few good belly laughs. 'Cause this is gonna get good!

Well what do you know; it was you who said that.

I’ve got my psych degree dusted off, the chair cleaned and I’ve got it on good authority that several members have stocked up on 6 packs.

And suddenly you’ve become enthralled with forum integrity.

What’s wrong Ziggy? Am I hitting a little to close to home?

Tell you what I’ll do. I’ll answer your question.

ziggy wrote:This is the religion forum. Why do people believe in the God of the Bible?

For the same reason some believe in the Koran while others believe in Budda and yet others find cows sacred.

It’s really very simple. It’s called free will. In short, it’s because they choose too.

And as we live in a free society where the state doesn't yet control who we worship, that’s their right, don’t you agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So do you still want me to bring it on are are you going to hide behind the pretense of forum integrity and avoid my questions?

"Bring 'em on". Religion here, politics on the politics forum, etc.

And as we live in a free society where the state doesn't yet control who we worship, that’s their right, don’t you agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, as long as they don't try to make everyone else believe it too.

You are the one who brought up "forum purity" on that thread.

And you promised to put your forum degree in psychology to work- along with your previously demonstrated psychic powers- and to tell us about the real Ziggy- the one behind the "facade".

I told you to bring 'em on- and you still haven't, by the way.

And I showed you that Stephanie has set up the forums here by kinds of topics.

And I repeated the topic of the thread, "Why do people believe in the God of the Bible?" But so far you've still declined to offer a direct comment on that, too.

So, other than to try to make Ziggy look stupid- which he already often does quite nicely on his own, by the way- what's your point?

I didn't promise anything. I merely pointed out that you try to conceal who you are, which you do.

Then tell us who the real Ziggy is.

I am just what you and everyone else here sees- warts and all.

You are someone who believes in is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

You believe the United States of American should be classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

You believe this way of life offers an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. You believe the only way to solve these problems is for the working class, who you believe are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class to replace the capitalist class as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.

You believe the economy should consist of common ownership of the means of production, and the concept of private ownership does not exist and decision making would rely on local democratic planning.

I think I've pretty much hit the nail square on the head, warts and all. Now tell me where I'm wrong.

You are 100 percent wrong. Nothing I have posted here supports any- not one bit- of what you say just above.

Ziggy, you've fit the mold I've described each and every day in each and every post, warts and all.

One of my favorites is your defination of corporations. Refresh our memory, what was that again?

So my question is, why do you deny what you really are?

Aaron wrote:Ziggy, you've fit the mold I've described each and every day in each and every post, warts and all.

One of my favorites is your defination of corporations. Refresh our memory, what was that again?

So my question is, why do you deny what you really are?

Why do you misrepresent what I really am?

CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/?C

Are you saying you do not support the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general?

I've seen you use the work "egalitarian" on more then one occasion.

I've also seen you state that we don't own land and have no legal right to claim we do.

And I've seen you support common ownership of property and have supported common control of what we produce as a society as well.

Are you now saying I'm wrong or that I misinterpreted what you said?

Aaron wrote:Are you saying you do not support the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general?

No, I do not the establishment of such a society.

I've seen you use the work "egalitarian" on more then one occasion.

No sir, you have not. I have general understanding of what the word might mean. But it is not in my working vocabulary. It is not a word I have ever used- other than maybe in a direct response to someone else using it first. You are hallucinating, once again.

I've also seen you state that we don't own land and have no legal right to claim we do.

No sir, you have not seen me state that.

And I've seen you support common ownership of property and have supported common control of what we produce as a society as well.

I support some degree of common control, but not of common ownership. I am a socialistic capitalist.

Are you now saying I'm wrong or that I misinterpreted what you said.

I am now saying that you are flat out, deliberately lying about what I have said- here or anywhere else.

If we had a decent search on here or I had access to the old forums, I'd prove you to be the liar both you and I know you are.

Aaron wrote:If we had a decent search on here or I had access to the old forums, I'd prove you to be the liar both you and I know you are.

That old "no decent search engine here" excuse is getting old, Aaron.

Put up or shut up.

You are full of shit.

You believe the United States of American should be classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

I seem to recall you at one time supporting putting every bill on the internet and allowing all citizens to vote on it as was their right.

Or are you going to lie about supporting that as well?

Aaron wrote:

You believe the United States of American should be classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

I seem to recall you at one time supporting putting every bill on the internet and allowing all citizens to vote on it as was their right.

Or are you going to lie about supporting that as well?

Again, you are full of it. I don't and never have supported any such bullshit fantasy.

I know it's Saturday night, Aaron. And everyone gets to kick up their heels now and then. But you are way out of your mind tonight.

Aren't you a card carrying member of the Mountain Party?

From their website here.

GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY

Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and to not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

So would you like to try again.

Do you or do you not support "allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life."

Or is that a section of the platform you don't support even though you're a member of the executive committee?