All Activity

" What does the Bible say about atheism? Atheists are some of the most religious and faithful people ever. It takes an incredible amount of faith to be an atheist. Sun, moon, stars, oceans, the Earth, animals, babies, male, female, the human heart, emotions, our conscience, love, intelligence, the human mind, bone structure, the human reproductive system, biblical prophecies coming true all before our eyes, eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and more and still there are some people who deny God’s existence. Just stop and think about it. It’s impossible for something to come from nothing. To say nothingness caused nothing and created everything is absurd! Nothing will always remain nothing. J. S. Mill who was a non-Christian philosopher said, “It is self-evident that only mind can create mind. For nature to make itself is a scientific impossibility.” Atheism can’t explain existence. Atheists live by science, but science (always) changes. God and the Bible (always) remain the same. They know there is a God. He is revealed in creation, through His Word, and through Jesus Christ. Everybody knows that God is real, people just hate Him so much they suppress the truth. Behind every creation there is always a creator. You might not know the person who built your house, but you know it didn’t just get there on its own. Atheists are going to say, “well who created God?” God is not in the same category as created things. God is not created. God is the uncaused cause. He is eternal. He simply exists. It is God who brought matter, time, and space into existence." 25 Important Bible Verses About Atheism (Powerful Truths) (biblereasons.com)

There is no hoax. And if you mean to say that you think you're merry babe of know-nothings is "winning" the climate change debate I'm doing to have to reset the bar for "dumbest claim ever." Climate deniers have done nothing but lose ground. Published science is nearly unanimous. The world has never been more certain and galvanized. You flat-Earthers are, at least worth a good, heart laugh. And now you want to declare victory too!🤣

One of the left's biggest vote-getters is climate change. Alt-left politicians are trying to scare kids into voting for them by telling them that they'll all die if they don't jump in line. Just like they did with covid. Does the "YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" shtick sound familiar? It's the cultist rallying cry. Once you convince people that their lives are on the line you have them hook, line and sinker. They're cultists. Here's a pre-eminent climatologist, one Dr Judith Curry, from May 04 2024, explaining how hard politicians are pushing scientists to conform to the global warming agenda: Mixing politics and science is inevitable on issues of high societal relevance, such as climate change. However, there are some really bad ways to do this, and we’re seeing all of these with the climate change issue. Policy makers misuse science by demanding scientific arguments for desired policies, funding a narrow range of projects that support preferred policies, and using science as a vehicle to avoid ‘hot potato’ policy issues. Scientists misuse policy-relevant science by playing power politics with their expertise, conflating expert judgment with evidence, entangling disputed facts with values, and intimidating scientists whose research interferes with their political agendas. Dems/Libs: "THE SKY IS FALLING, DUMMIES! EAT BUGS TO MAKE THE WEATHER GOODER!" Leftards: "Oh, yes, thank you Mr Trudeau! Thank you Mr. Biden!" How did all those votes for Trudeau and Biden work out? Did they save us all from Climate Change?

"vague" Here's her own blog from 4 days ago. Literally 04 May 2024: https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/04/annual-gwpf-lecture-climate-uncertainty-and-risk/#more-31190 So how did we come to be between a rock and a hard place on the climate issue, where we are allegedly facing an existential threat. And the proposed solutions are both unpopular and infeasible? Well in a few words, we’ve put the policy cart before the scientific horse. In the 1980’s, the UN Environmental Program was looking for a cause to push forward its agenda of eliminating fossil fuels and anti-Capitalism. With the help of a small number of well-positioned activist climate scientists, a 1988 UN conference in Toronto recommended that the world “reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 20% by the year 2005 as an initial global goal.” The implicit assumption was that the small amount of warming observed over the previous decade was caused by emissions, and that warming was dangerous. Further down: "Mixing politics and science is inevitable on issues of high societal relevance, such as climate change. However, there are some really bad ways to do this, and we’re seeing all of these with the climate change issue. Policy makers misuse science by demanding scientific arguments for desired policies, funding a narrow range of projects that support preferred policies, and using science as a vehicle to avoid ‘hot potato’ policy issues. Scientists misuse policy-relevant science by playing power politics with their expertise, conflating expert judgment with evidence, entangling disputed facts with values, and intimidating scientists whose research interferes with their political agendas." Here's more of her own commentary: " Wait a minute. Don’t 97% of climate scientists agree on all this? Doesn’t climate science demand that we urgently eliminate fossil fuel emissions? Here is what all scientists actually agree on: Surface temperatures have increased since 1880 Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However, there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues: How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans How much the planet will warm in the 21st century Whether warming is ‘dangerous’ And whether urgently eliminating the use of fossil fuels will improve human well being Nevertheless, we are endlessly fed the trope that 97% of climate scientists agree that warming is dangerous and that science demands urgent reductions in CO2 emissions. That's not vague, it's a scathing indictment of political faux-science and some direct comments stating that "there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues". According to Dr. Curry, climate alarmists have all overplayed their hand, and they're doing it at the whim of politicians. She's saying that politicians are behind the drive to come up with this so-called "science". Do you understand that? It was from 4 days ago. It's not old. It's not vague. She's not a layman. Her opinions carry weight.

You call yourself "impartialobserver" and claim you are atheist so "have no dog in the religious battle". Hate to have to tell you but atheism is a kind of religion in and of itself. It is a belief system which claims there is no god and therefore man becomes his own god. It exalts atheism as if it is the be all and end all of everything, when in fact atheism is nonsensical. The result of atheism is that one must believe that everything just happened by accident and that life has no meaning. If one is to accept that, then we are just a chemical accident that happened. There is no purpose for life and nothing to look forward to. That is the kind of religion atheism leads to. Sounds very depressing but that is atheism. Atheists also have their own biases and are not impartial. Nobody is "impartial" as you claim to be. You are biased toward the ideology atheism and all that it means. Of course it also means there are no absolute morals, no right or wrong other than what somebody says is right and wrong. You claim to look at the world impartially, but you are only fooling yourself. Everyone has their biases. Your beliefs would have to be a result of claiming to be atheist. I am not sure you are a real atheist. Maybe you are only thinking you are, but maybe you are unsure. Sadly there are some serious consequences for not believing in the true God of the Bible. That could mean you think our culture and foundation which is built on Judeo-Christian civilization is of no more value than any other. That means you would regard our culture as no more valid or no better than the Islamic culture or middle eastern culture which is Islamic. Perhaps you would think western culture is no more value than Buddhism, Sikhism, or Hinduism since all are false religions. Why would an atheist think Communism or Socialism is undesirable if there are no absolute morals or absolute right and wrongs in the world?

But it's all so sensational! How can they help themselves? Small things amuse small minds, and gossip, smears, allegations are right up their alley. No leftist in the last ten years ever saw an allegation against a conservative that they didn't start repeating right away.

No I never said 100%. And let me get actual papers Curry has put out since you're vague on it.

So why do you always find your self arguing with conservatives? That obviously didn't end well, did it... 😉 Can you name an argument that you won? Were the riots peaceful? Was Jussie really lynched? Were there any 'gentle giants'? Did anyone ever get found guilty of colluding with Russians? Was Trudeau really a solid, capable guy? Was Biden? Leftard arguments of the past ten years are just a sad collection of embarrassments.

I think the defense let it get out of hand in order to try to justify the mistrial.

Your climate hoax is over. There is no crisis and your chickensh1t it causing wide spread suffering. Take you scared little bones and go scare a baby...I'm sure that will give you a nice sense of power, accomplishment and a momentary sense of importance. But I will oppose you destructive freaks with reality and common sense.

I already proved to you that current climatologists don't all agree on global warming. Dr Curry aready explained, just 4 days ago, that the 97% consensus BS that climatards puff about is BS. Dr Curry acknowledged that there may be some anthropological climate change but she never said that it was driving the bus all by itself, nor did she even say that it's a given that man-made climate change is an existential threat. Stop spouting BS MH. You wanted to act like all climatologists agreed and that is 100% false. My point is well proven.

Agreed. It's transparent but I guess that's the extent of their intellect.

Cons will probably do the same, so between the 2 most will still vote liberal. Many Canadians are tired of the PS concerns and want them back in the office.

Ya well...they're not gonna like me much then. I managed to collect 3 kids, 4 houses (1 in europe with a chicken coup and rabbit house). My family will all have their own houses and I'll be golfing in Europe. Oh...and I do love rabbit.

Who, other than yourself, said they were fine with this? That's an atrocious thing to suggest.

Dumb-Dumb...I am in that age range. Went to collage, dropped out to help out in my dad's shop, never returned. My resume includes IT admin at an embassy, writing and teaching courses for IBM, IT data center architect, IT PM and finally IT program manager. Now I need to decide between full or semi-retirement.

What you say is false. The judge sided with the defense objections most of the time during Daniels' testimony and he even curtailed her story multiple times with his own objections. Perhaps the defense should have offered more objections if they thought her testimony was irrelevant and unduly presidential. That's their job, and Merchan clearly was sympathetic. Instead they just let it happen and whined about it afterward. Sort of like Daniels.

One of the few things he's said that actually makes sense.

yet the Vimy Myth carries on regardless with failing hands we throw the torch to some future generation we will never meet from Toronto the Good

Yes dear...

Yup. The truth is that the entire Canadian Parliament has voted to call residential schools genocide. Our MP’s have no backbone and talk out of both sides of their mouths to win votes. This current Canadian story is one of a people who have lost confidence in their country. Our own federal government, who are supposed to champion the nation state of Canada, won’t defend Canada, figuratively and literally. They seem more interested in scoring points with unaccountable international central planners than serving Canadians. Our government’s policies are basically toxic to Canadian culture and prosperity. They are about “the planet” and bribing newcomers with citizenship to win votes. Traditional Canadians are mocked and called privileged while supremacists, people who are just trying to get along with others and raise families. What’s more, I’ve realized that culturally I’m more aligned with moderate Muslims than the LGBTQ state religion being pushed on students. Most people raised Christian are no longer practicing and have caved into the secular rainbow religion. That’s Canada today. Our cities are Asian — either Indian or Chinese. Most immigrants are atheist or a faith other than Christian. Canada is merely an economic zone with more rights than most countries, but our economy and freedom aren’t what they used to be. Our healthcare is weak. Canada has really declined and needs a serious restoration. I’m not sure the Conservatives are brave and strong enough, but they have to be better than the current woke-green tyrant tax and spenders.

There is in fact. Not enough to convict him but there's evidence. Meanwhile trump has never been convicted either despite the fact the dems spent 8 years and millions of dollars trying. Yet you constantly say he's "guilty". So there you go,

I'm only half American American father, Canadian mother thus I have undertaken solemn oath before God Himself beneath the laid up colours beside the book of the dead to defend & uphold the British Crown in North America in the name of HM Queen Elizabeth II unto death as necessary Victoria Regina Imperatrix - Pro Patria

Yes, let's start with ^this joke and see you explain how not putting papers back in boxes in the same order changes the evidence of Trump's crime of obstruction of justice and him LYING about not having evidence he had HIDDEN. I won't hold my breath.

^Sorry, YOU are NOT the arbiter of indicators of low IQ, cause you're only average. Only very high IQ knows enough to make a judgement on low IQ, cause low IQ doesn't know WHAT they don't know.