Mainstream science, the atheists religion.
Atheists are religious
Side Score: 9
|
 |
"muh 97%" "Im no expert"
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
I am joking the mainstream science worshipers. Mainstream science = Global warming and NASA worship. They dont use real science that uses experiments and the scientific method. NASA= belief all their claims with all their heart without any skepticism or any other sources backing their claims. The part about the not being experts is from personal experience whenever I debate someone on it their excuse to not go any further is "Well I am no expert" which means they don't even understand the claims these groups make yet take is as truth Side: Atheists are religious
|
3
points
1
point
Oh you reject mainstream science? Tell me more about how free thinking you are. I don't really care what religion you practice, evolution is just how it happened. The Earth is not 6000 years old and climate change is happening. DEAL WITH IT YA TWAT!!!! Side: "muh 97%" "Im no expert"
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
NASA and the NOAA are both government funded entities that are fighting for limited funding from Congress and the Obama administration. Both have been known to massively screw up data in favor of global warming. I am not claiming they did it on purpose, but I would not be surprised if that is what actually happened. Those scientists depend on government funding to keep their jobs, so they will say or do anything to avoid winding up flipping burgers or becoming ditch diggers. Neither organization can be trusted. Side: Atheists are religious
1
point
I'm legit confused by a few parts of your premise here, Jalen. Can you clarify a few things here? mainstream "science" and actual science are 2 different things btw What is the difference, in your opinion? there is no clear global warming is actually a thing I removed the bracketed bit, and I think you're missing a word here. I'm assuming it's "consensus", but just wanna make sure. don't bother saying anything if you will just say "Well im no expert sooo" Why does it irritate you so much when someone admits they're not an expert in a field? I'm casually familiar with a few branches of physics, but haven't exactly got a Masters degree in it. Does that mean I'm not allowed to discuss it at all? Wouldn't that also preclude you from the discussion (I'm figuring you don't have a Masters degree in all these topics, though if I'm wrong do tell me, and also tell me your secret on how you got them all because dayumn son) Not a quote from you, but the topic you posted this under is that mainstream science is the atheists religion, then you discuss climate change as though this proves the point. I'm not 100% certain I follow your logic, but I'm gathering it's something along the lines of "Atheists blindly follow what is presented to them, assuming it is presented with the disclaimer "scientists say", as proven by the climate change debate". Is that about what you're saying here? Side: "muh 97%" "Im no expert"
1
point
1
point
I used Global warming as an example because it is the easiest most simple thing to debunk on the face of this planet. What the other dude said was right too. No there is no clear proof global warming is actually a thing. AKA no correlation. The computer models are all over the place and 90%(+?) were incorrect. Mainstream "science" = anything that is taken as truth yet cannot be proven, like global warming. or taking something as absolute truth when their claims cannot be verified by others(Like NASA). Yeah atheists will believe anything the "Experts" say thats my point Side: Atheists are religious
1
point
But atheism doesn't necessarily mean a belief in, as you say, "mainstream science". Then again, it sounds like you're using atheism as a term to encompass a community of people, rather than the absence of religious faith. Using that terminology I can definitely see why, if what you claim about "mainstream science" is correct, then the "atheists" would be equally dependent on blind faith as any religious fundamentalist. For what it's worth, I disagree, but as I have no sources on-hand and am pressed for time this evening I'll just have to leave it at that. Thanks for clarifying those points though, helped me understand where you were coming from a lot. Side: "muh 97%" "Im no expert"
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
It was a response to your claim that science is somehow dogmatic or that atheists make it seem that way. It appears that way because science is actually a demonstrably better process of inquiry and discovery than religion. I wasnt in any way discrediting you. Side: "muh 97%" "Im no expert"
1
point
1
point
Uhhng you conspiracy theory assholes are so thick its really no use at this point explaining to you why you are wrong. There is soo much accepted and undeniable proof that humans are accelerating global warming its astonishing that you're so against it. As to your arguments against NASA, you can make the claim that someone is lying when it comes to anything, it is literally the laziest argument ever. That being said I don't even know why you brought up NASA in the first place. Side: "muh 97%" "Im no expert"
|
