Thread: Global Warming = State Sponsored Religion

Here is my theory.

The Constitution guarantees there will be no state sponsored religion for the very reason that state sponsored religion is used to control people and relieve them of their rights without a fight. Yet we have also seen that politicians are very creative when it comes to getting around the Constitution and the rights it guarantees. One only needs to examine the recent SCOTUS ruling on the PLAIN AS DAY 2nd Amendment.

Enter Global Warming hysteria. It has essentially become the new state sponsored religion accomplishing all of the exact same goals a traditional supernatural state sponsored religion would accomplish. People are freely giving up their rights and billions of dollars. Our government is growing in power and control by creating new legislation regarding global warming. And we are loosing our sovereignty as we allow unelected officials to dictate policy to Americans over global warming.

Just like a traditional state sponsored religion, our government is funding it and they expect the "priests" they are funding to play along.

And last, just like religion THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE IT EVEN EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Don't people get it? Have we really all become this stupid?

And the first of the flock has responded helping me prove my point. Let's see how many of them line up to try and prove themselves right through majority! LOL

I'm still waiting for Fishmint to respond to one single argument vs simply saying "bad source." But, that's obviously much easier when you can't admit that science is way above your head.

Originally Posted by Libre

I'm still waiting for Fishmint to respond to one single argument vs simply saying "bad source." But, that's obviously much easier when you can't admit that science is way above your head.

I'll point out to you once again: I never said "bad souce." I asked simple questions which you refused to answer. Instead you resort to the same ad hominem attacks of which you accuse others.

Originally Posted by Fishmint

I'll point out to you once again: I never said "bad souce." I asked simple questions which you refused to answer. Instead you resort to the same ad hominem attacks of which you accuse others.

Sweetie, you answer every question with a question so you never have to answer anything yourself. Not one time have you tried to answer what the problem with the science presented in the article is. It was high school level science, nothing more, no doctoral degree needed. It's as if I told you water was wet and you wanted to know if I had a degree in hydrodynamics!

You are the proponent of global warming, not me. The burden of proof is on you to explain why you believe what you do. Why is it that you can't do this? I can certainly explain everything I believe in and why.

Again, all any sane reasonable person sees here is you defending your religion. Either you understand the science, or you don't. Right now, you haven't given ANY indication you understand it in the least. That isn't an ad hominem. That's a fact.

Originally Posted by Libre

Sweetie, you answer every question with a question .

The next time you feel like calling me sweetie, do me a favor and STFU. Asking questions about an article you posted is not answering a question with a question.

Originally Posted by Fishmint

The next time you feel like calling me sweetie, do me a favor and STFU. Asking questions about an article you posted is not answering a question with a question.

Asking questions isn't asking questions??? LMFAO Whatever honey.

Either explain what's wrong with the science or we'll just put another X in your loss column. Either you can do it, or you can't. Which is it?

(Let's see what evading response we get this time.)