esbo

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal

Avoiding burning in hell is one of my justification for believing in God.

But I would still believe in him even if there were no hell.

He's just one cool dude.

I mean I bet a lot of atheists spend their lives grovelling to authority and their bosses yet they are not

prepared to praise God for all he has done for them.

I find it strange especially when the bosses will toss you on the scrap heap when they have finished exploiting you. :lol:

<br>Sorry but that is simply nonrational. It seems more likely to me that maybe God created something inferior or evil and that is why we reject it.<br>

<br>Not religion, truth! God should not be taught as a 'fact' because it is not one. It is a fraudulent meme taught to children when they should really be taught to be skeptics, to question everything. They deserve nothing less.<br><br><br>Who said agnosticism was a safe or correct position? I do think it's correct myself since I do believe man will never know the truth about deities, especially any supernatural ones. It's well and good for those that want to give an equal chance to the existence or non-existence of deities but they should understand that does not make them agnostic. If they do not have an affirmative belief that one or more deities exist then they are atheist, regardless of their position as a gnostic/agnostic.<br>

A much more likely explanation is that there simply is no god and nature is ultimately indifferent to us.

Or that there is a God and nature is ultimately indifferent to us because we rejected the paradise he created for us.

I have no such justification. I just do not believe.

 

I just never felt God's presence in my life and neither did my mother. When I was completely destitute and living on the streets and crying out for help, God didn't lend me a helping hand. In fact God does not help people at all, whether the homeless, the starving or the oppressed.

 

What make you think he will help you in this life?

God made a paradise for man but man rejected it so man was cast out of that paradise into the cruel would to fend for himself.

Only those who believe in him will enter paradise again.

Your concept of God appears to be based on an utter delusion, where did you get it from?

YOu seem to part of the something for nothing brigade.

Man's own greed play a large part in many of the things you mentioned.

His lust for earthly wealth and poverty in the wars and his choice of living in disaster prone areas.

His failure to provide sanitary living conditions for his fellow man, some live in luxury others

force to live in disease generating conditions.

Neither your incredulity nor your personal invectives toward me nor your copious usage of LOLs are valid counter arguments or responses to anything I've shared or asked.

I am neither of the things you claimed in you ad hominem attack I have not attacked you just made an observation.

Perhaps you would like to provide some facts to back up your claims?

That would seem to be the best way to go would it not?

Otherwise you are basically asking me to act as my own prosecution and I am not going to be very good at

that!! :lol::lol::lol:

Also the lols are not part of my argument I never said they were and you making out they are is just another false

argument.

Anway I expect you need a little more time to gather facts!!!

You see the is to indicate that you have not actually provided any (valid ones) yet although I have.

Have you ever been to Ireland?

Why is there a war there?

If there is nobody told me!!!

The troubles in Ireland are not over religion but Nationality.

You need to do your homework!!!

I can list the ten biggest wars none religious - beat that!!!

This is gonna be an easy win for me!!

How? What examples do you have of this ever happening in the past?

 

 

Nobody ever suggested it did.

 

 

Clarification: Atheism is not a belief system, but atheists still believe things. It's as if you're faulting people who don't believe in Apollo for "having no belief at all."

 

 

I think it's both established and common sense. There are different forms of religious belief, and different versions of religion. Any source of difference between large groups of people makes violence or crimes against them more common and more likely since there is an us/them mentality... a sense of jingoism... and this applies as well to wars.

 

It would be disingenuous of you to come here arguing that different religious beliefs play no role in human warfare. It is indisputable that they do. The only open question for debate is the magnitude of that effect.

Sorry, but religion creates a sense of one ness, why would people of the same religion fight?

It is not disingenuous of me to make that claim, it is rather arrogant of you to suggest that and further more to suggest

that you know all the answers and that it is 'indisputable' when you have provided not proof.

I mean you are just being arrogant and ridiculous beyond believe tot he point of delusion.

ie "it is both established and common sense".

No it is not, only in your imperfect mind is it.

Show your evidence, establish your claim it should not be too difficult to do given it is "established and common sense"

A lot of things which are "established and common sense" turn out to be utter nonsese so you saying that proves nothing what so ever.

You have to provide irrefutable evidence and I would advise you that I am pretty good at crushing false and half baked arguments

Just because someone does not share your belief in your imaginary friend does not mean they perform abortions "in the name of atheism."

 

 

This is a meaningless statement since people were responding to the tone, tenor, and content of your post.

 

 

No, this is not necessarily true. That has neither been supported nor established. I understand this is your position, but at this point it is nothing more than an assertion. The more likely truth is that religion plays a role in reinforcing an us/them mentality wherein those who disagree are more easily categorized as "others" or as somehow alien. While I find myself agreeing that material possessions and power very likely have played a role in many atrocities, I cannot dismiss the vast evidence at hand that indicates differing religious beliefs played a significant role as well.

 

 

doG can answer for himself, but for me I like to try to minimize the amount of ignorance in the world, and religion quite often is one of the most profound sources of willful ignorance we experience in modern times.

 

 

Is your intent to imply that the atheists responding to you here are closeted theists? I suspect that is not, in fact, correct.

religion prevents wars. no proof atheism prevents wars, why would it? It has no belief at all.

There is no proof in the assertion that religion causes wars so that would have to be established before I am required to show otherwise don't you think?

!

Moderator Note

Play nice, esbo. Insults are not welcome here.

Was not intended to be an insult, just an analogy, nothing wrong with being a homosexual or a national socialist is there?

Also the indicated it was intended in a jovial nature.

 

Is your intent to imply that the atheists responding to you here are closeted theists? I suspect that is not, in fact, correct.

Just pointing out that some atheists spend an indorinate amount of their live talking bout religion.

The analogy I shoudl have used is a football fan spending all his time on cricket sites - very odd don't you think?

Thus the suggestion that he might be a closet cricket fan seems a fair analogy.

I used the Nazi homosexual analogy not as an insult but as an fairly well know analogy.

There is a site here:-

http://gaynazis.com/

-- Many founding and high-ranking Nazis were homosexuals.

The evidence indicates that Adolf Hitler himself was a homosexual.

Persecution of homosexuals by the Nazis was for show to deflect from themselves and keep the German public fooled. And only feminine type homosexuals were then persecuted. The "Butch" homosexuals who founded Nazism viewed femmes as lower than heterosexuals, not even men. The persecution of a small percentage of Germany's femme gays was a public relations move to obfuscate the Nazis' own perversity and placate the German masses.

Not sure what the face-palms are for Catholic religion forbid abortion.

Pity you have no facts to justify your face-palms!!

BUt what about the rest?

It's all true most murders and wars are over material possessions not religion.

White is a hair colour when all the pigment is gone.

Tell me doG (God), assuming you are atheist why are you so obsessed with religion?

I have a feeling you are like one of those Nazi gay bashers who turns out to be a closet homosexual, correct?

I mean I do not support Man U but I do not devote my life to hurling abuse to their fans!!!

I find some religions to be scary. They create wars. Also people kill in the name of their God. Heaven and hell are two crazy houses. You have to die first to see your God. Give me a break.

 

The only religions that make sense to me, morally speaking, are Buddhism, Hinduism and maybe even Daoism and Confucianism.

 

Islam, Christianity and Judaism however hold no value to me because these religions seek to control and scare people into conformity and do not liberate them from their suffering, like Buddhism does.

There have been no religious wars, all wars are fought over material things, wealth land power.

OK the sides may have different religions or different eye colour, but they are not fighting over that.

The yanks are not in the middle east to crush islam, they are there for the oil!! Believe me!!

Very few people kill in the name of god and those who do are overwhelmimgly out numbered by those who don't.

And that's excluding abortion, a killing in the name of atheism!!!

Religion is not supposed to be a means to worldly wealth, indeed in most vast wealth is considered unholy.

The USA handles that hypocrisy fairly well.

Another aspect is happiness.

Despite economic woes, wars, conflicts and natural disasters the world is a happier place today than it was four years ago and Indonesians, Indians and Mexicans seem to be the most contented people on the planet.

 

More than three-quarters of people around the globe who were questioned in an international poll said they were happy with their lives and nearly a quarter described themselves as very happy.

 

"The world is a happier place today and we can actually measure it because we have been tracking it," said John Wright, senior vice president of Ipsos Global, which has surveyed the happiness of more than 18,000 people in 24 countries since 2007.

 

But he added that expectations of why people are happy should be carefully weighed.

 

"It is not just about the economy and their well being. It is about a whole series of other factors that make them who they are today."

 

Brazil and Turkey rounded out the top five happiest nations, while Hungary, South Korea, Russia, Spain and Italy had the fewest number of happy people.

 

Perhaps proving that money can't buy happiness, residents of some of the world biggest economic powers, including the United States, Canada and Britain, fell in the middle of the happiness scale.

 

"There is a pattern that suggests that there are many other factors beyond the economy that make people happy, so it does provide one element but it is not the whole story," said Wright.

 

"Sometimes the greatest happiness is a cooked meal or a roof over your head," he explained. "Relationships remain the No. 1 reason around the world where people say they have invested happiness and maybe in those cultures family has a much greater degree of impact."

 

Regionally Latin America had the highest number of happy people, followed by North America, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East and Africa. Only 15 percent of Europeans said they were very happy.

 

On a more personal note married couples tended to be happier than singles but men seemed to be as content as women. Education and age also had an impact with more people under 35 saying they are very happy than 25-49 year olds. Higher education also equated with higher happiness

 

Indeed it seems that many of the poorest are also the happiest.

If only I were poorer.

I'd rather be happy and poor then rich and miserable.

Guess I will have to make do with being poor and miserable!!

Once you get rich you have to devote your life to staying rich.

Incidentally you will see other surveys which show the opposite, but rather than ask people if they were happy,

they used other things such as basically wealth health and social security. Unfortunately asking people if they were

happy tended to show those thing did not make people happy.

The survey which showed the rich were happy was done by Forbes, a business magazine, so they told

people what they wanted to hear!! ( in a typically dishonest business man's way!!)

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45ejmi/01-norway/#gallerycontent

I never understood how having -7.50 dioptre myopia at the age of seven equated to having intellectual prowess. What precisely is the advantage of being blind? I have tried to reason it out and have concluded that in fact this is more of an advantage for a warrior. It's much easier to kill randomly when you don't see their faces or the counter acting weaponry!

poor eyes sight may lead you develop mental skilsl to compensate for that, even if being not able to read a solution you might have to work it out for yourself for example thus developing built in skill rather than being a highly trained monkey.

I never understood how having -7.50 dioptre myopia at the age of seven equated to having intellectual prowess. What precisely is the advantage of being blind? I have tried to reason it out and have concluded that in fact this is more of an advantage for a warrior. It's much easier to kill randomly when you don't see their faces or the counter acting weaponry!

On the other hand it is somewhat more easy for your enemy to kill you!!

What makes someone a genius?

Anyone know? I don't. Contradiction

Why are some men a lot stronger, energetic and healthier than others?

 

I mean some men are able to work 10 hours every day, driving long distances and rushing about from city to city without having to eat a lot of food at all and are still strong and energetic while other men, like me, are a lot weaker physically and need to eat and sleep a lot more.

 

I also realized that some men have a pretty high pain tolerance and are not afraid to get injured or even get killed while other men, like me, are pretty sensitive to pain (I have a very low pain tolerance) and are more easily injured.

 

What is the biological or physical explanation for this, if there is any at all?

Well various types of answers, some people are just healthier than others but health alone will not make you strong,

that is more to do with exercise and training so you would need both.

However even if you are in poor health exercise and training do help.

I went through a period where I did a period of training with fairly light weights, I also played quite a bit of

squash rather competitively and boy did it make me a lot stronger and energetic, I could literally leap out of a chair

in an instance whereas before it was considerabley slower.

Also even recently I did some digging of tree stumps out of the garden with a large heavy axe called a mattock.

I was certainly lot stronger after the I was literally pull up tree stumps!!

One of the reason you need to sleep a lot is because that is what do perhaps? Rest makes you weaker not stronger generally.

Most people pain thresholds are probably the same but if you are big and stronger it takes more to hurt you.

But obviously some health conditions affect overall health

To grow muscles you have to use them.

How you feel pain can also be psychological if you are feeling good and get hurt it will feel

less than if you were feeling down.

AND things like adrenalin affect it, it's like the body knows when it is not a good time to feel pain,

people can get stabbed and not know it!! But when you see the wound you feel pain (happened to me)

I cut my hand on a roof nail and did not know untill i saw the blood I just thought I had hit something.

There are no warm areas in my fridge. Your insistence that it's making my food "go off" is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, the foods that are most likely to "go off" (meats, cheeses) are in the upper half of the cooling section.

 

If my fridge was making my food go bad, why wouldn't I get rid of it? Why would I put up with that for ten years? Your arguments have gone beyond the speculative and into the bizarre. You started out arguing against wind farm systems where the atmospheric conditions may be difficult to measure, but now you're arguing against something I've observed in my home every day for the past ten years. I suspect you're simply trolling now. Are you seriously telling me you know more about the day-to-day functions of my appliances than I do?

Well you probably do not keep it long enough to go bad.

But it would keep longer in a normal fridge.

Obviously it will keep a bit longer than outside the fridge.

But how does cold air get to the top of the fridge?

It is not going to rise up above the warmer air above it, that defies the lays of physics.

It will conduct up there eventually but air is a poor conductor, every time you open the door warm air will get in the top

and it will take a long time to cool down again.

In a normal fridge the top is cold because of the ice box and the cold air will drift down to the bottom

giving fairly uniform refrigeration.

In yours the bottom could be -60C and the top room temperate!!

Maybe yours has separate compartments with two coolers, that would work but it's over complicated.

Perhaps that is why they have some many problems according to many reviews I have seen.

Doors falling off, big blocks of ice jamming the water cooler, water leaking out etc...

Anyway I certainly will not be getting one.

Wow, I can't believe this confuses you so much. If you put the coldest part at the bottom it does not take as much energy to keep it cold as it does if you put it at the top where your refrigeration is constantly working against rising warm air that is working against you. That's why the article states that it is most efficient with the coldest part at the bottom. At the bottom you don't have to worry about warm air sinking into the freezer and causing the compressor to run more often like it does on top freezer models.

Yes the bottom will be cold, fine, but the top will remain warm because the cold air will stay at the bottom.

To get the top cold you will have to turn it up really high.

Where are you going to put the thermostat?

I could keep my heater warm and efficient by placing it at the top of the room away from the cold air

but that would be frigging stupid!!

Think of it this way. Consider an ice box at one end instead of a freezer. If you put ice in it will the ice last longer in a box at the bottom of the unit or one at the top?

It will last longer at the bottom but unfortunately the food at the top will be warm and go off.

That is why the freezer needs to be at the top to avoid making warm area's in the fridge.

http://reviews.bestb...ews/reviews.htm

Purchased the Gold Series Whirlpool bottom freezer model 18 months ago and have had nothing but problems with both the unit and customer service. Seems like there is a design flaw with this because the bottom of freezer continues to build up with ice and then starts to leak on the floor. This seems to cause odors with the ice as well. I have defrosted, de-iced, and cleaned the drain multiple times but the issue reoccurs. Whirlpool customer service is very poor - they behave like they are trying to limit exposure and damage related to a flaw. I would advise anyone NOT to buy this or any other Whirlpool product. If you doubt this review Google the issue and you will find many similar experiences, If you buy this model be prepared to constantly be breaking up sheets of ice from the freezer bottom and mopping up puddles from your floor!No, I would not recommend this to a friend.

A refrigerator works by circulating air into both the refrigerator and freezer portion of the unit. At least give the engineers credit for thinking of such an obvious issue.

You have no circulation with the freezer at the bottom, cold air falls so the cold air sits at the bottom and stays there.

It is different with heating as hot air rises so a heater at the bottom heats the whole room, if you put it at the

top the hot air would stay at the top and leave the rest of the room cold.

The old engineers solved the issue decades ago.

The new rubbish engineers have unsolved it and produce a useless fridge.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry, it's a mad world.

http://tlc.howstuffw...frigerators.htm

 

 

 

http://products.hows...tor-reviews.htm

 

 

Yes, I do have a fridge like that, why would I need to lie about it? They've been around for quite a while. If you know anything about market economies, you'll know that an inefficient design in refrigerators won't last very long before being rejected by consumers, especially since food represents one of the largest monthly expenses in many households.

 

I think the review you quoted earlier was a cherry-picked anomaly. The basic design is sound.

Really cannot believe what I am reading!!

Well actually in this corrupt upside down world I can.

I don't need to know anything about market economies because we certainly do not live in one.

We have a corrupt oligipoly not a market economy buy and large.

And listen to his piece of bull you quoted " Everybody knows that warm air rises, so it just makes sense to have the coldest items at the bottom of the unit."

A fridge does not work by warming air, it does the opposite, it works by cooling air.

Cold air falls, and if you put the freezer box at the bottom all the cold air stays at the bottom, there is no circulation of cold

air and the temperature at the top of the fridge becomes dangerously high.

Things like heating systems do the opposite, that is why your radiators are not on the ceiling, if they were the top of the room would be

warm and the bottom cold.

The people who designed those things are idiots!!

You see the problem with having the freezer at the bottom is the cold air never gets to the top and it can get warm up there,

dangerously warm allowing bacteria to breed.

It is obviously not efficient because you can't get the top of the fridge cold because the cold air stays at the bottom.

You can't rely on circulation because all the cold air is stacked up at the bottom so you can only get the top cool by

conduction and that is going to take a lot of energy.

It's just crazy - technology going backwards.

That review is genuine and the first I found, the fridge will never work no amount of repairs will fix the

fact the freezer is in the wrong place, the top of the fridge will always be warm. That is why the fridge will always

be on because I presume the thermostat is at the top where it will never get cold.

Te only solution is to stick an electric fan in the fridge to try and blow cold air up, but it is gonna fall back down of course

but it is better than nothing.

I would take it back and demand a refund, it is not fit for purpose.

I don't give a tinker's cuss for the video: I didn't watch it.

However the winds on earth are still driven by the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator.

 

What do you think drives them?

but no warm is is taken from the poles at the surface.

slowing the wind warms the surface of the earth globally including the poles.

That's why they are melting.

That's not proof! I've had mine for almost ten years now. I love it, works great and my next fridge will be freezer on the bottom as well. I bought it because I'm 6' 4" tall and use the cooler part more than the freezer. But I've never had any problems with food rotting or poor air circulation.

Prove it!!!

It will only work if it has a fan to circulate the air as natural currents will not work in the top unless the coolest part of the top is

at the top.

Seriously do you really have a fridge like that?

Does it have a fan to stop all the cold air staying at the bottom?

It must have or it won't work properly

Oh... my.

 

don't buy one of those it won't work!!!!

here is proof!!

" " I've had this appliance for just over a year and have had nothing but problems! Just today we woke to a fridge that is no longer cooling and is constantly running...We've had over 8 parts replaced--including an entire door..." ."

http://www.retrevo.c...614ci664/t/1-2/

And if you do not believe me take a look in your fridge and you will find the ice box is at the

top not the bottom of the fridge.

|f the ice box was at the bottom all the food at the top would rot because it would be too warm

as the air would not circulate.

The wind takes the heat to outer space. The vacuum of outer space. That's how you understand it?

It take the air up where it radiates out into outer space.

No I think you have got it wrong there, as had the video on my post 91 at the bottom.

In the video the ice bag is placed at the bottom of the tank.

This as you know is wrong, for it to be an accurate representation the ice bag should be at the top.

There is no warm air going to the poles at the surface.

Note it is not a real experiment because real water is not circulating, it is a computer graphic.

It has to be a computer graphic because a real experiment set up like that would not work

for the simple reason you will not get warm air to sink at that end of the tank.

That is just not going to happen so I don't know why they put out bad science like that, it just seems to

have confused some people.

So yes you can defy the laws of gravity in a computer simulation however doing that is a real

experiment just ain't gonna happen.

That is why you won't see a real experiment showing what is supposed to be happening in the video.

Only half of it is unsupportable.

Wind farms do produce electricity. They get the energy to do this from the kinetic energy of the wind. To do so they must slow the wind down.

 

However, the extent to which they slow it down is small ( probably immeasurable) and those current heat some bits of the earth and cool others.

It may be #small' but it will me measurable by measuring the wind speed before and after the farm.

The wind must be slowing down otherwise the turbines would not turn.

In fact if you know the amount of energy the wind farm generate then it is fairly simple calculation to calculate (approximately)

how much the wind has closed down as the power of the wind is proportional to the cube of the speed IIRC.

So you then just need to know the density of the air and it is a fairly straight forward calculation.

Then perhaps you can go on to calculate the warming effect of that loss of cooling power.

Then you just need to compare he small amount of energy generated to the warming produced by the slowing of the wind.

If you think about it it must take a hell of a lot of energy to produce the warming seen on the satellite pictures.

How many electric fires on the ground would you need to produce that?

Millions I would imagine.

Similarly, if you slow down an air current which heats a surface (as happens at the poles) then that surface will get colder.

I just verified this by switching off the fan heater. Now my feet are cold so I'm going to switch it back on.

 

 

The wind just moves heat around.

 

On average, it wouldn't get hotter or colder if the wind stopped.

The changes (if they were big enough) might make life very difficult for us, but they wouldn't be global warming.

I am not aware of any air currents which heat the Poles.

The sun heats the polesand the wind takes the heat away up into the atmosphere and into outer space.

That's how I understand it.

Yea, so basically the wind farms are slowing down the air currents which cool the surface of the earth.

Now if you slow down the an air current which cools a surface then that surface is going to get warmer.

If you still do not believe me then simply take the cooling fan out of your PC, but don't blame me if your PC

over heats and crashes or worse still if the CPU is damaged.

I strongly advise you not to though.

Put if you want to put your money (ie PC) where your mouth is (and can afford a new CPU), go ahead and try it!!

Slightly more realistic is to put the fan out side the PC and use the air from it to power a mini wind turbine

which provide power to another fan mounted on the CPU.

If that kind of set up keeps your PC cooler than I am wrong!!