Coreeece

Sounds like you have something in common with these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists But not to worry, you're probably not a real atheist anyway: "Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged" "atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think..." “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas” http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982 Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

"Atheist governments in the USSR, China and Russia were in fact the biggest perpetrators of mass violence that the world has ever seen, with both governments individually responsible for many more deaths than the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. The presence of the millenarian ideology of Communism (like Nazism) gave the rulers the justification for mass murder, in much the same way that religion had been used by other rulers before them the world over to justify war. The common thread here linking the disposition to war of religious and atheistic states is absolutism: the more absolutist the state, the more likely it is to go to war." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwiZpJe61ZjJAhXHbB4KHRa5DI4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fshared%2Fspl%2Fhi%2Fworld%2F04%2Fwar_audit_pdf%2Fpdf%2Fwar_audit.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGBsSOvF6i1brwFxZ0ktBS-1guUHw&sig2=y6Wa3_q6dsbP4_tSxbN5Ig&cad=rja http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3513709.stm Who cares? Right now this is about the immediate issue with Islamic extremism and their direct relationship to global warming. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I saw this on tv last night and thought of you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APTjOOblvI Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Correct it is hyperbole. It takes the immensely long time of just over 3 days for you to get to 130. 112 people have been shot this month in Chi-Raq alone - it's a war zone! Some have called for the assistance of the national guard while others are relying on the abstinence of loose women to curb the death toll. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Some are calling for assistance from the National Guard: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-chiraq-national-guard-perspec-0702-20150701-story.html Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/ But what's a couple million anyway? What difference, at this point, does it really make now anyway? Of those, Stalin's actions against the churchies are the only ones that even remotely quality for what Kallend is talking about. The rest are just people being cunts that would have been cunts no matter what their person belief was. Yet you didn't apply that marginalization until it was atheism that was being criticized - nice double standard. I'm not sure if you guys are in denial or just trolling... I'm not sure if you're naive or dumb. Nobody is out there going "I am killing you because atheism" Perhaps you could relate to some of the less militant tactics/ideologies of the LMG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists ...and tho people like Stalin, Hoxa and bigoted thugs like those above may not have always tortured or killed directly in the name of atheism, their oppressive intimidation was used in an attempt to maintain a level of state atheism and eliminate religious expression - it failed miserably. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/ But what's a couple million anyway? What difference, at this point, does it really make now anyway? Of those, Stalin's actions against the churchies are the only ones that even remotely quality for what Kallend is talking about. The rest are just people being cunts that would have been cunts no matter what their person belief was. Yet you didn't apply that marginalization until it was atheism that was being criticized - nice double standard. I'm not sure if you guys are in denial or just trolling... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/ But what's a couple million anyway? What difference, at this point, does it really make now anyway? Having a little reading comprehension problem this morning? His comprehension seems fine. From the Article: "estimates of the total number murdered under Stalin’s reign, range from 10 million to 60 million. His government promoted atheism with mass propaganda in school, and held a terror campaign against the religious. He crushed the Russian Orthodox Church, leveling thousands of churches and shooting more than 100,000 priests, monks and nuns between 1937 and 1938." Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/ But what's a couple million anyway? What difference, at this point, does it really make now anyway? Don't forget Enver Hoxa and the atrocities committed in the name of State Atheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#Human_rights Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Would it make you feel better about it if these people had a reason? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Things I've learned from SC: Rule #1: Anything that happens anywhere on the globe is Obama's fault. Rule #2: American military force can solve any problem, and turn any country into a peaceful democracy. Well, at least you're objective... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

A soul only needs to be saved if the individual desires eternal life. If you don't seek it you will never find it. As to your second point, the problem is that the experience is self initiated and the individual knows that. Furthermore, it wears off and the experiment must be repeated. Plus, the electrode thing seems a bit expensive. Tho I can certainly relate, my experience has become more practical for me than "theoretical" since I've been placed in some rather dire situations lately that test the limits of my faith and push me to apply the principles I've learned the last 10 years. Through it all, I'm starting to understand more clearly 1 Corinthians 13:2: "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Because of things like this: 'So, in the end, if Carson did lie, it does not matter now does it.' Jerry Baumchen What difference, at this point, does it really make anyway? 66,500 pages. She lied, by a factor of over 1,000% Hillary lied about why 4 Americans died, which is more important in your book? Bush lied, 4,400 Americans died, and over $1 Trillion was pissed away. Which is more important in your book? While it's virtually impossible to detect an elegant liar and disqualify him/her from gaining the presidency, we can at least eliminate oafish liars from the playing field that tend to expose themselves prior to being elected into office... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Errr.... no. The following is a good explanation from Oswald Chambers. That's what I am talking about. The issue I have with this is there is an assumed premise that any soul really needs to be saved. This shows only one side of any explanation. There is no other view allowed for. . . . And then there is the whole thing that a simple electronic pulse to the right part of the brain gives you all that and more. Why don't we just hook ourselves up to some electrodes and be saved that way? knock yourself out - go nuts... Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I have a .pdf version if you're interested. I found it on a yahoo server for private groups. The .pdf is a bit sloppy and I can't verify the content - I never got to reading it. Personally, I think I would rather just sit in the recliner and read the paperback version. Plus the .pdf might be useless in an EMP attack. It seems like a good read - I might stop by the used book store in town and see what they have. I didn't get a chance to view your links yet, but I got a kick out of the photo you attached: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=147209; *In my Russian Accent* "Strong, like bull..." Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

For the most part, I have pretty much remained indifferent about Carson, but he never seemed very presidential to me - and tho I could probably give him the benefit of a doubt, the issues surrounding him just seem a bit too bizarre. *sigh* it's nice to be able to criticize a black politician without being called a racist. Even Amazon is throwing out "uncle Ben" jokes. (not sure if it means "uncle" as in uncle tom, or uncle ben's rice.) Even Kallend joined in by stereotyping inner city blacks in post 43. If the only way for Benson to get into the white house is through the domestic service staff, then at least he can go to bed knowing that he united the nation though the destruction of the PC culture. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok, so basically you took the most improbable, worst case scenario of some study conflated with "unofficial records" and passed it off as fact in an attempt to alarm people about the "immediate issue" with AGW - namely, the inhabitability in parts of southwest asia, aka the middle east, aka the desert. (which ever creates the most buzz) In case you haven't noticed, that calculator specifically says: * Please note: The Heat Index calculation may produce meaningless results for temperatures and dew points outside of the range depicted on the Heat Index Chart linked below. So while it may not be a "made up scary number," it certainly falls into the "meaningless scary number" range. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, that's the same one I mentioned here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4768268;search_string=178F%202003;#4768268 I got a wetbulb temp of about 97F the other day using the calculator below: https://www.easycalculation.com/weather/dewpoint-wetbulb-calculator.php But then you have to wonder why these studies maintain that the wetbulb rarely exceeds 31C (88F) and has never exceeded 35C (95F) The study from the nature journal that you posted, had a model using climate data and historical GHG concentrations from 1976-2005 - and though the 35C threshold was approached in many locations, it was not exceeded anywhere in the domain - so perhaps the instance from Dhahran in 2003 had nothing to do with GHG? C02 levels were certainly lower back then. Nature Journal Study: eltahir.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Paper.pdf https://youtu.be/HI-KkwSKZcA?t=174 "Scientists stress that even under the 'business as usual' emmisions scenario, wetbulb temperatures are not projected to top 35C more than once every decade or every few decades by the end of the century. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Why is Texas color-coded with an F, when they got a D- ...same thing with ND and VT. Also, how is North Dakota raked higher than Texas when they scored lower on the test? What stands out to me the most is the difference between Michigan and Ohio. I can't help but to think of John Kasich and his success in getting results. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

You keep saying that, but where have you seen temps that exceeded the threshold? The nature journal letter that you linked to below says that they rarely exceed 31C (let alone 35C.) ...and that 31C temp is referenced from a study in 2010 that actually says Tw never exceeds 31C. (but I do believe I read somewhere that sea surfaces may have recently reached Tw 32C-33C in some areas since then) Full 2010 Study from PNAS: [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.abstract[/url] The study says that temps will begin to exceed the 35C threshhold when warming increases by 7C. (Which seems to be a bit beyond the 2.4-6.4C increase projected for 2090 in even the most extreme scenarios that I've seen on the IPCC website) Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Yep, thanks - that's how it's done - but may I recommend using lump charcoal rather than briquettes to limit charcoal dust from falling onto the steak? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to refute them, let alone articulate a rebuttal. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Well, you're not really being cooked - it just feels like you are. Please see the 1st photo I linked to where the man is using his child to shield himself from the sun. If a meat thermometer says your body temperature is 165F, you're cooked. The picture you cite appears to be a freeze frame action shot of someone playing with a kid in the water. Nothing about it looks like the kid is being used as a sun shield (the other people in the shot look pretty blase). Well that's a rather rosy perspective on suffering. The other people are apparently in a state of shock as they are being enveloped by the apocalyptic AGW flood waters that we have been alarmed about. The world is going to hell in a hand basket, run for the sleeves! Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I think 'uncomfortable' is a bit of a understatement. So, you're been shown to be wrong about the temperature in Houston, but you're going to stick to your guns that 165F wet bulb temperature is no big deal? I know that 165F probably refers to the heat index of the 95F wet bulb temp that Bill was talking about earlier, but be careful - I was already rebuked in another thread for the saying the same thing. But to answer your question - ya, heat waves are a big deal and lots of people can die. I think 700+ died in Chicago during a heat wave 20 years ago. 600+ died in Pakistan earlier this year, and those temps didn't even break the record high for that area from 1979 when CO2 emissions were lower. The record heat index of 178F back in 2003 didn't seem to be as deadly - nor did the 165F back in July - here's some pictures: http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2015/08/01/rtx1mfvg.jpg http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2015/08/01/heat.jpg Assuming you are not simply joking, please look up the terms 'temperature,' 'wet bulb temperature' and 'heat index.' 165F is 'medium' for cooked meat, 165F water is scalding, where immersion will cause burns immediately. Well, you're not really being cooked - it just feels like you are. Please see the 1st photo I linked to where the man is using his child to shield himself from the sun. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I think 'uncomfortable' is a bit of a understatement. So, you're been shown to be wrong about the temperature in Houston, but you're going to stick to your guns that 165F wet bulb temperature is no big deal? I know that 165F probably refers to the heat index of the 95F wet bulb temp that Bill was talking about earlier, but be careful - I was already rebuked in another thread for the saying the same thing. But to answer your question - ya, heat waves are a big deal and lots of people can die. I think 700+ died in Chicago during a heat wave 20 years ago. 600+ died in Pakistan earlier this year, and those temps didn't even break the record high for that area from 1979 when CO2 emissions were lower. The record heat index of 178F back in 2003 didn't seem to be as deadly - nor did the 165F back in July - here's some pictures: http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2015/08/01/rtx1mfvg.jpg http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2015/08/01/heat.jpg Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour