Repent, Amarillo! (Texas)
Posted on: March 3, 2010 - 5:29pm
Offline
Repent, Amarillo! (Texas)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/repent_amarillo.php
List of targets (according to http://www.repentamarillo.com/mission.html):
1. Gay pride events.
2. Earth worship events such as "Earth Day"
3. Pro-abortion events or places such as Planned Parenthood
4. Breast cancer events such as "Race for the Cure" to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer.
5. Opening day of public schools to reach out to students.
6. Spring break events.
7. Demonically based concerts.
8. Halloween events.
9. Other events that may arise that the ministry feels called to confront.
Their website is http://www.repentamarillo.com/
They even have a battle map of targets. http://www.repentamarillo.com/map.php
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Saw that on Pharyngula this morning. Holy batshit insane.
But seriously...these people are here to give you advice about sex.
thats what amarillo gets for making a pact with the devil
kidding of course
as an aside, admittedly this is probably another topic altogether, but i dont understand the purpose of a gay pride event, seems odd to me to be proud of something you have no control over
im not proud to be a heterosexual, im also not not proud (if that makes sense), i just am heterosexual, i dunno, just a thought i guess, maybe someone could clarify
and RAVEN ministries.... lol, sounds like a ministry a bunch a christian kids who played alot of D&D would start (then again i doubt alot of christian kids would play D&D, thats devil worshipping, or so theyd probably say)
I would guess it is for the same kind of reasons we have things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_history.
They could play d&d, they could have like, moses characters and stuff, you know moses would have +15 water damage or something. Jesus would have +20 to healing.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Gay pride events aren't really about being proud in being homosexual. They are being proud of standing up to oppression against them, and celebrating gaining a voice where they had none before. Many people were not aware there were so many gays. This was a way to bring attention to the fact your neighbor may be gay. It is much harder to be a bigot when your prejudices are challenged.
Of course, some of the people that go to them nowadays just go to party and do whatever. If gay pride events stopped, it might lead to events that started the Stonewall riots again. Prejudice is easy to develop when you think you have a homogeneous society. Diversity has to be seen to be respected.
They don't know you are there if you are not seen. You can't have a voice if you don't speak. There are still areas in the country full of open bigotry, open homophobia, open intolerance, disgust and even hatred, where simply coming out means it makes you a target.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
well thats not quite the same
something more equivolent would like like a black pride parade or something (do they still have those?), i dunno, i always found the concept offensive in a way, if it was the other way, white pride parades or the like, it would be viewed as racist and if people had heterosexual pride events it would be viewed as ridiculous
i dunno, i just dont get it, i dont feel pride for something i am (whether it be white, male, heteosexual, etc), i feel pride for the stuff i do
anyways, i dont want to take us too far afield from the topic
and btw:
that makes more sense, i guess from stuff ive seen on tv (the news or whatever) usually its a bunch of jackasses just re-enforcing any stereotypes people may have about homosexuals, which is too bad
one of my best friends is gay, and he's like totally the opposite of any gay stereotype, hes sorta nerdy, loves engineering and works in a nuclear powerplant, if you had that sorta face put forward i dont think people would mind as much
i think the over the top flamboyant, really distastefully dressed folks you see at some of these type events gives the whole thing a bad name
Not so- I've known *many* Christian gamers who play D&D.
Granted, D&D crowds do tend to be more like half-and half Abrahamic vs. atheist/agnostic/pagan, which is a larger representation from our side than normal.
They [Christians] do like to make a point of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis being fantasy writers who have inspired the genre, and popular Christians- more so Lewis than Tolkien, though, being a more avid apologist.
Anyway, Christians have been trying (with extreme obviousness) to make Christianity "cool and gothic" for a long time now to compete with all of the new-age pagan popularity these days.
2. Wait a second here. Is THAT why all the right-wing looneys keep saying Global Warming is a myth? They think it's some kind of satanic witchcraft?
Un-freaking-believable.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
hmm, maybe we could start a new game here...you could call the DM god, and have people crusading around trying to convert and dispose of infidels lol
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
"To all who have an ear to hear, we must speak out boldly. We must speak the truth. With that in our hearts, herein is our mission statement:"
A WAR AGAINST ALL NON-CHRISTIANS AND THEIR BELIEFS.. UNLESS THEY ARE EARLESS.... TO HELL WITH THE EARLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No but this is really their mission statement
"
This mission statement is borrowed from a Christian martyr of unknown identity. He was a young African Christian who penned these words in his prison cell before his death. May God bless him for his inspiration.
From Right to Left
- "Dude" with a long haired wig or a fugly chick with an adams apple
- Cartman in 15 years, hasnt seen his wang in at least 20years
- Ex-pedophile... eh... maybe not an Ex... hard to tell with pictures o_O
Arent first impressions awesome?
What Would Kharn Do?
Those people (Repent Amarillo) are fascist's, plain and simple. Fuck fascist's (abbreviated version). Crazy Creanderthals...
Fascism isn't going away, and the more people just ignore it, the more it gives it a chance to grow and spread and infect other peoples brain's.
http://www.nofxwiki.net/w/Lyrics:Leaving_Jesusland
Speaking about gaming, I have known a few theists to rpg, but I can say you find a lot more atheists and agnostics playing. Maybe that's just me though. There might just be legions of rpg'ing theists... it would probably make it easier to pretend that deities exist in a magic land. Maybe some are even deluded enough to play D&D AND believe what Jack Chick said and are just being rebellious!
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp
If this crazy babble tract were real, kids would be flocking to D&D hoping they would be the next Harry Potter. Not happening.
Speaking of theistic rpg'ers...
...I think we just founds some! I know because we gamers can smell our own.
Only there games would be crazy, full of Dagger of Biologist Bashing +20, Bow of Geologist Baffling +15, and Sword of Genocidal Intentions +25. Crazy creepy.
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
alot of people have reservations about global warming (or is it climate change now?) because there are alot of questions about it
questions brought up by guys like lord christopher monckton and richard lindzen
People that are easily mislead and have not researched the subject at all have reservations about it.
The rest of us don't. There is far too much data and evidence, and it is spread across many different areas. Between evidence from ice cores to tree rings to geological, satellite, and deep sea core data, across a myriad of fields, the conclusion is unanimous.
Furthering that, anyone with a basic understanding of the absorption spectrum can understand that an abundance of certain elements in our atmosphere will warm the planet. Venus is so warm because there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not something in dispute.
Why then, do people think if we fill our atmosphere with CO2 the greenhouse effect will magically not happen? I can't understand the lack of understanding for something so basic. It is insanity. I could understand people questioning how much humanity could influence it, but to say we don't at all is beyond stupidity. You have to disregard so much science in order to accept the irrationality that humans do not influence their environment by doing something that is well known to influence the environment.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
So 3 scientists on the planet think it isn't happening?
Vincent R. Gray (born 1922, London) is a New Zealand-based coal chemist - doesn't believe in the greenhouse effect.
Timothy Francis Ball is a Canadian environmental consultant and former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg, where he specialized in the relation of climate to human settlement.
Robert M. "Bob" Carter is an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland[1] and the University of Adelaide South Australia, Australia.[citation needed] He is a geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181. Carter is a member of the conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
Can you show me why the greenhouse effect doesn't happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus seems significantly larger, by the way. Not that this is a popularity contest. It is somewhat overwhelming though considering there are few people challenging it with any qualifications.
Disregarding that though, are you honestly suggesting that the absorption spectrum functions differently on this planet, in regard to one element, than the rest of the universe? Can you honestly find this feasible in any way?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
well the IPCC (or whatever its called) that came up with the climate report isnt exactly brimming with scientists either, i guess my main point is this:
politicians shouldnt be talking about things like scientific concensus or the like, as if they knew wtf they were talking about
i dont think we know for sure, it most certainly could be a natural phenomenon, i remember seeing clips of the Al Gore movie where he shows the temp graph and the CO2 graph and implying that its a causal relationship, but he doesnt overlap them, and for good reason
in alot of cases the rise in CO2 came AFTER the rise in temperature
and the solutions for the problem are terrible, they wont effect CO2 or climate in the least, and is really just a massive form of corporatism, there are companies that will make billions out of trading carbon credits, even naomi klein thinks its a horrible idea
The reason such graphs mightn't be put together is because of the time scale. It's well known in geologic (and climatologic) history that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels coincide with rises in temperature. This is trivially true to anyone who knows anything about the subject of climate change. What happens is that as the Earth undergoes a glaciation (remember we're still in an ice age right now, a part called an interglacial period as opposed to a glacial period -or what is commonly called an ice age.) plant life diminishes and desertification increases. This causes a rise in atmospheric dust that culminates in a larger drop in global average temperatures. What happens following this is a redistribution of minerals contained in the atmospheric dust to oceans and other water that cause an increase in CO2 producing water-surface fauna. This increase in CO2 production re-enriches the atmosphere with CO2 which causes a warming due to the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2. The equatorial regions begin producing more O2 producing flora, sequestering the carbon and in the meantime the minerals deposited in water are gradually redistributed to land and sequestered in flora and the drop in CO. The increase in oxygen production evens out with the CO2 production and the levels of both flux until the cycle happens again, kicked off by the process that ultimately drives global cooling and warming. This process, the 'dust cycle' is not the cause of glacial periods and interglacial periods, but it's an important part of glaciation. See, the Earth is already cooling by the time the atmospheric dust kicks in to cause the further drop setting in the glaciation. Likewise, the Earth is already warming by the time the CO2 levels are rising setting in the interglacial period by raising the temperature just that much higher.
The pattern is so predictable in the last hundreds of thousand of years. It's like clock work. Indeed, we see that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes shortly after the rise in temperature and peaks just ahead the rise in temperature and drops shortly after the cooling period and gets to its lowest levels just before the peak of the glaciation. You must appreciate, however, that the changes in temperature being discussed are less than 2 degrees in either direction. A slight change in temperature like that really can affect the global climate quite dramatically. Add in to this the effects of oceans currents, air streams and the effects of our cosmological position and you get what amounts to a rather complex, but not prohibitively complex (for our purposes), predictive climate model. You must also appreciate that the rate of change in global average temperatures that occur naturally through the process described above happen on the order of thousands of years and it's only retrospectively that we can glean anything useful from that information -even on short time periods in that historic data it would be necessary not to draw a correlation between CO2 and temperature because the time scale is insufficient. The change in global average temperature that we're noticing presently can't possibly be natural because it's taken place over such a short period of time (a couple centuries). In fact, the reason many studies don't even attempt to draw a correlation between temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 increase is exactly because in the time scales we're discussing, there isn't sufficient hindsight to say certainly, for instance, that in a five or twenty year period that such a correlation exists; we always need more time to establish that. Information from the 70's now shows us a warming trend in line with increases in atmospheric CO2. Extrapolated over several hundred years and compared to the evidence we have from hundreds of thousands of years ago and the intervening time, however, such a trend can be established and the link to human cause can be decisively made.
I've only discussed one line of evidence, here, and one process that is part of a complex pattern of global climate change, and that alone inculcates humans as the cause of a very real rise in global average temperatures. Merely try to imagine all of the accumulated evidence (it's certainly more than I can imagine), all of it pointing to the same conclusion, that there is a rise in global average temperature and that it is human caused. The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly strong. We're not in doubt of evolution because a number of scientists take issue with it in favour of their own theory and that is the same with any well established theory. Ignorance of what global warming is, combined with an incompetent media telling the story has fed misinformation and the inane idea that all parts of a scientific (non)controversy deserve equal telling has led to a public that is greatly misinformed and disinclined to understand or learn the reality of the science.
Global warming denial and doubt is as pernicious and inane as 'teach the controversy' is between evolution and creationism. It is the same as the effective media campaign of alternative medicine opposing science based medicine. There is no controversy. There is no legitimate doubt of the sort you suggest here. There is no alternative. The truth is in the evidence and the evidence points toward the consensus conclusion. Global warming is happening and it's caused by us, evolution is fact and the theory of evolution is the best explanation of it and science based medicine is the only proven and effective way to practice medicine. I'm so sick of the false skeptics, the naïve fence-sitters, the ignorant contrarians and all their stupid doubts and questions. Reason is not merely doubt nor is it the endless diarrhea of uninformed questioning; it is practiced, careful skepticism and the thoughtful probing by informed questions all guided by the application of logic.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
What, I'm sure, a fair few climate change "skeptics" haven't realised is that the greenhouse effect is the model which explains why the earth is not freezing given the ordinary parameters.
With what is known about the physics of heat and light energy, and it's not a shabby amount, the albedo of our earth dictates, for a simple first example, that too much heat from the sun will be reflected away to sufficiently warm our atmosphere up to the moderate temperatures we are taking for granted. The green house model successfully explains how this energy can be absorbed/reflected back and predicts the mean temperature of the earth with respectable accuracy.
So any skeptic wanting to challenge anthropogenic global warming effects on the level of science has to first explain the physics of why :
Te = ((1-A) S / 4) / σ )1/4
doesn't work for earth without taking the atmospheric reflectivity/absorption into account, and what alternative to atmospheric reflectivity/absorption they would suggest is a better model of planetary temperatures.
Failing this, they're just bleating for its own sake and it's a waste of time listening.
That sharply rising mean temperature may be less anthropogenic than predicted by greenhouse theory, or that it's in some yet unknown way not anthropogenic at all, may be a fair point - and really its the only fair point to be made in contention without positing a pretty holeproof alternative to greenhouse theory from scratch - but its a very weak point in the context of the whole climate change debate IMHO because it ultimately comes down to nitpicking for the side with inferior aspirations.
Clearly, and irrefutably, ambitious pollution reduction and complete transition into renewable resource dependence is the far superior goal for humanity. Why fight it on a hunch that there's some other reason that the face of our world is going through a drastic, perilous (for us) reformation? Shouldn't we just take the most positive course of action regardless?
I agree with you here, a lot of the proposed solutions are just corporate handwaving, pretense and ultimately useless. The skepticism debate, in which case, is an insidious distraction from the real goal we should all have, IMO.
Don't you think we should all cease squabbling over the what and why and unite in the advancement of the noble and sensible approach to our collective future instead. People, on the whole, should be arm in arm to push corporate pretense back into its box and force realistic action on all our behalfs, to go the better, the only sensible way - universal clean and renewable technology.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
im not a climatologist, nor have i claimed to be, but i dont know if its as settled as some claim it to be
and questioning the man-made global warming theory isnt anything similar to the evolution-creationism debate, whereas creationists have no positive evidence in their favor (no specific mechanism for instance, only a "gaps" argument), the critics of manmade global warming have specific evidence they can point to and have alternative theories backed by evidence
then again, like i said im no climatologist, so maybe im wrong, and if you can prove me thus ill happily change my mind, for a start id like someone to watch these videos and make some comments, i found them very interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME&feature=related -1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpX-Kae00s8&feature=related -2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BJrdSRDVlQ&feature=related -3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf6C0cMq3RU&feature=related -4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkSmdaLkd60&feature=related -5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlSSwErKWQs&feature=related -6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efxToyX5cPw&feature=related -7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZ1bHo6jR0&feature=related -8
watch them all and comment (perferablly just on the scientific points made), id like some input