The term Deist goes back to the 17th century and became fairly popular among enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century who couldn't swallow the concept of miracles, but weren't prepared to go the full monty and declare themselves to be atheists.
There are people around who call themselves "modern deists" who have taken the basics of deism (no miracles, no revelation, no scriptural basis etc.) and generally fooled around with it, but many (not all by any means) of them would not be considered deists in the strict philosophical sense.
It isn't tripe.
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. Seriously it isn't that complicated...
If you do not hold a belief in a god, you are an atheist. Whether you know or not is utterly irrelevant, no one knows.
Shadow
11 Dec 2012, 09:33 PM
It's obvious that you find my posts intensely irritating, given the amount of unprovoked abuse you're responding with, but I'm not actually sure what part of my post you disagree with? Your responses consist of generic hand-waving and emotive insults, along with some tangential and barely relevant distractions relating to the differences between agnostics and atheists. So I'm not really sure what position you are attempting to present on climate change here (if any?). My own position is that the degree of influence exerted on the global climate by humans is unknown. Do you disagree?
Then I suggest you go back and re read them. I have explained my position clearly.
Your inability to respond or understand them is on you.
Coming right up to date what about the big bang theory of the Universe?
Proposed by a catholic priest it is essentially an irrational sort of idea founded in the idea of Genesis, where we are supposed to believe that before the singularity there was nothing at all - not even previous big bangs.
Scientifically it seems like a nutty idea and yet powerful people are promoting it as fact.
It is odd that the naming rights of 'big bang theory' go to Fred Hoyle who thought the idea was nuts and as far as I can tell the discoverer of the red shift of the universe Hubble, also did not believe in an expanding universe?
Meanwhile big bang is being shovelled at us like it is the gospel truth.
Perhaps there is an ether that does weaken light if it travels sufficiently far??
I always laugh when someone says is this the end of science? as if we are anywhere near explaining the universe. We get so caught up in the paradigms of the moment eg the big bang theory and we as humans are so slow to question from the accepted norms. It is really good to take a step back every now and again and wonder if the scientists of the future will laugh at us over our antimatter, black holes and strings and of course our big bang theory. I like the idea of an ether those Greeks knew a thing or two that has stood the test of time eh? Maybe they were right with the ether idea all along
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993 The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
A great deal of science just involves a kind of tribal war where one side is convinced they have the right answer.
When the idea of ice ages was first put forwards around 1810, the dominating idea for the existance of glacial boulders spread thru the land far from glaciers was they were put there by floods. Dispite the evidence, ice ages were regarded as being a silly idea. Ice ages were regarded as being plausible by about 1850 - at least by some prominant scientists of the day.
Around the same time most scientists believed that heat was a fluid that filled the spaces in matter - dispite the huge amount of evidence available that heat could be produced in unlimited quanties by the action of friction. Even though the modern view of heat was very well worked out before 1800 it only became reasonably well accepted by about 1850.
And so it is with AGW.
Most people can agree humans have some impact upon the climate but the rest is just one big argument going nowhere fast at all.
One side wants to tell you the science is settled and the other obviously does not think it is.
Science evolves, I agree.
Do I think we have all the answers? No.
But that is a whole different kettle of fish to ignoring the established scientific consensus on the basis of nonsensical whims from a series of uneducated internet know everything and shock jocks.
If science evolves to challenge the scientific consensus on AGW, great. Hell who wouldn't want it to be wrong? The point, is, I'll take my science from the scientists who use the pain staking scientific method to base their claims.
Coming right up to date what about the big bang theory of the Universe?
Proposed by a catholic priest it is essentially an irrational sort of idea founded in the idea of Genesis, where we are supposed to believe that before the singularity there was nothing at all - not even previous big bangs.
Scientifically it seems like a nutty idea and yet powerful people are promoting it as fact.
It is odd that the naming rights of 'big bang theory' go to Fred Hoyle who thought the idea was nuts and as far as I can tell the discoverer of the red shift of the universe Hubble, also did not believe in an expanding universe?
Meanwhile big bang is being shovelled at us like it is the gospel truth.
Perhaps there is an ether that does weaken light if it travels sufficiently far??
And maybe related to the big bang theory, modern thermodynamics is attempting to describe heat as being something that is only an energy being transferred rather than mainly related to existing kinetic energy so that heat is 'contained in an object' in that the heat exists in the object as mainly kinetic energy. Ie today students are told that if they think like maxwell or Planck they are stupid and the students are told that the Caloric theory of heat was replaced by the classical or modern theory of heat developed by.....Maxwell Kelvin and Planck etc etc.
On Wiki I attempted to get the classical view of heat correctly attributed at least the history of it but was overwhelmingly beaten up by modern thermodynamists who are essentially totally ignorant of the classical idea of heat as kinetic energy
Weird unless somehow this is being orchestrated for some reason.
As far as I'm aware the big bang theory says nothing about the universe prior to the expansion event. How could it?
The big bang isn't 'shoveled' to us, it is presented with the light shift findings from Hubble and the back ground radiation that was discovered, god knows how much else.
By all means knock yourself out refuting it with some actual evidence.
But that is a whole different kettle of fish to ignoring the established scientific consensus on the basis of nonsensical whims from a series of uneducated internet know everything and shock jocks.
If science evolves to challenge the scientific consensus on AGW, great. Hell who wouldn't want it to be wrong? The point, is, I'll take my science from the scientists who use the pain staking scientific method to base their claims.
As Judith Curry has pointed out, Scientifically speaking neither you or the IPCC or anybody else gets to define what the scientific consensus is.
1. we need to know what the question being asked is.
2. Who was it asked to
3. Who was it not asked to
What were their responses?
Almost certainly most scientists are going to agree it is likely that humans are having an impact on our climate
But to push it further from that is pushing it too far.
100% guaranteed the overwhelming majority of scientists on this planet were not asked to contribute to the answer that the IPCC was wanting to include in the IPCC report
So what is the consensus view?
Obviously we have no idea other than what we guess about
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. Seriously it isn't that complicated...
No. Atheism is a belief in the lack of a God. Very different thing.
From Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
From Dictionary.com
Quote:
noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Oxford:
Quote:
a·the·ism n. the theory or belief that God does not exist. <DERIVATIVES> a·the·ist n. a·the·is·tic adj. a·the·is·ti·cal adj. <ORIGIN> late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.
I recommend that you learn how to use Google to check your facts. Seriously, it isn't that complicated.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
As Judith Curry has pointed out, Scientifically speaking neither you or the IPCC or anybody else gets to define what the scientific consensus is.
1. we need to know what the question being asked is.
2. Who was it asked to
3. Who was it not asked to
What were their responses?
Almost certainly most scientists are going to agree it is likely that humans are having an impact on our climate
But to push it further from that is pushing it too far.
Yea yea
And the cosmologists cant tell you the big bang theory is consensus, or evolution or quantum physics. Yet your phone and computer just keep on working don't they?
And the cosmologists cant tell you the big bang theory is consensus, or evolution or quantum physics. Yet your phone and computer just keep on working don't they?
Here is a news flash, the scientists don't care.
1. Why not ask your own question?
2. then you will be the one who said it
3. You can be in control of who is asked.
Knock yourself out.
Welcome to atheism
Jester are you a scientist?
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993 The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
those Greeks knew a thing or two that has stood the test of time eh? Maybe they were right with the ether idea all along
