Yes, in truth I'm probably more on the atheist side of agnostic, rather than total atheist. I can't prove there aren't 'gods' in the traditional sense, but I think it's highly unlikely. On the other hand, I can't prove the existence of aliens either, but I do think it's highly likely that they do exist. Advanced aliens may be indistinguishable from 'gods' to less advanced cultures, so I'll keep an open mind about the existence of alien 'gods'.
( this should get Catweasel into a right flummox )
Catweasel say not at a all. If Mouzealot can discover falsifiability and a scientific process, it go down path to enlighten. But a falsifiabilty and beliefs of mouzealot is entirely the different. That a more a expression of its socialization and belief system. Of the course, that not a based in a science.
David Hume may be the greatest atheist of them all (in fact he never declared himself to be an atheist, deist, or a theist, but he did refuse to recant his supposed atheism on his deathbed), but according to his biography by Roderick Graham, when Hume went to Paris and had lots of dinners with the Philosophes, they all said 'we are atheists' and he said he'd never encountered such firm faith in all his life. He thought it took a position of faith to call yourself an atheist.
In David Hume's time it was impractical to remain a respected public figure as a self-professed atheist. Even Darwin used the word "creation" rather than "evolution" throughout the Origin of Species. Hobbes was threatened with a trial by Parliament for his suspected atheism. John Stuart Mill's atheism could only be revealed after his death in posthumous essays. Shelley was expelled from Oxford for a pamphlet entitled "The Necessity of Atheism". No atheists (or even non-Anglicans) were allowed to teach or even study at Oxford or Cambridge.
Rather than inject irrelevant ad hominem into the argument, why didn't you just have a shot at Ayn Rand's logic? It's pretty terrible.
Ayn Rand starts off postulating that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. Fair enough nobody dissents at that stage.
Then the interviewer puts it to her that she also cannot prove that there is no God, to which she replies that she "is not required to prove a negative."
This is totally specious, because the postulation "There is No God" is definitely a positive statement, just as the postulation "There Is a God" is a positive statement. She's full of shit.
David Hume may be the greatest atheist of them all (in fact he never declared himself to be an atheist, deist, or a theist, but he did refuse to recant his supposed atheism on his deathbed), but according to his biography by Roderick Graham, when Hume went to Paris and had lots of dinners with the Philosophes, they all said 'we are atheists' and he said he'd never encountered such firm faith in all his life. He thought it took a position of faith to call yourself an atheist.
No, you're wrong. She is right, you don't have to disprove something that is not evident. As Kant pointed out, proofs and disproofs of god are equally irrelevant, you neither prove or disprove the existence of god. He wrote that in reaction to a time which was highly concerned with finding proofs for god and literally digging him up somewhere.
Quote:
Yes I agree you can have an Atheist religion.
No I disagree that Science and Religion being opposites. They are orthogonal and attempt to answer different questions. It can be perfectly consistent to be a physicist and a deist at the same time. In fact you could probably even be a physicist and a theist at the same time without being inconsistent, although that would be harder.
Not true. Science tests, propositions with logic and known facts. In religion the opposite occurs, it is simply faith without evidence. Aka, mysticism and transcendentalism. Science deals with objective reality, religion deals with subjective realities like morals. There is no morality in science, so religion is necessary for society to function.
The Anthropomorphic god simply arises via our instincts for a paternal figure in our lives. This doesn't rule out the possibility of a non-Anthropomorphic creative god.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
Personally I don't believe in a god, and I believe climate change is natural. Humans may contribute to it, but humans are a part of nature too, and our influence is probably tiny compared to the massive influence from non-human sources. Any influence we may have on the climate will also change naturally as we inevitably move to alternative energy sources.
This is pretty much my position on the "global warming" now "climate change" argument as well.
I would add that I have no doubt the large destruction of forest around the globe has had an impact on rising CO2 levels.
Pollution is bad and we should do what we can to minimise , but pollution alone is not a large part of why CO2 levels rose.
Solar activity, Volcanic activity play a much bigger part in climate change than we mere humans do.
The Earth also moves from its axis and this affects weather patterns.
Mother Nature reminds us frequently just how miniscule we are in the scheme of things when you see the results of her destructive forces on the evening news. Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Tsunami, Hurricanes, Tornado and Cyclones.
Yes "we humans" may have a small part in the climate change but only sheer arrogance would make someone think that humans have a major role in it.
History has shown us that the Earth has gone through major climate change events long before the industrial revolution and indeed long before humans were even around.
To quantify directly how much influence humans have on the Earths climate is impossible. However one thing is for certain, if humans were wiped out tomorrow, major climate change events would still occur on this planet.
There are some people who seem angry and continuously look for conflict. Walk away, the battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with themselves.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is not enough of anything to satisfy all who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. ~ Thomas Sowell.
Who was the fool, who the wise man, who the beggar or the Emperor? Whether rich or poor, all are equal in death.
Shadow, I can't understand why you can agree with me so closely on religion and climate change yet still be bullish on house prices.
Many people can agree on many things, not everyone can agree on everything.
There are some people who seem angry and continuously look for conflict. Walk away, the battle they are fighting isn't with you, it's with themselves.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is not enough of anything to satisfy all who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics. ~ Thomas Sowell.
Who was the fool, who the wise man, who the beggar or the Emperor? Whether rich or poor, all are equal in death.
Shadow, I can't understand why you can agree with me so closely on religion and climate change yet still be bullish on house prices.
I just think house prices will generally rise in line with incomes over the medium term, as has been the case for the past decade.
I don't think that's particularly bullish... it's probably a 'middle of the road' view among the broad public opinion on house prices.
My views on climate change and religion are probably pretty average/normal as well.
Also, judging by the results of the poll on this thread, there are a broad range of views on climate change and religion on this forum, and our views are not unusual here either.
Is this the Ayn Rand who believed in the supremacy of the individual, just as long as you belonged to the White collective?
I'm no apologist for Rand, but I think she's spot on and to the point on this issue (of god).
Let's not mention Rand and Hubbard in the same sentence - Rand might have had her faults, but she was no Hubbard (yes, I saw that clip, quite amusing).
In which category do you place your belief that 99% of climate change is caused by humans?
To be precise 101% of global warming beyond the pre-industrial mean is being caused by Human activity. The 101% of climate change because prior to the modern industrial era the world climate was slowly cooling.
This is based on evidence and logic.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
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
)
