Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hottest January Ever

Jump to new
I see. Interesting that you would compare saying the climate change bandwagon is a load of nonsense to saying there is no god. I also believe there is no god, and similarly, I can't 'prove' a negative. But the lack of proof of a negative is not reason to believe the positive.

Just as with debating religion with a religious person, I see there is no point discussing climate change with you.

Out of curiosity, do you believe in god?
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
May I state that it was a bloody hot summer.

I'll fight anyone who says it was not.

gg
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for my stuff to arrive from NZ.

Believing the stories of conditions more akin to Mercury than Earth, I didn't bring any warm clothes.

My @ss is freezing off right now eek7.gif
 
Sdajii said:
Just as with debating religion with a religious person, I see there is no point discussing climate change with you.
Click to expand...

I have spent virtually all of my life being prepared and able to discuss what people prosthelytise about. I'm one of those people who invite the JW's et al. in and ask them "So what do you believe and why". It has been my experience that people in general have a large amount of confidence in the former i.e. their belief, combined with what can appear from the outside as an astonishing lack of coherency, or ability to communicate veracity, in the later i.e. the why. When someone says something akin to "because the bible tells me so", it's very obvious what the next question should be i.e. "Why should we believe the bible", but as you can imagine, most of the conversations end briefly after that as they are usually unprepared for someone who does not hold the same presuppositions that they do.

I even had one of them ask me whether I had a mental disorder because they could not understand how I would risk going to hell for the sake of comprehension that they felt was not God's responsibility to give. They were the exception though as most of them were very polite and courteous :)

Sdajii said:
Out of curiosity, do you believe in god?
Click to expand...

No, I do not believe in a god or gods but remain open to the concept as I can't prove there is no god or gods. As with the global warming topic on ASF, I await for anyone willing to provide supporting evidence for the comments, assertions, or labels often used that they seem to want others to believe.

Any chance you will provide support for the positive claims you have made?
 
Sdajii said:
I see. Interesting that you would compare saying the climate change bandwagon is a load of nonsense to saying there is no god. I also believe there is no god, and similarly, I can't 'prove' a negative. But the lack of proof of a negative is not reason to believe the positive.

Just as with debating religion with a religious person, I see there is no point discussing climate change with you.

Out of curiosity, do you believe in god?
Click to expand...

Don't get all religious on us. You are the one ignoring the facts and relying on faith.
 
If facts are adjused, re they still facts?

If facys rely on assumptions, are the facts factual?
 
wayneL said:
If facts are adjused, re they still facts?

If facys rely on assumptions, are the facts factual?
Click to expand...

One swallow doesn't make a summer.

One incorrect fact doesn't mean all the other facts incorrect.

The skeptic movement pours over everything being produced looking for errors and lousy science and do occasionally find it. Good on them. But what about all the other papers that are ignored?

Most of what I see in the press is the denier movement which is reactionary. People are paid to distort what has been said and create doubt.
 
Knobby22 said:
One swallow doesn't make a summer.
Click to expand...

Indeed

One incorrect fact doesn't mean all the other facts incorrect.

The skeptic movement pours over everything being produced looking for errors and lousy science and do occasionally find it. Good on them. But what about all the other papers that are ignored?

Most of what I see in the press is the denier movement which is reactionary. People are paid to distort what has been said and create doubt.
Click to expand...

As much as there is "some" reactionary skepticism, there is equally reactionary fear mongering in the press.

Science functions by picking things to pieces, that is part of the scientific process.
 
wayneL said:
Indeed



As much as there is "some" reactionary skepticism, there is equally reactionary fear mongering in the press.

Science functions by picking things to pieces, that is part of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement on this.
 
Some Dude said:
I have spent virtually all of my life being prepared and able to discuss what people prosthelytise about. I'm one of those people who invite the JW's et al. in and ask them "So what do you believe and why". It has been my experience that people in general have a large amount of confidence in the former i.e. their belief, combined with what can appear from the outside as an astonishing lack of coherency, or ability to communicate veracity, in the later i.e. the why. When someone says something akin to "because the bible tells me so", it's very obvious what the next question should be i.e. "Why should we believe the bible", but as you can imagine, most of the conversations end briefly after that as they are usually unprepared for someone who does not hold the same presuppositions that they do.
Click to expand...
From your responses on this and other threads, SD, it seems that arguing is somewhat of a sport to you?
The JW callers certainly would make an easy target, but I guess they're asking for it if they choose to come knocking on your door.

I understand your desire to make people accountable for their beliefs, but perhaps recognise that doing so can come across sometimes as unreasonably demanding.

As we meander through life, we form beliefs and opinions about many things, largely on a gradual basis of being exposed to multiple influences and expressed views, so it can be impossible to respond to a demand to provide written proof of "on what do you base that belief".

It's different from stating something as a fact when it's not. Then I'm entirely with you on a request to provide evidence.

Just an incidental observation. Most definitely not an indication of a wish to engage in any discussion about climate.
 
I thought this thread was about the actual weather in January 2013, with a logical extension to subsequent months.

Whilst climate change is a related subject, if we're going to have the sort of nonsense debate on that then why not continue it on the climate change thread, and leave this one for things that are actually happening with the weather recently?

Just a thought given that climate change threads all seem to end up with a pointless argument.....:2twocents
 
I agree with the previous posters this is a good thread to share our observations and news about current weather events affecting members around Australia and beyond. It's also a handy tool to communicate observations and information that may be handy to members that are dealing with a current event eg : bushfire or flood. :2twocents
 
Julia said:
From your responses on this and other threads, SD, it seems that arguing is somewhat of a sport to you?
The JW callers certainly would make an easy target, but I guess they're asking for it if they choose to come knocking on your door.
Click to expand...

Depends on the parallels that you perceive to sport. I do have a philosophical inclination that motivates me i.e. I believe that a large part of the problem that adversely affects many discussions in society at large is not what people believe but how or why they believe what they do and an inability to establish common ground on how to assess information and derive conclusions when communicating with others. If arguing is a sport for me, or whatever other word is appropriate, I am but one amongst a large field of players, and a relatively passive player at, whom are proactively seeking to assert something to convince others.

If you mean I am much more practiced than most people then sure, I agree. Depends on what you meant.

The JW's sadly are an easy target but I respect that they, like most people when they assert their views, are doing what they do from a sense of what they believe is good.

Julia said:
I understand your desire to make people accountable for their beliefs, but perhaps recognise that doing so can come across sometimes as unreasonably demanding.

As we meander through life, we form beliefs and opinions about many things, largely on a gradual basis of being exposed to multiple influences and expressed views, so it can be impossible to respond to a demand to provide written proof of "on what do you base that belief".

It's different from stating something as a fact when it's not. Then I'm entirely with you on a request to provide evidence.
Click to expand...

I believe that I primarily engage in the later, some exceptions though :) I don't see it as my responsibility to make people accountable for their belief's and I avoid engaging in the vast majority of posts or comments in my life that might benefit from someone asking for some substantiation. Climate change, the politics associated with it, and religion (notice I have not got involved in the religion threads on ASF despite involvement on other forums?) are topics that interest me from the context mentioned above i.e. not what we think but how we think, and I am selective in where and when I choose to ask why someone asserts something. I am very conscious of the "I believe" prefix which I also use a lot. The words we choose are important for the reason I will elaborate on later. If anyone ever feels that I have sought to unfairly ask for substantiation of a "belief" statement then let me know. If I have, then I overlooked that important aspect and certainly would not be the first time or last that I misread something. I am very selective about what I ask for regarding substantiation in that the person has made a statement or claim of fact, not belief. That may not stop me from engaging in conversation (as shown here) but if anyone bothers to read it they will note that what I offered was not a demand for substantiation but an expression of difference about a belief. The requests for substantiation came later i.e. "I object because you are <insert favourite label>", "Ok. where?", "Go read your posts".

Sound familiar?

In that context, I can understand that being asked to substantiate something can be perceived as demanding but I also believe that that perception is substantially amplified when people avoid their responsibility to substantiate an assertion with evasion i.e. burden of proof. If a conversation can't move past agreeing on the first contested premise, especially when the most basic of requests for a source or citation can't be fulfilled, then there is a much more pertinent observation to be made about the person making the assertion than the person asking for the substantiation.

With regard to the words that we use, sometimes the choice of a word can be important. Take this example:

Who created the universe?

The question seems simple enough but before answering it, I would seek to validate and define three of the words used. This will often lead to evasion and accusations of pendentry, troll, nit picking, demanding, education, mental faculties, etc. or some other such label without reference to the validity of the intent, nor the veracity of the point actually being made. In this example, "who" implies that there is an agent that needs to be identified, "created" implies that the universe had to be created, and "universe" needs to be defined i.e. some models postulate that what we call the universe is not a complete description of the universe such that while "create" is a valid term in this context i.e. big bang, it does not imply that there was "nothing" "before" it in the colloquial sense requiring a creation ex nihlo ergo requiring a creator ergo requiring an agent, hence god. "Nothing" is another word that requires agreement regarding what it means and how it came be used before revisiting the question. As is "before" in that asking the question "what was before the big bang" may be analogous to asking "what is north of the north pole".

Many of these details are beyond what people seek to ask or know, and I have no problem with that. But it does factor into what basilio referred to in another thread (from memory) as framing. In the setting of a public arena, or sports field, where people are making these assertions, I do not automatically accept labels such as hysteria and panic without question because that sets the context in the same manner as "Who created the universe". These questions do not mean there is no god, or a creator, or that there is no hysteria or panic, but an inability to have effective discussions about these concepts underpin what I said at the start about an inability to establish common ground on how to assess information and derive conclusions when communicating with others.

Julia said:
Just an incidental observation. Most definitely not an indication of a wish to engage in any discussion about climate.
Click to expand...

Understood.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Just a thought given that climate change threads all seem to end up with a pointless argument.....:2twocents
Click to expand...

I agree, perhaps people could avoid making the claims in other threads that generate the subsequent discussion? Perhaps people could take the issue up with the original posters directly? Perhaps a policy could be agreed upon and enforced that helps to prevent this from happening?
 
I have no problem with debate on the subject of climate change. It's just that I don't see this thread as the right place for it - this one's about the recent weather, not long term climate.:2twocents
 
I wore a jumper nearly all day today... Brizealand northside.
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top