Total posts: 13,876
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Who is "us"?
Us is you and I.
Unless you are an "alien".
Nonetheless, universally that is still you and I.
And as I continue to point out, the difference between you and I is simply how we separately acquired, stored and subsequently utilised data.
Data that is all very similar, but utilised in slightly different ways.
I understand your version of the God concept but regard it as non-sense.
Neither of us can prove the other to be wrong, because as you are well aware the God concept is only a concept. That is to say an internal data construct. A figment of our imaginations in other words.
Therefore God is unprovable and the ultimate reality is currently unknowable.
Nonetheless I still maintain that the God concept is reasonable, but certainly not in the way that you devote yourself to it.
No singing or uttering of prayers or incense burning or fancy outfits or pointy buildings required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Yep.
5 Dimensions depending upon what you choose to regard as dimension.....That's a lexicographical issue.
Otherwise 2 possibilities.... Space and Time.... No creation necessary.
Space obviously incorporates all necessary dimension.
So we have the possibilities.
All that we need now is for something to take advantage of the possibilities.
And therein lies the real conundrum.
With no infinite we can attain 0.
And sequentially we can continually repeat 0 and reinitiate the sequence.
Nonetheless it all had to start a some point.
S.F.N....Same old problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Mopac has a steadfast belief in something that they often refer to as the ultimate reality.
And they tend to associate the ultimate reality with a Christianesque God type.
Which makes them by definition a Theist.
Similar but separate concepts have arisen worldwide, their differences largely due to former geographical dissociation. We therefore nowadays have multi-theism relative to ongoing conditioning rather than monotheism or more logically non-theism relative to common sense.
I think that most atheists would run with the notion of an ultimate reality, though most would be far less steadfast in their appreciation of the unknowable.
As you can see, ongoing multi theism/theism is clearly relative to ongoing conditioning rather than to an inherent reality.
That is to say if people are taught to be theistic then they tend to assume that they are theistic. (Though Mopac will probably suggest that they are an exception to this rule).
Whereas atheists, who no doubt have all the same basic information available, never underwent the same level of enforced conditioning and therefore are not as prone to making such rash and unqualified assumptions based upon an unknowable premise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Homosexuality is but one of many methods of achieving the same result.
And the Bible and associated religions are a completely separate issue.
In so much as, the former is an inherent necessity and the latter is a contrived doctrine.
Contrived doctrine as in mythological nonsense probably.
Probably; in as much as one can neither prove nor disprove the unprovable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
An appropriate expression would be; you can't see the wood for the trees.
And clearly you have a forest of goop that prevents you from appreciating the obvious.
I would suggest that before you can attempt to unravel the complexity of things, it is first important to recognise what needs to be unravelled..
Otherwise you might be wasting your time trying to unravelling something that isn't there to be unravelled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Trump was already a part of the thread and Trump and Netanyahu evolved quite appropriately from the same.
Netanyahu is undeniably a Zionist and his recent collusion with Trump therefore inevitably renders Trump as the same.
The overt arrogance displayed during their recently televised Trump Netanyahu meeting was obvious, unless you watched with your eyes closed.
And simply because I state the obvious does not make me an anti-Semite.
And furthermore if you check through many of my other posts you will find that my views are very varied. I am often just as scathing of new liberalism as I am of overly arrogant conservatism. I have also occasionally extolled some of Trumps better qualities and have many times spoken out against anti-Semitism.
In short; I say what I think is relevant and have very few steadfastly pre-conditioned ideas.
Q. And so why is calling a Zionist a Zionist anti-Semitic?
A. It's not of course, but nonetheless can easily be cynically manipulated to discredit an opponent and/or stir up trouble. Which is directly relative to the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The recent Trump Netanyahu accord was overtly and undeniably Zionist. Correct terminology and far from Anti-Semitic.
In fact anti-Semitic is a typical slur that would be used to both instigate violence and also to discredit an opponent.
The term evil Jews was never mentioned and certainly not in relation to the issue that was being discussed. Which was who instigates violence rather than who applies violence.
And so I continue to assume that you got my point and will therefore ignore your deception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I think that the Dicip… plays you at your own game.
Time and Space are still nonetheless the possibilities that do not require diagrammatic or nominal representation.
And the S.F.N principle dictates that negation of the infinite. Ergo 0.
Otherwise you are always left floundering in the mire of overly complicated speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You chose to overlook every valid point that I made previously. Which is your prerogative of course.
Though somewhat narrow minded and overly defensive for a debater perhaps. Especially when the typicality of you response is taken into account.
That is to say; the same old jargon which only has meaning relative to a particular set of conditioned data.
Data with only a 2000 year old myth as evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As you did not respond to my question of instigation I will assume that you got my point.
Of course the media is biased. Which is directly relative to the previous point. Power corrupts etc...….
Intolerance is not just antisemitism. Like racism is not just black and white.
And I used the word Zionist appropriately and in accordance with it's proper definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So do you think that anyone has much of a chance of getting you.
And the simplicity that is the possibilities of time and space, is just about as logical, rational and as common sensical as it comes, if you cared to think about it.
I would suggest that you sometimes try to hard to overcomplicate things.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Eloquence is as eloquence does and words sufficed.
And the following parts were all appropriate derivatives of the first part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Time and Space are simply the possibilities and therefore do not require human qualification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The U.S. has been using military violence in an attempt to end supposed nonsense for decades now and got nowhere.
The only real diplomatic solution to the problem would be if the Israelis were to remove themselves form the region.
As I have suggested before an area of the Southern U.S. would do just fine for them.
Especially as you are all such great pals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Open
Are you oddly hirsute and do you have an exaggeratedly high forehead?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you suggesting that cumming into the gravy is a societal norm?
Nonetheless I did define quite eloquently how cum was quite obviously better than piss, given the probably purpose of the act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How is questioning a 2000 year old tale contradictory?
Mythologies and creation hypotheses have been around for thousands of years and for thousands of years before your particular favourite one came along.
I simply choose to view all such tales with equal scepticism.
A mythological construct can be anything that the constructor/s of the myth wanted it to be. But also, in the context of the biblical mythology for instance, unless actually specified a character can possess or not possess any traits that subsequent interpreters of the myth may or may not wish to attribute to said character/s.
Therefore it is wholly possible to extrapolate from the biblical text the idea that the Jesus character, could easily have been either gay, bisexual, celibate or in fact anything that is not actually specified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A. I'm not asking who is throwing the stones. I'm asking who is instigating the violence. How better to discredit your opponent.
B. The manipulated media will broadcast what it wants to broadcast Big Bro.
C. And the obsequious arrogance of the Orange Man and the Zionist should tell you what the Right has to offer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Legitimate enough is just making do with an illegitimate hypothesis.
Nowhere near the same thing as a legitimate basis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Trump, Netanyahu and Hitler.
Obsequious, self righteous arrogance, that decides the fate of a nations without consultation.
Yep, all as bad as one another.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
@Dr.Franklin
If you want concrete answers, study civil engineering.
No one can tell when you've cum in the gravy.
Whereas piss and shit are a dead give away.
The more subtle the perversion, the tastier the gravy and the more exquisite the memory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There is no violence when pro-lifers march.
A politicians answer.
But who instigates the violence when pro-abortionists march?
If pro-abortionists were left alone to march peacefully, isn't it extremely unlikely that they would want to attack themselves?
Therefore isn't it also fair to say that when pro-lifers march, that they are left alone and allowed to protest peacefully?
Which would logically imply that pro-lifers are the ones most likely to be responsible for the violence at pro-abortionist marches.
Created:
Posted in:
@ethang5
One must ask.
Irrespective of which crowd marches. Who instigates the violence?
And Trump drone strikes with impunity from the comfort of the White House, killing 10 people.
Why is Trumpian violence not violence?
Are you not simply selectively moral relative to your conditioned sensibilities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Religious liberty is as religious liberty does, relative to the liberty of who is able to feel religiously liberated or not.
Similarly, common sense Judges are only common sensical when newly acquired data corresponds positively with their own particular store of what they have accepted to be common sense data.
And environmental concerns either are or are not common sense, depending upon what might or might not be assumed to be common sense.
Therefore, just because Donny speaks his mind relative to his conditioning and consequent data store and just because you have been similarly conditioned and therefore tend to agree with him, does not necessarily make either of you correct or righteous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The English language is there to be used and if it is used in what is appreciably a reasonably logical format, then anything that is constructed as such is therefore applicable.
From where do you assume the authority to decide otherwise?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Good answer.
And Ronald Reagan was a truly admirable character.
But when viewed in comparison with Donnie was Ronnie really that much of a conservative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I would disagree,
As you apply it, If is a functional concept and therefore an abstract idea. Both logical/rational or neither in terms of function.
Given that the functionality of data is as far as we are able to know, though the validity of the data is indeterminate as far as we are able to know.
If God existed, then theists or anyone might of proven it's existence.
No one has either proven or disproven Gods existence.
Therefore as far as we are able to know, God might or might not exist.
Modus Tollens is only applicable if used within it's prescribed parameters.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
When you picture an American conservative in you minds eye, what do you see.
And be honest.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I think that I was agreeing with you in a round about way. That is if I understood you correctly.
A blames B for A's problems.
A has a tendency to wallow in the past and is fearful for the future.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Corollary.
Nonetheless:
By race, I would suggest that what you are actually referring to is the assumed label that we apply to perceived differences, either physiological or cultural.
A result of evolutionary development, with no chance of turning back the clocks.
So why the dogged futility of wallowing in the past?
Perhaps it's just the way that things were meant to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Doesn't "if" negate everything.If God existed etc.
Isn't "if" an abstract proposition.
Is "if" logical or rational?
And therefore, did you construct a logical argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Thank God they were.
So as ever, one lot of shit is better than another.
Though I suppose that this greatly depends on the relative comfort or discomfort of the commentator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Your experience is irrelevant; logic is logic; reason is reason; all arguments are logical; all arguments are rational. The scrutiny is in its relevance and consistency within the context of reason and logic.
I usually admire the veracity of your argument, but I think (in so much as I am, I think) that you have somewhat over egged the custard here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Of course.That depends on who you ask I guess.
It depends upon who you are prepared to listen to, which in turn depends upon if what is being said is what you want to listen to.
Especially if you are not prepared to listen to both sides of a discussion, or in fact are not programmed to do so.
I would suggest looking at God as a metaphor, applying a tad bit more rationale to your thinking and extracting yourself from the biblical murk that you have been conditioned to accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's because it's in the interests of the U.S and it's Israeli puppeteers to have a destabilised Middle East.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Jesus lived an abstinent and chaste life.
This claim also has no legitimate basis.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@ludofl3x
You pick and choose to suit.
Nonetheless you both perfectly describe mythology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@HistoryBuff
Q. Why does the U.S.A. give a toss about the Middle East
A. Israel and oil.
And If you want to get something done then get yourself a dumb President elected.
So who's pulling who's strings?
All good conspiracy stuff eh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Same old biblical shit Eugene.
So Jesus was bi-curious.
And I had always assumed that he was a full on gay character.
And his disciples said, bend over Jesus for we shall enter the kingdom of God.
Clearly a metaphor.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Figuratively speaking.
Therefore isn't the whole biblical mythology (hypothesis) including god, just a figurative representation of the unknown.
The unknown being a creative and subsequent process (material evolution) of development.
After all, the biblical stories including God were all derived from the imaginations of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Is anyone really a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Choosing a belief.
Just struck me as an interesting turn of phrase.
And I would suggest that what you were actually referring to was an inherent predeterminism that negates our ability to self determine
Though isn't the human condition such that we have evolved, beyond a complete lack of self determination.
Or do I have no control over why and what I type in response to your post?
I'm pretty sure that we are able choose, though I suppose that testing this theory would be a tad difficult, if not impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Isn't consciousness a word that was coined to describe something in particular?
Even if everything is an illusion, are we not aware of the illusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I couldn't actually say.
One takes things at face value.
So, another debate for the conspiracy theorists then.
Nonetheless I stick by the rest of my previous post.
I think that A.I. is more than likely the evolutionary way forwards, in terms of material development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
100 years ago people probably thought that it was not possible to walk on the Moon.
49 years later the impossible was achieved.
Given the exponential rate of technological advancement since 1969, I would suggest that artificial intelligence is probably inevitable.
01/08/2017. Facebook shuts down robots after they invent their own language.
It would be arrogant to assume that human intelligence is the be all and end all of universal progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
How is it possible to disprove a possibility?
Created:
Posted in:
Only within the context of human based certainty. One could probably spout known truths all day long.
One could also be similarly confident of ones own ability to be rational, logical and common sensical.
Unfortunately I am not always able to appreciate all your posts with such assuredness.
My failing or yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Exactly.
But the human moralist will usually choose to differentiate, solely on the grounds of the human ability to differentiate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Right and wrong do not necessarily need to be qualified by an external authority.
Social law defines and judges within the context of social legality.
The point was, that right and wrong irrespective of social law, can only be regarded as assumptions in a universal context.
The distinction therefore between an Earthbound social edict and morality (right and wrong) as an assumed universal predetermination.
Created: