zedvictor4

DDO was never great.

Hi Doc.

Let's get pseudo political.

Faith and Begorrah.

Schism is clever people setting up their own club for personal gain.

Of course, if the new club is going to pay dividends, you need a considerable membership of gullible people

And you  also need to invest in the next generation of clever leaders.....Condition/tutor them appropriately and reward them accordingly.

Especially given the short turn around time of both leaders and members.

And fast forward 1700 years or so and nothing's really changed, other than the membership has grown and the stakes are considerably higher.

And the clever people can still  get the gullible numpties to do all sorts of stupid stuff in the name of the club.

sui-generis.

A well researched name that reminds me of someone.

I fail to see how one can feel pressured, by comments made on a remote discussion platform such as Debateart.

It's all a quite harmless and amusing parody of recent National politics being played out by what can only be described as an immature minds.

I had pledged my support for RM, on the basis that of late, I thought  I had witnessed a marked increase in their levels of tolerance and maturity.

Don't make me abstain RM.....Rise above the nonsense.

And you rise above it too SupaDudz.

I seem to remember that the French were building one too.

As long as they all have the off button sorted, we should be OK.

Not that I understand the science.

Would  it be OK, to just throw a load of concrete over an out of control fusion reaction, and then forget about it?

In my opinion,

You began with a three line ontology,

Devoid of logical procession,

Or a reasonable outcome.

Blah de blah de blah,

Blah de blah de blah,

Therefore a GOD.

No beer necessary.

Just tea and porridge.

Blah de blah de blah,

Blah de blah de blah,

Therefore not a GOD,

In my opinion.

Opinions may vary.

People are the products of their upbringing.

I was going to say, sadly.

But sadness is pointless.

One has to accept that people are simply what they have become.

I work regularly with people who label as Muslim, and all are friendly,

Though how they might be more deeply affected by enforced religious conditioning is hard to tell.

And of course, the same applies to those affected by enforced Christian conditioning.

More so in the U.S. perhaps, rather than here in the U.K.

I'm still of the opinion though, that save for the extremes of society,

Radical dimwits, and the power seekers who would coerce the radical dimwits.

The moderate core of society, only wants a quiet life. 

On the spot.

And scholarly tone diminishes,

Into the background hiss,

Of recrimination,

And cheap jibes.

From which,

Ironically,

A message,

Is received.

Roger that Yas

Over and out.

The vaccine for morbid obesity.

Is eating sensibly and moving.

Allah is GOD and God is GOD,

Or not as the case may be,

Or maybe not, as the case may be.

Same difference.

As for saving children.

Neither can do either,

Or either can do neither,

Or both.

Ask Abraham,

He made it all up.

Let's hope that they know how to switch it off.

How many women "suffer domestic abuse" under Islam?

Well, I suppose that if the domestic abuse of women isn't deemed to occur, then the answer will be zero.

Let me ask you a simple hypothetical question.

If your brother was to rape your wife, who would you embrace first?

Your brother or your wife.

My contention is that my opinion is logically sound, and your opinion is not.

An opinion being what it is typically regarded as.

Though based upon the uncertainty of opinion, it would be better to conclude that neither of our opinions is sound enough, and that two unsound opinions relating to similar data from two separate data sources, have the potential to be both illogical and logical.

Logic is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.

A vile woman is an assumption.

You might be vile.

And people are usually vile for a reason.

As a generalization,

Focussing on individuals, doesn't address the collective ideology.

And not all women are angels,

As are not all men,

But all women and all men are individuals,

And not property to be silenced and separated.

Silence and separation,

Is the work of a vile person.

Mind is that which describes the organic device and it's processes.

So no.

The device being that which is essential to the function of the mass.

And in terms of natural cohesion, is inextricably linked to the mass. (Currently)

Internal and external are simply just easy to recognise terms, that represent the apparent separation  of that which occurs within the mass and that which might occur outside the mass. I don't understand why you find this problematic.

So...A GOD is generated internally....And I conceded that definitively this is perception.

But it does not logically follow that a GOD must exist, other than as an internally contrived possibility.

Otherwise everything that we can possibly contrive must also exist.

So I will contrive a NOT GOD THAT ISN'T..

Therefore a NOT GOD THAT ISN'T must exist.

Or not exist, depending upon how one cares to processes such data.

And we end up with a difference of opinion....Which given the number of possible data sequences that are available, is not unusual.

@Yassine.

How to deal with a "Vile Wife"......Islamospeak.

Treat a woman with equal respect.

And you might find that she is not so vile after all.

And the husband is never bad?

@Lunar108

Feminism is a generalization,

And can represent anyone with an ideology.

But you seem to have noticed things that I have not noticed.

Christian feminists will label as Christian,

And Islamic feminists will label as Islamic

And others will label according to their ideological precepts.

And Yassine is seemingly someone who would separate and silence the female sub-species.

You certainly described Trump if not an imaginary GOD.

The trouble with an imaginary GOD,

Is that imagination can contradict itself with impunity.

Not quite.

You wanted to execute people.

A somewhat too Stalinesque approach, to the evils of Capitalism perhaps?

Was Stalin evil?

The Laws of Physics were,

And the Laws of Physics are,

And the Laws of Physics will be.

Even if defied,

The ability to defy the Laws of Physics,

Would be a Law of Physics.

A few stupid people, inspired by provocateurs.

To do stupid things.

Dragging the American Nation down, into the cesspool of history.

The trouble with a Two Party State representing a three party system

Is that the majority voice tends to be ignored.

Though the majority voice did decide that Trump was a numpty.

Thank goodness for common sense.

Truth is.

Though we might not be aware of it.

And we might create our own parameters.

It's unlikely that you will remember much of any casually read book, other than key characters or general events.

I'm currently reading a collection of works by Dylan Thomas, and cannot remember any of it.

Casual reading is a temporary amusement, where data storage is not a specific consideration.

Cheddar Cheese  has no holes

More Cheddar Cheese = More Cheddar Cheese

More Cheddar Cheese = More Cheddar Cheese

More Cheddar Cheese = More Cheddar Cheese

Solid, hard British Cheese = More Cheese for your Buck.

American led war on terror.

What was that all about?

Well...A knee jerk reaction to Twin Towers.

But was is solely that?

Though, if you go around the World killing people, you inevitably radicalise opinion.

Works both ways.

And most people become only interested in their side of the argument.

Of course radicalising the masses, is the work of the power hungry few.

Same on both sides.

Methodology variable.

Enforced belief in an archaic religious system being but one method.

Conditioned self righteousness is perhaps another.

Humans don't change much.

Though material evolution carries on apace.

A sort of underlying inevitability.

Maybe.

Islam is an internal data construct.

And as such, not to be feared.

People who would wish you serious harm are to be feared.

Which might be anyone, including a labelled psychopathic theist derived of any internal data construct, or any ideological megalomaniac, or  even just a random kid with a gun.

And for sure, a collection of conditioned nutcases is to be avoided.

Though it does not follow that all people who label theistically, are necessarily ideological nutcases.

Certainly a paradox required.

And so what would  the degrees of free will be?

I  get stuck after the first degree really.

1. Free will.

2. Just ever so slightly, not free will.

3. Just ever so slightly less slight, not free will.

4. Still more or less freewill, though ever so slightly less slight than less slight, not free will.

5. Less freewill now than before, but not so much as to be unreasonable lacking in the ability to make spontaneous data constructs.

6. One is aware that "to make" is to apply determinism.

7. Shit.

You do not apply certain measures, because they can corrupt your personal system of logic.

Introducing modifications to your proposed system, simply shows how your system is flawed.....Missing key data as it were.

Externally derived data, is that which we acquire from the abundance of external data available....Not absurd at all.

We can also create data internally.....Imagination.....This process is also not absurd.

Though suggesting, that which is imagined  must actually be representative  of an external reality, often results in absurdity.

On the other hand:

If mathematics is abstract, then so  must be GOD......Athias derived logic as it were.

And of course, if we choose to extend this logic, we can conclude that all data derived of internal function and process, irrespective of sensory abilities, must also be abstract.

So can we never perceive an external reality?

Therefore......Existence and therefore GOD, and therefore everything is abstract.

Though I do like to think that my sensory capabilities, can capture the essence of an external reality.

"Everything that can be perceived must exist".

But a GOD has never been perceived per se.

A God has been constructed internally, and continues to be constructed internally.

Now, if we regard definition to the letter, then concepts are perceptions.

But it does not follow that GODS must exist, other than as an internal construct.

You're playing the semantics game in order to validate the absurdity of your belief in something that cannot actually be proven to exist externally.

It's an age old theistic trick.

So there is a logic to your trick, borne out of necessity.

But on the other hand:

1. Because Athias thinks that there is a GOD.

2. Therefore, there must actually be a GOD.

Is not consistently logical.

And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.

Borne out of externally derived perception, we can create an internally representative system whereby we can distinguish, record  and label objectives separately.

So, we can also derive an internal construct, whereby we refer to everything as being resultant of a GOD.

But it still does not logically follow, that a GOD must actually exist externally.

Otherwise it also logically follows, that any imaginary entity that has ever been or ever will be internally constructed.

Must simply,  by virtue of Athias's system of logic, therefore actually exist.

And of course none of this would actually matter, if it weren't for the overbearing social realities of perpetuated theism.

So the most authoritative source of any written narrative is itself.

Therefore Middle Earth exists.

Logical consistency as Athias would say.

You decide how to live Poly.

I come here from time to time to remotely discuss with others, and then go and do other things and forget about religion completely.

And my family aren't the slightest bit interested  in my temporary dalliances with Debateart.

Perception does not necessarily prove existence.

God is perceived.....Therefore God must exist....Is a leap of faith, and not a rational or logically consistent argument.

In this instance perception results in imagination.......So  "therefore God must exist" is not rational and does not logically follow.

Are you serious?

Four very interesting topic statements.

What is now or in the past?

You must decide and then endorse your decision.

No one is setting parameters......All that you need do is present a coherent and thoughtful response.

It's not a case of being correct or incorrect.

It's a website dedicated to debate and discussion. And by it's very nature and despite it's origins, is an international website.

And religion, politics and any socially divisive topic, is inevitably going to make for a popular forum.

I don't quite get what all the fuss and over sensitivity is all about.

A site President should be an unbiased and nominal figurehead, and have no powers to adjudicate and therefore inadvertently discriminate.

Moderators already moderate, and seemingly do a good job.

Cracking down is the work of dictators.

Let's keep things in perspective boys and girls, et al.

I have already proposed RationalMadman for the post of President.

And will not change my mind.

There are basically two systems of government control.

Strict oppression and moderate oppression.

A Moderately oppressive system will allow us to openly argue the toss over anything.....Guns and abortion for instance.

A strict system will tell us what's what, and if we openly disagree we will be told in no uncertain terms what's what.

The direct opposite would be anarchy.

Though the thing with anarchy is that it will rapidly conform to a system of oppression, as dictated by natural hierarchy.

U.S. Jargon such as liberal, conservative, left and right is currently, largely irrelevant. Other than as jargonistic labels.

And as far as jargonism goes....There are very few people at either end  of the jargon spectrum, who really pay much attention.

Most people (moderate centre)  just stick crosses on ballot papers every four years or so.

And the thoughtful few will probably decide outcomes.

Having said that though:

As we generationally become more and more dependant upon electronic social media and the conditioning thereof......There may well be a shift towards a more polarised society.

Watch this space.

Liberal and Conservative are common political labels, and not just U.S. specific.

And both are words with common meanings.

I was questioning whether you thought that rigid authoritarianism was ultra left or ultra right.

Over here in the U.K. liberals are regarded as moderates, and the left label is attributed to socialists.

And there is a big difference between extreme socialism and liberalism.

That's the problem with an essentially, two party system.

You loose sight of the moderate centre.

Though, it is the moderate centre that usually decides the outcome of U.S. elections.

"Gay".

Is essentially a modus operandi with the same outcome as any other sexual modus operandi, including paedophilia......Gratification and temporary satisfaction.

Morality is just an associated concept.

And acquired data, will become stored data. 

So if we inform kids of variable methodology, then they will develop accordingly.

We get hung up on sexuality, because we are instinctively hung up on the need to fulfil reproductive urges.

Nonetheless...World population is currently  7.9 billion and still growing.

So don't get hung up on a bit of Man on Man action.

Men have been doing it for years, but not quite so freely and openly as is now common in certain regions of the World.

Sex is all in the mind.

And bodily function has possibilities.

So do you live in Germany?

Spain is diverse and a great cycling Country.

Though I dislike cities and particularly disliked Barcelona when I was there. 

It gave me the impression of a sort of Fritz Lang Metropolis Dystopia.

My Passport expired during the Covid crisis, and I'm currently happy to stay in the UK.

Once things have reasonably sorted themselves out, I would liked to do some more European cycling.

I will avoid cities though and stick to rural areas.

Natural hierarchy inevitably develops hierarchical systems based around power and wealth.

There are basically two systems available.

So which one is the lesser of the two evils?

No need to be sorry.

Education or conditioning or brainwashing or whatever one cares to call, is how religious non-sense such as "Jesus said" gets perpetually transferred.

Authoritarian tendencies.

You hit the nail on the head.

Horseshoe theory is just another thinktank soundbite, like liberal and conservative.

It all boils down to natural hierarchy, and how it's allowed to play out socially.

Though:

If you are hung up on labels, answer me this.

Think of the most rigid authoritarian societies around the World.

Would you label them as Liberal or Conservative?

Far Right is Far Left and Vice versa.

Both liberal fascism and conservative fascism are contradictions in terms, essentially meaning the same thing.

And Ronnie was a liberal conservative.

No you don't have to answer any f******  questions if you don't want to Poly.

That's the benefit of the remoteness social media.

And also the beauty of ignorance.

You choose to interact or not.

Ignorance is bliss.

I'm guessing that it was one of daft Joe's Brothers.

The charismatic one with the big whotsit.

I'm thinking that Mary riding a Donkey was intended as a metaphor.

Oh no!

What have I missed.

Was Mr E not full of Christmas cheer?

I agree Mr E.

We are all susceptible to social  influences.

Are we not?

Communism is a thought experiment.

Though sometimes collectives get inappropriately labelled as such.

The stumbling blocks are many.

And heresy is because.

Initially you  agree with what I've always told you.

And then you go and contradict.

Nonetheless, I sense that your total devotion to your chosen GOD concept is now in question.

You've certainly earned your questioning theist badge.