zedvictor4

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.

For sure Doc.

Opposition is the nature of the beast.

Life would be to simple if we all agreed.

But you are just empathising with the label that you are conditioned to  agree with.

Which doesn't negate the success of those who wear the other label.

Top of the morning to ya Doc.

By participating, you have clearly shown the worth of the Forum Poly.

And recent academic thinking, suggests that Stonehenge was probably built as both a reverential and tourist attraction.

Like walking hundreds of miles to visit Santiago de Compostela.

Someone's always taking money from the gullible along the way.

And the gullible are always prepared to walk hundreds of miles and cough up.

And everyone is happy.

One's rationale is subject to one's own dogma.

Which would include ones own interpretation of existence.

Hence why we continue these inconclusive discussions.

For sure Doc.

The measure of success can be what ever you want it to be.

But by measures of social importance, influence and wealth, they are successful.

There's no getting away from the fact.

And there's no getting away from the obvious fact, that you harbour resentment.

Better to be content with what you've got Doc.

True True True.

But as an argument against determinism, it was easily found to be lacking.

And if such wasn't the case, I wouldn't have argued for the sake of it.

Such was his foolish challenge.

Nonetheless, he was shot to death by  an immature teenager with an assault  rifle.

And you think that's cool?

Such are human beings I suppose.

Semantics the lot of you.

If something can be known to be correct, then belief is unnecessary.

Belief is the acceptance of something that is uncertain or unknown.

And definition is an accepted lexicographical explanation of the meaning of words.

One does not need to believe a definition, that is accepted thus.

Me too.

Curiosity indeed.

And of course those that gather at Stonehenge are similarly homo-sapiens/blobs of organic goo.

Labels such Pagan, Druid, Witch and Christian are the latterly applied stuff of imagination.

And in the interests of equality......Atheists are also known to visit Stonehenge.

The most  amazing thing is (in my opinion)...... Some of the stones were dragged all the way from Pembrokeshire.

Now there's determination for you.

Love the argument.

But the obvious response is:

That, left/right dominance and unequal legs determine that without reference points one would tend to walk in circles.

Which came first, the physiological anomalies or the stroll?

So if one is aware of ones natural tendencies, one therefore might use freewill and compensate.

But then one might overcompensate and walk in opposite circles.

Nonetheless one might therefore suggest that awareness provoked a determinism to compensate/overcompensate.

And notwithstanding that the initial stroll, circular or otherwise, would have been a determined event.

Dogma is easy.

One is one's own authority.

Athias says so Athias must be correct.

Zed says so Zed must be correct.

Ignorance and made up explanations.

And star gazing is good for sure.

As is convening with nature.

And I do both.

But without the need to make up GODs.

We all have needs I suppose.

And Stonehenge is interesting archaic architecture.

I'll take that as a compliment.

In my opinion.

Utilising the word "belief" in a manner that befits it's definition.

Can unavoidably throw up contradictions.

As it makes no distinction between the certainty or uncertainty of data.

Belief can be both:

A certain uncertainty.

Or an uncertain certainty.

Successful people.

A typical resentment.

And then there are all the people who don't fit into your aforementioned categories.

Who don't agree with your political paranoia.

Or who might possess contrary political paranoia.

Of course, some might typically share your resentment of other peoples success.

But that's to be expected.

Mathematics can be contrived.

So if Godel desired to represent Anselm's argument mathematically.

Then he undoubtedly could.

But the exercise is worthless overthink.

If the  premise is blarney.

Is a blatant metaphysical misrepresentation.

The only logic in presenting a blatant misrepresentation in place of a fact, is to deceive.

P1. Physical GODS are not perceived.

P2. A metaphysical image or thought of a GOD could be perceived.

P3. But a GOD is not actually known to exist.

There's never any "must exist" about it.

Otherwise, anything and everything must exist.

P1. I have just quickly perceived....(As in a metaphysical thought).

P2. A trillion intergalactic octopi.

P3. Therefore a Trillion intergalactic octopi must exist.

Simple.

Bunkum is therefore real.

Therefore.........

Words is easy Athias.