Total posts: 13,876
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hypothetical animal souls in a hypothetical heaven.
Undoubtedly.
Hypothetical viruses, bacteria and fungi too.
And hypothetical LGBT orgies.
And hypothetically, what ever one f**king desires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheists believe in no gods.
Nope.
Atheists do not believe in GODS.
This atheist accepts the GOD principle.
But does not accept that fanciful Middle Eastern myths, are likely explanations for the GOD principle.
Old myths have long since been overtaken by technological progress.
GOD is more likely to be a technological derivative, than a floaty about bloke who has his children nailed to posts.
Get real bible bashers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Failure to commit suicide is attention seeking.
A person with real suicidal intentions will usually succeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Nought so daft as folk.
As the say in Yorkshire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You're correct.
Putin is clever and typically Russian.
I've always admired him for what he is, and what he has achieved for Russia.
It's no good expecting Russians to behave with the same sensibilities as "Western Democracies"...... Because that's just not how Russians operate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Misinterpretation once again Tarik.
Assumptions are data.
Therefore morality is assumptive data.
And I won't hold my breath in anticipation of you opening up.
I'm just expecting more of the same.
All good mental exercise.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Maybe GOD was a device, and maybe it will be again.
Given the direction that material evolution is currently heading.
As you say...... The human is fallible.
And also fragile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
A. Has been understood by different interpreters in different ways
As I keep telling you Trade.
B. God never uses the term anywhere in the bible.
As I keep telling you Trade.
GOD is a character within the human bible. (Mythical, naive creation hypothesis).
Therefore GOD is actually created in the human image. (To be expected. Though Elephants and Dogs are alternatives).
Or more accurately...Man invents a MAN GOD that creates us in it's image. ( Also to be expected).
Why you think that yours is the best option......Is because you were taught to think that yours is the best option.
No real proof was ever necessary.
Created:
-->
@949havoc
Good point.
But society is changing.
As I stated, devices are now everything.
We've reached a generation now, where both parents and children are slaves to the device.
Heads down do as you are told.
There's no going back...Only temporary resistance.
And if the device says that LGBT is cool, then you're going to believe it.
I often wonder why H for heterosexual is not included on the list of exciting options.
Hey...That's material evolution for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yep...Morality is data Tarik.
All comes from inside our heads.....Nowhere else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Hey....I always think that Tarik might actually have another agenda, besides his semantics games.
But he seems reluctant to share.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Nope, no conflation.
Just your misinterpretation buddy.
Assumed morality is data Tarik.
And semantics has always been your thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I will be honest and say, that I can put your response into a semi-acceptable context.
In fact I have made similar suggestions on other occasions.
Though my suggestions comply more with physical laws and outcomes, rather than spirituality.
I have also previously suggested that spirituality is perhaps analogous.
Though this does not in anyway alter my thoughts, regarding highly embellished human created myths and folk tales from the Middle East.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Yep.
We are in agreement.
As we all presume to produce statements in accordance with our own reason and logic.
Meeting our own requirements of description.
Standard human physiology.......I'm making a rational guess that your misinterpretation was rationally deliberate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well the discussion might or might not be about morality....One can never tell with Tarik's semantics packed discussions.
One sometimes thinks that Tarik just likes to argue the toss for the sake of it. (Perhaps we all do).
Nonetheless, morality is data assessment and output, and therefore variable relative to data input.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Take Poly's above statement for example.
Presumably Poly regards her words relative to her thoughts, as rational.
But in as much as I don't understand what Poly is trying to say, then her words don't seem rational to me.
So who is deemed to be correct?
Or are we both being independently rational?
Can your verdict be any more or less rational?
This is based on the uncertain understanding that all three of us, fit a fairly standard physiological profile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Another statement that needs a little clarification Poly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Correctness was a reference concerning the accuracy data, rather than the morality of ideas.
Morals as in right and wrong, are the issues without a specified origin that I assume you vaguely allude to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Could you clarify that statement for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Is rational that which occurs as a result of standard physiological processes?......Whatever they are.
How would you define rational Mr A?
What actually is and isn't rational?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Never quite know who you are referring to Poly.
Nonetheless.
If we didn't "run our mouths", our screens would be blank.
And you're certainly adept at running your own mouth.
"Ignorant pieces of crap" is one such example that springs to mind.
And just as I swagger.
So does Trade strutt his stuff.
And I imagine you, dancing naked around a sacrificial alter, in a voodooesque frenzy.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
People will hold him up as a symbol of whatever they want to believe in. But we're getting further and further away from the man that he was.
Sounds familiar.
Scroll back 1600 years, into the even dimmer past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
The words of Men.
Variously interpreted by Men..........(And perhaps latterly Women got to have a say).
Men create GODS in recognisable images, and attribute them with dialogue.
Storytelling.
What's new?
Created:
-->
@thett3
So by your own admission you are selectively moral.
And by definition so am I.
And things annoy me, but they don't depress me.
Our conditioned sensibilities are similar but different, relative to that which influenced or influences us.
As far as I am concerned, a blob of human foetal tissue is no more or less important than the chicken that is now southern fried.
You assess such data and draw different conclusions, and respond accordingly.
Such is one aspect of what it is to be human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So right and wrong as moral concepts, may or may not be correct assumptions.
But one would not refer to correct and incorrect as moral concepts.
Do you appreciate the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not sure of your logic there Poly.
As far as I am concerned, all the situations that you draw attention to, are simple down to variable data analysis and consequent conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Everyone's mind goes there.
it's instinctive programming.
How one addresses such things, is variously imaginative.
I would loosely suggest though, that Reece101's religion, describes certain attributes of reasonable people.
Though said people might also have other places that they go to sometimes.
Like Godsville for example.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Nice.
Trouble is though, kids have got devices that do all that for them.
The same devices that tell them what to think.
Schools are just a place to hang out with devices these days.
I imagine that we will eventually lose all autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
As I clearly stated.
The same old questions.....The same old religious baloney.....You cannot prove the existence of your specific GOD....Therefore I do not need to ask anything further.
So what more do you expect.
Or has someone recently added a few extra chapters to the bible (with grid references) without letting on to us "swaggering" atheists.
I just asked my wife if I swaggered a lot.
And she said, not that she had noticed.
So jibe for jibes sake.
If atheists swagger.
Then theists gasconade.
To gasconade is a bit like a swagger, but with a more ostentatious rolling of the buttocks and pouting of the lips.
Trade....."Moves like Jagger".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well no.
Classics was never my strong point.
Typically you focus on the Hubble quip and ignore the rest.
Nonetheless I accept the heaven concept, relative to the reasons given previously. (Exclude the Hubble quip)
"Belief" in concepts such as gods and heaven, is what it is though......Acceptance without real proof.
So where exactly is heaven?
Maybe your specific GOD utilises exoplanets somewhere.
So how would we get there?
Even travelling at light speed it would take millions of years.
Or is it just more theistic magic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
True.
Generalizing gives us a basic understanding of things.
But we cannot be sure of the details, based solely upon generalizations.
Created:
-->
@thett3
For sure.
What you mourn for is relative to how your sensibilities are set, in terms of ideologies and moral selectivity etc.
Some people mourn for the millions of animals that a slaughtered every day.....Do you also choose this as a focus of your selective mourning?
What about all the lives lost due to the U.S. led war on terror?
Are you absolutely moral?
Or are you a typical human, picker and chooser?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well the Hubble telescope hasn't spotted it yet.
In my opinion heaven is an internal data construct, relative to death and the uncertainty thereof.
Basically, thinking up a nice solution to a worrying thought.
Overthink because we do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What is sin?
I suppose it's an assumption that something is intrinsically wrong.
I am of the opinion that anything that can occur is intrinsically possible.
And sin, assumptions, wrong and beliefs are human data constructs relative to human data constructs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Shit.
But you have to pay for pizza and smart devices.
We're all hooked into the system.
You, me and the Taliban.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well you're probably aware of how I view the integrity of translated and transcribed folk tales.
Thor and his hammer and all that sort of stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The only one displaying anything near hate in this thread, is you Poly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Fair enough Doc.
Top of the morning to ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Perhaps GOD hypnotised them.
Or they'd been on a bender the night before.
I'm sure Poly knows.
Though Joe was clearly a bit stupid.
And Mary....Well we know the sort of thing Mary liked to get up to.
So perhaps Mary spent the day with a "GOD".
And left stupid Joe in charge of the boy.
Anyone's guess really Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That correctness is irrelevant in regards to info.
Well I don't think that I have ever made such a generalization as that.
In fact the basis of this discussion was the understanding of right and wrong, rather than the implications of correctness and incorrectness.
Two different things altogether. Though grammatically we do sometimes use the former to represent the latter.
Within the context of this discussion, I assumed that your reference to right and wrong, was with regard to your understanding of morality and ethicality, rather than the practical application of data.
Obviously incorrect data is largely (but not always) impractical......(Incorrectness is sometimes the necessary precursor to correctness).
Whereas I have clearly stated that right and wrong can be considered within both a social and universal (philosophical) context.
Socially we make collective judgements, which we do or don't abide by, and universally there is no actual judgement to be made.
So in both instances in terms of relevance or irrelevance, conclusions are therefore always eventually personal and subjective.
Or as personal and subjective as it is possible to be, within the constraints of social and inherent conditioning.....Free will and all that stuff.
Things are never so cut and dried Tarik, to be able to make sweeping generalizations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Because Poly.
The same stupid questions.
Always get the same stupid answers.
If you're going to promote fantastical ideologies.....You need to be able to back them up with something more substantial than Middle Eastern folk tales and myth.
So Poly....Just unequivocally prove the existence of a specific GOD.....And I expect that Stephen will stop asking "stupid questions".
And you obviously do give a s***.......Because you continually respond with angry rants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Not much difference in the hair.
So might all boil down to height.
Though from certain angles, McAuliffe has as a slight nasal disadvantage too.
Are U.S. voters that shallow.
I think that they probably are.
Though I also think that the depth of most peoples political considerations, wouldn't be enough for them to get their feet wet.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Go read miscarriage, still birth and infant mortality statistics and you will be suicidal.
It's all cause and effect Thett3.
And man is a bastard
As is GOD then.
Just look on the bright side.
Helps curb population growth and it's global demands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I expect that some atheists and theists for that matter, are misandrists.
Though the fact is, that the majority of gender non-specific people, are reasonable.
Can we say the same for you Poly?
Given some of the misrepresentative vitriolic generalizations that you have been promoting recently.
Atheists are atheists for a very good reason Poly.
As well you know.
So before you slander your Debateart associates any further.....Please, very simply, will you prove beyond doubt, the existence of a supernatural deity.
Any deity will do.
Created: