Total posts: 14,006
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I know God exists.
That is untrue.
You believe that a God exists.
If a God was actually known to exist, then why wouldn't we all accept the fact.
Gods are the basis of various naive creation hypotheses.
The outdated BIG BANGS, as it were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well the simple fact is, the above user is of the same opinion as me.
We don't argue for each other Tarik....We just agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Plutocracism is self fulfilling.
What else do you expect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Why do you believe? Because you prayed and received a warm fuzzy feeling of peace - and now you know that you know that you know.
Bang on Trade.
Though often, a certain amount of biased preconditioning does help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Why shouldn't someone that shoots someone, be tried.
Isn't that a basic requirement of the Law.
AH...Silly question....We're talking U.S. here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The simple fact is, I don't need to do it.
Just as you don't need to prove the existence of a specific GOD.
Though the underlying reality is obvious.
I can prove the Solomon Islands
But you cannot prove your GOD.
And it's inevitably at this point that the theist invokes the strawman.
By saying, ah but you cannot prove that a specific GOD doesn't exist.
So are you saying that I cannot prove that the Solomon Islands exist?
And making someone believe, is both easy and impossible.
And in this instance, it would all depend upon you rather than me.
Though believing, by definition, proves nothing.....Other than a lesser or greater acceptance of certain hypothetical data.
Nonetheless; validate the hypothesis and belief becomes irrelevant anyway.
The fact that the basis of your faith is only belief, currently tells me all that I need to know.
You cannot actually prove the existence of a specific GOD.
And I do not believe in the Solomon Islands.
Because they do exist.
Can you prove that they don't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well no.
The Soviets got their fingers burnt. Some 10 years before Vlad rose to power. (Surface level stuff)
And the Taliban plays sides..... Any side that will support it.....Previously the U.S.A....Then, perhaps Russia, China, Pakistan etc....And now probably the U.S.A again.
And someone will now be supporting Isis.
Sort of a reasonable status quo I suppose. Concentrating the focus of Islamic instability in the wilds of Central Asia.
Destabilise the weaker Nations of the Middle East.
The nutters will go East to fight, and the moderates will flee to the West.
And as far as I know, Assad is still President of Syria.
Where to next?
Belarus maybe.
Would probably suit all the key players if Alexander was toppled.
Watch this space.
And the Chinese will keep shipping out their stuff.
And the Russians will hopefully keep pumping out their gas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Hmmm.
If you read the sentence properly Tarik.
You will see that the "keywords", link misinformation and information.
Misinformation is (false or inaccurate) information.
In fact, you're imparting information, but deliberately trying to deceive me with misinformation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
As I stated, relative to the thread.
Putin is clever and typically Russian.
I never said that he was an Angel.
Nonetheless the Soviets/Russia got their fingers burnt in Afghanistan, and learned a lesson.
It was a pity that the U.S.A. didn't take the same lesson board at the time.
Would have saved 20 years, pointlessly running around Central Asia, chasing after the ghosts of the 9/11 bombers.
Anyway, the Taliban Islamists finally gained control.
And now they're fighting Isis.
Oh Dear me.....Does that mean that the U.S, will once again be supporting the Taliban.
What goes around comes around, as the saying goes.
And Putin and Xi, will watch and smile.
And Syria was a relatively stable nation, until us Western freedom fighters went and fucked things up.
And now they are all camped out on the Polish border seeking the warmth and friendship of their Western saviours.
But now typically, we don't what to know them....NIMBY
And it's probably all the fault of Vlad and Alexander (No angel either).....NIMBY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
AKA make believe, in a mythical narrative embellished with fantasy.
Whereas The Solomon Islands are not make believe.
I do not need to go there to know that they exist.
That's the real nuts and bolts Trade, as well you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
See above.
Ramshutu obviously uses the same online dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I already checked mine before I asked you to check yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
For sure.
The construction of ideas is fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Hey......Did you expect enduring peace?
Get real...This is post U.S. (and allies) Iraq in flux that we're talking about.
What should Biden do?
Take a nap.
Ah....But what about all that f**king oil.
S**t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Better a bunch of "little communists", than a bunch of little zealots.
Well, in my opinion.
So as predicted, height and nose ruled the day in the end.
Such is the fickle nature of U.S. politics.
Us rather than them, as dictated by the floating minority.
2%, That's a heck of a mandate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
That was a biased, western propaganda driven response.
Russia and therefore Putin, do things the Russian way.
Putin is to be expected.
If it wasn't Putin it would be someone else.
And go ask the Afghan people about the perfect U.S.A.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What are you afraid of Tarik?
My views on human process and function have been made quite clear, countless times.
So now, let's hear it from you.
Or is the semantics game really all that you are interested in?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I expect that it matters to some people.
Wouldn't matter to me, unless a social construct became an adversely affective dictate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That's where your wrong it definitely matters, it all matters.
OK......So explain what it all is that matters......And why.
Open up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Hmmmm.....I never mentioned pets.....Just hypothetical souls.
Heaven is not hypothetical.
So where exactly is it then.
Undoubtedly.
Well, any hypothesis is hypothetical
Our scientists every year estimate.
Undoubtedly....But what does that prove?
Other than scientists hypothesise.....Which is only to be expected.
And your reference:
To the Solomon Islands.
Is a corker of a strawman argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nope.
Never been an attention seeker, nor committed suicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Data is data Tarik.
Misinformation is information. (Check your dictionary).
Do you have any information, other than semantics, to impart.
Doesn't matter if it's misinformation.
All information can be analysed and responded to.
Though repetition can become tedious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Data is data Tarik.
Misinformation is simply reproduced misinformed data.
And as for running around.
Who's in the lead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You sneaked in when I was eating my rice pudding Poly.
There's a whole world of grammatical and definitive difference between believing and not believing.
You said that atheists believe.
And I pointed out that atheists do not believe.
Theists believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would suggest that race and ethnicity are constructs, and remain so.
And genetics and species, are constructive appreciations of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@949havoc
A cheese and pickle sandwich.
Yum Yum.
F**k work.
Created:
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: