zedvictor4

That's your valid opinion.

And as valid as any other opinion.

One doesn't need to be a "credible historian" or an "academic" to be able to accept that a charismatic person did probably exist at that time. Probably more than one, as the Earth was whole lot bigger than the Arabian Peninsular.

Though the name "Jesus" is undoubtedly an interpretation.

Proving that said character was the son of a supernatural god or the personification of a supernatural god is a whole different ball game, and beyond the capabilities of historians and academics.

Nonetheless, remove the storytellers and ardent theologians guff, and what one is left with is the basis of all other naive  Earth based GOD principles.

And that is:

We don't actually know, so we conclude that it must be magic.

And so here is our version, based upon a charismatic chap who claims to be the son of a god.

Who or what  the god is, we don't actually know....So you will just have to accept that one without proof (Believe).

And yep...Interpreting old books is what some people spend a lot of time doing, and there's nothing wrong with that.....Each to their own.

And what, at the end of the anthropological day is an Englishman?

Best ask an anthropologist to interpret that one.

And as I like to reiterate:

GOD principle sound, but not a floaty about bloke. 

You have an amazing power of recall.

Did I respond?

"Knowing"....Is Acquiring, understanding  and storing data.

"Intending" Is internally manipulating data and outputting, often relative to an action.

Two separate and different internal processes.

One can intend, and speculate about consequences.

But one can not know consequences for certain, until they have occurred and been, internally assessed.

The fact is, that we interpret accordingly.

And the bible is and always was open to interpretation.

We cannot even prove if the sermon on the mount was delivered by anything other than a man, or if at all.

Though charismatic people and their ideology, have always been able to delude the gullible.

Perceivable differences are.

And therefore have an internal cause.

This is realism

Whereas "race" is a linguistics issue, relative to perceivable differences and eggs and spoons.

What about Species Realism?

Opinions are always right.

Even though we might disagree with the content of an opinion.

Whether abortion is or isn't actually right or wrong is unknown, because there is no greater authority.

All that you have is your own righteous opinion.

Selective morality is always going to throw up contradictions, irrespective of how I might call it.

Consciousness with intellect.....Conceptuality v instinct will create ethical dilemmas.

The rationale is that Universe has limited potential.....Cannot expand indefinitely.....Is finite.

Therefore the finite universal requirement of space does not necessitate the infinite possibility of space.

"Exposed"

"State run"

You've lost me there.

But feel free to be wise in your own mind.

Freedom of thought.....I expect that one day we will  be deprived of that.....What do you think?

OK....Let me put it another way.

Q. Why do numpties disagree with virologists, epidemiologists etc.

A. Because they are gullible numpties.

Well "we" stay at approx  98F.....Temporarily of course......Just joking.

And I don't imagine that a new "Ice Age" would be a click of the fingers event.

So I see no reason why not.

Things would get progressively cooler and a global human society would modify accordingly.

I think that you and I will be OK Doc. 

The dilemma is the concept of morality and it's inevitable contradictions. 

Good old Chuck.

I agree entirely.

Though I would rather stick balls into holes than be punched in the head.....Or punch other people in the head, for that matter....Or watch people being punched in the head and knocked senseless and then cheer with delight.

But hey.... Each to their own and consenting adults and all that.

And not that I play golf.

I'll take that as a compliment.

HI Doc.

I imagine that a new ice age would be pretty catastrophic.....Well......For human society.

I don't suppose that the Planet would be too bothered.

It will just keep spinning around, until such times when it can't spin around any more.

Though clever people will probably survive.

Because we know that clever people need to survive.

Even if the not so clever, are sometimes jealous of clever peoples cleverness.

Grown up  people knocking each other senseless.

Though some might argue that they were already senseless.

Fortunately there are people who do very clever stuff.

And then are the clever people who manipulate the already senseless.

Such is human development.

How many daft rednecks, in their plaid shirts with their big beards and their baseball caps, actually own a microscope.

You also seem obsessed with parroting "fake news".

News is sometimes fake news is sometimes fake news.

Because some humans have always needed to worship a GOD.

And the Bible was written by humans, and not by a GOD.

Therefore the Bible records the wants of humans and not the wants of their proposed GOD.

I would suggest that SPACE is infinitely possible, but not infinitely necessary.

Nonetheless.

I was pondering our discussion yesterday, whilst walking my dog.

And I quickly came to the conclusion that the balloon analogy was flawed.

And raisin bread is good....... But of course, we add the raisins at the beginning.

Good reply.

And therein lies the dilemma that is consciousness with intellect.

Yep. The expanding balloon analogy is easy for me to visualise.

So another question based upon that analogy:

If the Universe is expanding in that way, do we at some point have a universal horizon.

One would suggest that nationally backed currencies, will eventually become cryptocurrencies or a part of a cryptocurrency system, and are already a significant way towards being so.

One would therefore assume that control of currency will  inevitably become decentralized, because of the nature of the controlling system.

I would further suggest that social evolution is always in a transitional state....And that technological evolution it transitioning rapidly.

Things seemed to have changed before we have had a chance to come to terms with them. (Getting old)

Interestingly.

Perhaps you could answer my ignorance based question.

One would assume that cause makes expansion directional.

So why, if the universe is expanding at a constant rate (63 0r 73 or whatever), do distant objects moving at the same rate, move apart.

One would assume that to move apart, things must move at different rates.

I can only think that for expansion theory to be correct all distant objects must move away from each other in different directions. 

Is this correct.

The Teleological argument and others like it, have a built in problem.

What designs the designers.

And what designs the designers designers etc etc.

The something from nothing conundrum cannot be ignored.

GOD principle and material evolution are sound and compatible hypotheses, but both fail to explain the beginning bit.

Designer floating about for all eternity.....And then decides to design something from nothing......Methinks not.

The former University President.

Let's hope that they were squeaky clean then.

And the old statue was replaced so quickly, that the new one must have been waiting in the wings somewhere.

How's that for clever marketing.

Incite a riot (easily done in Bristol) and then say hey I just happen to have a lovely statue that will fit there a treat.

Progressives hey.

Nothing progressive about mob violence and vandalism.

Well.

Selective morality means picking and choosing what life is or isn't a significant enough life to warrant your concern.... Which you might refer to as your "foundation".

I'm not criticising, as we are all the same....Ultimately the survival of one life depends upon the death of another.

Your "foundation" is simply your acquired and established database, from which you will select what you consider to be appropriate morality.

So the death of an embryonic bundle might be considered to be unjustifiable.....Listen to the news report and then make a song and dance about it.

Yet the death of an Afghan child might be regarded as being justifiable collateral damage.....Listen to the news report and then worry about the weather forecast.

Refined sugar is a useful product...... Though educate people not to consume it by the bagful. (Eat loads of sugary shit food)

And unprocessed red meat is as healthy as any protein substitute, but just don't eat a whole cow for lunch every day.

An unbalanced diet of processed food, which will undoubtedly contain sugar and meat derivatives, is the killer.

And of course sitting on ones backside all day avoiding movement as much as possible, isn't going to help either.

And cars will inevitably kill from time to time.....That's just a fact of cars.

And I'm not sure that 55 will make a great deal of difference. 

And I'm not desperate to save anyone.

I know that my wife and daughters eat healthily and exercise regularly, but their fate will be their fate..... And because of the fact of cars, they or I may well meet our fate at 55 or less.

And all others need to look out for themselves.

Though that does not mean to say, that I wouldn't shout WATCH OUT THERE'S A CAR COMING!

But I won't be shouting GET OF YOUR FAT BACKSIDE YOU LAZY BASTARD! anytime soon.

I couldn't give a fuck about the rock.

I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the human mind.

Just rename the rock. Call it Letisha or something.

Or paint it White....NO! Racist

Or paint it Black....NO! Racist

Paint it Orange......NO! That's Fruitist

Fuck me it's hard being Liberal.

So what's the new monument then?

Over here in Bristol, they knocked down a racist statue and replaced it with a racist statue.....D'oh.

You've got to start somewhere I suppose.

Exactly my point.

People think.

And the rock does absolutely  fuck all.

Excuse the language, but it just emphasises the point perfectly.

There are  perhaps two levels of control.

We do not necessarily do because we think.

For example:   

Why do we allow ourselves to develop cancer?

Being unvaccinated does not necessarily mean you will certainly die.

Firstly one needs to contract the virus.

Then one might or might not die as a result of contracting COVID.

Should one unfortunately contract COVID, a vaccine should increase ones chances of survival, especially if one is older and/or have a weakened immune system.

But you know all this.

You argument is unexpectedly illogical for some reason.

100% of people who have not contracted COVID, simply have not contracted COVID......In this instance, it doesn't matter if one is vaccinated or not

I'm still assuming that Trypanophobia is the reason for your  illogic.

Everyone in a Democratic Republic, should be both Republican and Democratic.

And some people will inevitably rape children....Though I would suggest that this is not a politically motivated decision.

Boulders do not carry racial connotations.

Racial connotations are carried inside heads.

See boulder....Internally connote....Skin tone completely irrelevant.

Same old dumb, hypocritically racist, bullshit.

It was the rock what did it....D'oh.

People discriminate all the time....Making judgements relative to programming.

Perceive, think, decide, discriminate.

Though we might decide to adapt output if we feel constrained by social pressure.

We do not always say what we initially think.

Sometimes secondary consideration is appropriate.

7.9 billion and counting.

Abortion is not a problem.

Exactly.

Pro choice.

Selectively moral.

Like us all.

Is that a compound word?

Should U.S soldiers be charged with murder too.

Seeing as you are advocating perfect morality.

Or are you selectively moral just like all the other hypocrites?

Are you selectively moral?

Most pro-lifers are.

Do you sit as uneasily with US drones remotely killing whosoever might be in the way, as you do with the thought of killing a cute cuddly wuddly baby.

Not that embryos and foetuses are necessarily cute and cuddly wuddly... 

Pro-choicers on the whole, do not advocate the killing of babies.

Killing babies is a typical pro-lifers plea to the emotions.......Generally backed up with religious baloney.

In my opinion, the responsibility for the fertilized egg rests with the mother, and certainly not with a load of pious do-gooders, and certainly not with a make believe god.

Good and Bad.

Therein lies a philosophical argument.

And "misspoke" is such a brilliant word.

Within the current context, so very appropriate.

I understand what you are saying.

Though I would draw a distinction between overthink and positive thought. 

I was referring to the negativity of overthink....Not seeing the wood for the trees as it were.

Sound advice from Reece101. 

Expectations or over expectations are driven by marketeers, who constantly try and sell us the unachievable.... It's there in our faces, day in and day out.

Freudian slip methinks.

Birth, life, death.

It's a pretty straightforward reality.

The life bit is about 95% repetition.

But the trouble is we have a tendency to overthink.

Though you can find contentment in the unlikeliest of places.

And career is a buzz word....That basically, just means working for financial reward.

And any career can be just as boring as any other.....Repetition.

You makes your label and you stick it on.

Though in the end, I don't expect that it will make much difference.

But hey!......Here's to hoping .