zedvictor4

So how can this be "shown"?

Because it's entertaining....And just to affirm....Because it's entertaining....And just to reaffirm....Because it's entertaining.

Oh... And because of the personal and variable nature of internally generated morality, I choose to regard it as subjective.

But if you choose to think that morality is something consistent, that manifests out of thin air, onto the pages of a supernatural book, then you are welcome to label, as you see fit.

Oh...He's gone again........ Another 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness then.

What did he do that was so bad this time?

B.C.   Good point.

All those millions must be languishing in limbo.

AH!.....Perhaps the Big Fella, hadn't begun to fit souls until 2000 years ago....Hadn't quite worked out soul technology before then

I wonder if it is possible to retro-fit souls?

Though I expect that the Big Guy just said come on in before that.

Of course though..... With no St Peter on the door checking the character references ....There must have been a whole load of dodgy characters got in.

Perhaps Angels did the job before Pete....

I suppose these days they use a computerised, electronic scanning system....Old Pete just wouldn't cope, no natter how many angels he employed.

160,000 per day that's a lot of potential applicants.

Thank Christ for S.R.T........Soul Recognition Technology.

Nope, not attempting to affirm anything...Just producing calculated comments and presenting them to an entertaining discussion platform. 

If lying can achieve a result, it can. We would perhaps use affirmation to give a lie credibility.

Morality is a highly variable concept anyway.....Though one could affirm and attribute a moral principle to a situation, and then subsequently ignore that moral principle.

And...Is....Is definite.....If something is, then it is.

And...Ought....Is indefinite....If we ought,  we nonetheless, might or might not.

Yet another pointless word argument....But nonetheless entertaining....Which I suppose is a point.....Words Words Words.

That is my point.

We do do it.

Because we have a reason for doing it.

None of IT is plucked out of thin air and then magically transcribed to a dictionary.

A. One is either dead or not.

B. Where do dreams come from.

C. "Almost always dead"?.....See A.

D. Mystical is as mystical does.....As far as we are able to know, mystery is a preoccupation of the living. 

Check your dictionary....Other than as a legal term "to affirm" carries very little weight.

Otherwise, one will affirm a lie...If one suspects that it will achieve a result.

We make up the meanings of classifications....Just the same.

And we can also make up distinctions, great or small.

Once again you are confusing brain and book.

Looks like a dead horse that you are flogging there....I wonder if it had an NDE.

Of course the obvious similarity between an NDExperiencer and a DEexperiencer , is that the neither can actually experience or relate an afterlife experience. 

I would suggest that the end of knowledge is the accomplishment of the GOD principle...The ultimate knowledge....The re-initiation of the universe perhaps...The continuation of the sequence.

Though this goal might also be reliant upon the abilities of  Another Intelligence.

The Biblical metaphor was soon outdated by human ingenuity....So it would be foolish to assume that human ingenuity will not be superseded.

The site seems to function O.K.

So someone is doing a good job.

Well done Mods.

If atheism is true.....Is just a meaningless statement.

Atheism is atheism and theism is theism.

This forum is just another theist deception.

One can affirm anything......Affirming can be as meaningful or meaningless as one chooses.

The Bible is the work of a GOD?....Did Jesus of the Bible exist?....Similar dilemma, different central characters..

Was the Jesus of Middle Eastern Folklore, based upon a real person?.... Would be a more pertinent question.

#38....Good point.

I'm assuming that you were fortunate, not to be born in the "Third World".

I always thank my lucky stars that I was born in the U.K. in the 1960's.

Pick a line and avoid the rest.

Another Tarik tactic.

Nonetheless.... Whether  the output is factual, or  supposition, the data management process is fundamentally the same, and the data is all from the same database.

Subjective and objective are internally derived classifications, we apply to internally processed data.

In simple terms.....Call it whatever you like.....But everything we say, we make up....Even if you read it previously in a dictionary, or any other text book.

Ok...But you have to maintain funding whilst changing the policing system..... Someone as got to keep their eye on the ball.

Here in the U.K. the Ethos of the  Police Force has changed radically over the last 20 years.....So much so that some might argue that the Police are now far to liberal.

I know that the U.S. is a completely different ball game with with a lot of decentralised power, and influence at State level. But ultimately you have to be reliant on the common sense and goodwill of the American people to now start and push for change.

Hopefully Trump and more so the spectre of ultra right wing conservatism, was a lesson learned.

Yep...And leave the proud boys to sort things out.....All that they require is a tin of cheap beer.

The atheist is the theists heretic and vice versa.

And you loose the argument when you cease to be kind to children and your only answer is punching.

Fortunately atheists always have gifts of wisdom to offer.

There are two reasons why you have a good time on "religious boards".

1. Mutual theistic back patting.

2. People like me and Stephen.

Definitely an obvious and pertinent opinion.

I'm pleased that you think so, Capt. Obvious the alternative and expected opinion.

Problematic issues are perceived and pro-active people address them....Whilst others pass the time of day doing more mundane things such as moaning and ranting about said problematic issues and wasting their time praying to imaginary GODs for a solution to everything....Oh and worrying about their bank balance and anything that might affect their comfy lives.

Not to fret.....Death and stress free oblivion is on the horizon my dear friends.....Let's hope we can make it there without too much fuss.

There are certainly coping strategies.

Narrative not only occurs in dictionaries. 

Dictionaries have a specific and limited function.

Nonetheless....Before humans were able to compile dictionaries, they firstly needed to be able to process data.

Therefore...Internal data management first, dictionaries second.

Tarik,  perceives a dictionary and the data contained therein...He processes said data and formulates a response.

A wholly internal and personal process that results in a wholly personal and internally managed conclusion...The same process, irrespective of the quality or the validity of the output.....So, we can similarly formulate accompanying terminology such as subjective and objective, which can be applied to data output as a measure of it's known factuality and validity.....We can then transcribe to a dictionary, and this is the point at which Tarik is able to perceive.

This is also the point at which Tarik loses sight of the process, and cedes all responsibility for his output to the dictionary.

It wasn't my fault guv, it was the book what did it.

Very good question.

I would suggest that the acquisition, storage and manipulation and output of data all requires a physiological mechanism and process.

Whether or not human data output, solely as thoughts and not involving chemical processes, can transcend the body, rather than remain a wholly internal physiological process, remains a moot point and a question that I have no answer to.

So once again....You've avoided the sticky issue of not being able to answer Stephen's questions.

Who's the third?....Would that be Mr Orange?

I thought that you were the one with Syrian Jihadist based paranoia.....Sorry my mistake.

So you are saying that you are also a devotee of Allah?....That's very comforting to hear.

I don't need to...Because you can't find a recipe in a dictionary.....You answered the question.

Was he Orthodox or left handed.

"Eating meat"........Is that another euphemism?....... LOL.

And sexual desires are pre-programmed, so there's no avoiding them.

Is that a euphemism for masturbation?

And did your Dads or the Bishop tell you, that if you keep doing that, your marbles will fall off....

And any sound logic that doesn't vindicate Trump, will be rejected by Extreme Republicans and their backwood militia hordes.

It does seem that less extreme Republicans know which side their bread is actually buttered......And they're already starting to distance themselves from  the orange toast....As it were.

Hey...Such is the political merry-go-round Mr E.....Round and round we go.

The brain is a tangible organic computing device, and the mind is the intangible result of the processes thereof.

Nonetheless......As far as we are able to know the processes and the result are real....And therefore existent.

@RatMan

Nope, not me.

Just someone else trying to tell you what to think, Big Bro.

Yep you're right....The bible is laughable and shouldn't be taken too seriously....Just enjoy it for the book of Middle Eastern folklore that it is.

And if you want to sing and dance about it on a Sunday morning in that enormous church of yours...... Then, go and have a good time..

Still no nearer to explaining universal creation though. 

Answering questions with questions is something that you are good at.

Nonetheless, well done....You actually answered my question and gave the correct answer?

Big Churches in Phili.

Those Quakers sure knew how to build em.

And as I always state...God principle valid....Christian pseudo-hypothesis valid only as an archaic, mythical pseudo-hypothesis.....Otherwise known as, Entertaining Middle Eastern folklore.

And yet you despise most of  those Middle Eastern devotees of Allah.

Such are the contradictions derived from Middle Eastern folklore.

Have you commented similarly elsewhere?....Or are you just a biased conservative?

So let me do a Tarik and answer a question with a question.

If you wanted to bake a cake, would you use a dictionary as a recipe book?

More Mr E jibing and goading, and avoiding the issues Stephen clearly laid out for discussion...

If you're a real christian, and a real christian bible devotee, then give us an eloquent refutation of Stephen's statements.

Instead of the usual old jibing and goading guff.

Currently Stephen wins hands down....because he's clearly the one that actually reads the bible.

Now's your chance to shine for Jesus.

Depends on what you want to know, which reference book you look at, and how specific you want to be.

You say that only Jesus is worthy.

What about his dad?....Who we are told is a GOD.

All such pseudo-hypothetical rhetoric can be regarded as spam.

As can jibing and name calling.

Nothing new, but nonetheless entertaining, which is why we keep coming back for more, with more.

And so the pseudo- hypothetical, christian, creator-GOD , remains just that......Nothing more than 2-way spam.

Why not try and directly answer the question Mr E?

Your above jibes, seem to be nothing more than an avoiding strategy.

What about GOD itself?

Dictionaries are as dictionaries do.

So what are the criteria required, to be regarded as spotless and blameless.

I think that is fair to suggest that there are as many spotless and blameless non-christians, as there are christians.

Or are you just referring to having a shower, before going to church wearing your best hat, on Sunday's?....Is that all that it takes to be regarded as worthy?