zedvictor4

Just my style.

In future I will try and remember to put...I would suggest... at the beginning of each statement.

Do you mean "abolition" or do you mean ablution.

I dread to think what the "womens abolition block" might be.

I made the puzzles up.

I enjoy doing and devising puzzles and cryptic crosswords.

Just a puzzle...it's a no win situation.

Nope.

Nope....Keep trying.

Words Words Words.

One tries to be as realistic as one can, and simultaneously make the best of things.

And we all achieve this differently in exactly the same way.

A race is a race, only when you choose to stop at a certain point in hominid history.

F**king Neanderthals.

For sure....Ultimately, everything was and must be one.

You've got a sirens voice.

My ship was wrecked upon the rocks.

The oneness of the universe allowed me to imagine.

 

As I keep saying...I have no obligation.

As I've said before...I think therefore I am....Is the best that we have.

So within that context, the function of perception is real.....How we choose to interpret what we perceive, is the issue.

Spirituality is a often a badly defined label we attach to an internal physiological process.

Question and supposition.

I'm not certain that science can be said to have an "exact opposite"....Fantasy maybe.....Even then it could be argued that elements of reasoning go into the production of fantasy.

Nothing wrong with a Christian comic....I'm sure Jesus enjoyed a laugh every now and then.

And does your wife really look like Cthulhu?.....All toosh and tentacles.

I've already tried to explain.

Spirituality is an internally generated, electro-chemical response, to certain situations or thoughts.

Spirituality is physiologically self created., and not some bloke sending telepathic messages.

Assuming otherwise, really is just a misunderstanding, that may become a delusion.

LOL ......You should write and perform comedy for a living.

As erudite as ever Mr A.

Nonetheless, regarding the veracity of popular GOD stories, you are still no nearer shifting the burden of proof from your shoulders.

And as ever I have nothing to prove.

Zed the atheist.

I, like most people, would love to know the reason for the existence of matter....But, a chap went  up a mountain and had a chat with a GOD....Pull the other one, it's got bells on..... I certainly don't feel the need to disprove these sort of tall tales.

Zed the antagonist.

No guessing required....Just a knowledge of how common number and word puzzles work.

A common misinterpretation of atheism.....Atheism is a state of mind and definitely not a belief in something,

Theists are the believers in things they cannot prove to be true.

Certainly some atheists are antagonists, but that's a different story.

Lateral thinking, keep going you're almost there.

What about the second question?....That one is even simpler, if you care to think about it.

Near perfect English in your previous post here.....Something fishy going on....What's the porpoise Mikey?

If you could, you would.

And of course, the parameters are currently only known to me...That's the nature of a puzzle....The whole idea is that you have to work it out....or it wouldn't be a puzzle.

I might as well just tell you the answers otherwise.

Blimey Mikey....I'm definitely a toosh man too.....Intelligent design hey!

If heaven is full of good looking toosh's , then sign me up. 

What's the weather like where you are?

Nope. It's just jargon and doesn't clarify anything.

I clarified the situation in the bits of my previous post that you overlooked.

Atheists do not make claims, and so have nothing to prove.

Theists claim that specific GODS exist.

Atheists do not claim that GODS do not exist.....All that atheists require is for you to unequivocally substantiate your claim.....And then we can all be true believers together.

It's not a Chicken and Egg scenario.

LOL.

So you can't solve them.

If you cannot prove that a specific GOD exists...Then I have nothing to prove

If you can prove that a specific GOD exists....Then I have nothing to prove.

It's the LAW of common sense.

Your above rhetoric, designed to confuse, nonetheless just goes around the houses and back to the start....If you really want to move your argument forwards, then the only way, will be to unequivocally prove that a specific GOD exists.....BOP.

There are logical reasons to assume every possibility....Even if those possibilities are seemingly illogical.

Smarties pants?

And for every assumption there is a counter assumption.....It's the inevitability of the unknown.

Notwithstanding common sense, of course.

"Re-egging"...Interesting use of words.

And yep I agree....God cannot be eternal.

Yep. No problems with the sweetener, but how much of a sweetener will be needed to convert the hardiest of anti-vaccers, do you think.

As for drink driving, perhaps the law is more lax in the U.S......Here in the U.K. the drink driving laws are tough and effective....But obviously not fool proof.

You're avoiding the question, as all theists do at this point.

I reiterate...I have made no claims, therefore I have nothing to prove.

You must unequivocally prove, an existent eternal GOD.....Bible stories are not unequivocal proof of this claim....In fact, bible stories are only  proof of  themselves.

Can you prove that a GOD exists and is eternal?......I have nothing to prove....It is you, who is making an unsubstantiated claim.

God is eternal...Baloney.

God is eternal, is an established epithet meaning you haven't actually got a clue.

Theists will always try and shift the B.O.P. because they have no actual proof of their claim.

So you're right...Theists make the claim....It's their B.O.P.

Atheists cannot disprove something that theists cannot prove.

And if theists could actually prove the existence of their specific GOD....Then rational thinkers would cease to be atheists.

Ah!  You compelled me to research stimulus check....That's the the difference between American and British English for you....I had no idea what n8 was on about.

OK. So your comparison is sort of reasonable.....But driving a car whilst under the influence of alcohol, is obviously not a sober choice.....Banning alcohol would be the solution, but people would be up in arms if their freedom to consume alcoholic beverages was taken away....... It's our right to choose to enjoy a beer, the pro-vaccers would shout.

Or are you suggesting that pro-vaccers never drink and drive?

And the level of sweetener required would depend upon the necessities of those that you are trying to sweeten....People will do all sorts of things for a buck if they are desperate.

Another anonymous with less than perfect English....What region of the World do you inhabit?

It would largely depend upon how much money White Russians had.....Money can buy you lots of admirers.....This is how cynical human beings really are.

He probably eats for a living.

Being a lawyer is just another way of maintaining a constant food supply....And being a lawyer won't stop one developing cancer or alzheimer's.

And apparently, neither does being lawyer prevent one from believing in fantasy tales.

For every jibe there is a counter jibe.

Aphilatelist.

The best argument for a GOD principle is purpose.

Though the Christian and other popular GOD concepts are too naive to be convincing.

Nope. Neither is correct.

Though once again feat is along the right lines.

So, you still can't solve them?

What money are you referring to?....I never implied anything about money.

And my Statements were completely logical.

If  vaccines are not 100% effective, then vaccinated people may still spread the infection to others ....Perhaps more so, as vaccinated people would probably  have a tendency to be less cautious..... It's a two way argument, as long as vaccines remain less than 100% effective.

So what's wrong with everyone be satisfied with their own  personal choice....Other than your dissatisfaction, of others being allowed to make a personal choose.

Lot's of people seemingly are convinced of the absolute truth of the bible, but how many actually  follow all the Levitical Laws?

I'm not even certain if it is possible to conform simultaneously to both,  the necessities of contemporary society. and the necessities of all biblical requirements.

I would further suggest that save for a few extreme zealots, most theists are probably unwittingly or even knowingly hypocritical.

Your arguments are extremely immature.

How about addressing my previous comments....Or do you find logic hard to cope with?

Well, that's the question I was expecting.

It simply boils down to trust I suppose....Sometimes we just have to have trust in things....Otherwise, how would we ever get anything done.

Sometimes philosophy can be stagnating.

Not sure how your last statement is relative to any of my previous comments.

And I would suggest that Axiom and ontology are not compatible...And similarly, ontology and fact are not compatible.