zedvictor4

Well. 

Perhaps your right....But perhaps also, it all boils down to the attribution of labels. 

If you're going to dispute the Lexicon....Then you must take that up with the Lexicographer.

Nonetheless, it's nice to see you interacting with a wider audience.

Regards.

After consideration.

I would suggest, that I believe very little if nothing at all.....I expect and I accept...But belief as defined is a separate issue altogether.

I do not believe the Sun will rise in the morning...I expect that it will, and I will accept that it has....I do not need to believe, that which I can predict.... And that which I am uncertain of I will only consider.

I  expect and accept,  other people will  accept a specific creation hypothesis and come to hold that concept as a belief...I however simply do not process information in the same way...I therefore have no belief, in either the existence or non-existence of any specific GOD.... I prefer just to hold the GOD principle as a valid hypothesis, worthy of consideration.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I feel that I have to ask.....Bring who where?

I would also, merely suggest, that it is easy to pontificate from a position of relative stability and security.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

"My Riddles" follow the format of standard word and number puzzles.

They are two very simple puzzles. 

I would suggest that because of the term I.Q. people are reading to much into them.

I expect that Intel already have something new up their sleeve....If they haven't, then they will inevitably go out of business....

It's the nature of  technological evolution....It's not going to hang about waiting for slow coaches to catch up.

The effects of the hallucinogen must have worn off....You were probably bitten by a dodgy insect whilst you were asleep.

Those were my thoughts too.

I would suggest.

That  function and process, dictates that objectivity is a consequence of subjectivity and therefore the two are actually one and the same.

I would therefore further suggest, that subjectively creating abstract principles, is only ever what it is. 

in addition... I would therefore also suggest, that repeating fact verbatim, is an altogether separate data processing exercise.

To conclude...I would suggest, that "objective" and "subjective" are a misleading dichotomy, and therefore unnecessary concerns....And that,  the production of all thoughts and consequent output is a wholly internal data processing function, irrespective of the quality of both the internal data base and any eventual data output.

Your subjective thoughts would be appreciated.

It really is a difficult to decide, but some of the comedic stuff seems too contrived.  And a lot of the word gaffes seem to be deliberate.

What's the porpoise Mikey.

I'm still thinking, joker....And quite a funny one at that.

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.