zedvictor4

Yep, everything is a product of the universe...... Even the concept of a supernatural GOD.

A nihilist would say that this has probably all happened before somewhere, and if the shit does eventually hit the fan, then what the f**K.

Though maybe we are clever enough and will find the solution, as we were meant to do.

Yep, we're rapidly evolving into a future, where humans will become more and more superfluous....This clearly suggests to me that humanity is only a means to something else.

So knowledge is going to be key,  if you want to stay in the game.

Everything is natural.

Hearing voices is a mental health issue.

And sex is fundamentally reproduction, though sexual pleasure and sexual gratification can be achieved in a variety of ways.

We currently have a global population of 7.6 billion approx. So indulging in a bit of the other isn't going to matter much. Especially as we are no longer reliant upon physical intercourse for conception.

The above is realism..... And religion is an unnecessary but popular distraction.

So if someone murders you because a GOD told them to do so..... It is not because a GOD spoke...It is because they have mental health issues.

And if it was a Christian, we should be sympathetic and if it was a Muslim we should blow the f**k out of them....And vice versa.

The wonders of humanity, hey.

Nope.

You just process data and come out with stuff, in exactly the same way that most people do.

Nothing that you output,  actually proves the existence of a specific GOD.

An ultimate reality may well be a specific GOD..... But all the eulogising, ritual and paraphernalia associated with your specific religion is just pie in the sky.

You yourself readily acknowledge that the ultimate reality is unknowable.....So why, as you have no idea what it is and what if any it's requirements might be, do you give it a name and worship it in the way that you do.

T. Ultimate reality is logical....A Specific GOD is an assumption....And therefore religious behaviour, although it might make you feel good, is pointless. 

A. Ultimate reality is logical...A Specific GOD is an assumption....And therefore religious behaviour has know meaning and is pointless. But I still feel good....Because I channel my energy into other things.

You assume that a GOD has been revealed to you....Though, this is not the same as a GOD actually being revealed to you.

One can assume anything.

Morals are constructed by those that consider themselves to know better.

And incest refers to a sex act between closely related people.

At the end of the day one chooses what one considers to be OK,  irrespective of preordained morality.

Though we generally conform to social norms,  sometimes some people choose not to.

There's a big difference between "A Creator" and  a creation.

"A Creator" has secondary implications attached.....Namely, "A Creator"......Or in other words, an uncreated precursor. 

In suggesting "A Creator" you are suggesting:  A. An unconstructed entity.  With B:  The ability to construct something from nothing.... Both of which are illogical.

Though, if it is logical that something can be constructed from nothing, then it's therefore also logical to suggest that there is no need for "A Creator".

Yep. Same old stuff.

Though the carrot thing was more of a reference to an old sci-film I watched years ago about Alien invasion....The Thing From Another World.... The alien beings weren't typically humanoid, but looked more like giant carrots.  Although the film wasn't particularly good, I nonetheless  thought that the concept was an interesting take on evolutionary possibilities.

Trump was always going to be the carrot...... Especially as he still want's to be the star of the show.

No it hasn't....A person made that up and has strung you along.

And yes, an atheist could rightly be regarded as exhibiting incredulity.

It's indisputably  a truism.....So obviously sound and reasonable.....But neither, proves the existence of a GOD, or identifies the ultimate reality.

You're still reliant on blind faith.

The problem is that politics and political support is largely based on historically acquired bias.   And just like here in the U.K. the split is usually 50/50 ish....So every 4 or 5 years or so the election is decided by the minority of unbiased voters....And this year in the U.S. they obviously realised the mistake the made four years ago, in voting for an intellectually inept megalomaniac. 

Republicans just need to find a credible candidate for next time....Because it was only Trump that lost this election....Biden was just, clearly the better a option.

Evolution is progressive, unavoidable and unstoppable.....And  the political thrashings of human society are inconsequential to the fact....And we like to think that humanity is the be all and end all.....And on the one hand we could be, but on the other we probably won't be....Relative to this particular spec of cosmic dust of course.

There may be intelligent carrots out there somewhere, that don't give a damn about  liberals, moderates or progressives.

So maybe, Trump is in fact a carrot.....Certainly the right colour, though clearly one of the less intellectual ones.

And you don't also have an agenda?

Stephen quotes the bible literally, and given that the bible he quotes from must be a fairly recent interpretation, then why do you still need to  re-interpret  in order to to be able to respond?

Let's be honest....It's because the literal bible is now out of sync with modern thinking.......It's still reliant on a fantastic creation hypothesis and is often embarrassingly, politically incorrect.

A loose historical record, embellished with a supernatural creation hypothesis.... In short, a Myth.

Some people have moved and on some haven't....And to be fair, this is the nature of data transfer and human susceptibility.....Teach your kids nonsense and they will grow up believing in nonsense.

Nonetheless, a GOD principle is still a reasonable hypothesis.....But certainly not as presented in the Bible.

You try to be a modern thinker, but are still well and truly stuck in the out of date past.

Yep, that's truism.

Yes it does.

But it doesn't stop you making things up.

Yep...You must have been away doing something....It was the 23rd of September when I made that comment.

Nope you don't get it. 

I do not believe in an ultimate reality....I merely accept the probability thereof.

The same as you, but you name it GOD, create a religion, embellish it with ritual and refer to your brain state as belief....Despite freely admitting that the ultimate reality is unknowable.

So....... You fully acknowledge that you have no idea what the Ultimate Reality is.

Then we agree.

So what's the point of a specific religion then?.......When you're fully aware that you are likely to be farting in the wind. ( Pardon the expression, but it makes the point succinctly)

Which was exactly my point.

You presume to have a special club.

So Stephen asks direct questions of the Bible and you and your clubmates interpret or misinterpret biblical scripture to suit.

Stephen clearly studies biblical scripture as you do..... So you are both theologians but in different clubs.

Respect, not kudos....To you both.

As I pointed out...It's a silly question because it asks the obvious, in a vain attempt to validate a specific GOD hypothesis, namely, your GOD hypothesis.

Quite obviously a GOD hypothesis or GOD principle is the better of the two options.....Because as I stated, nothing is nothing and something is clearly obvious to us.

Though, that one should then instantly conclude that your specific version of a GOD hypothesis is the correct one, is therefore a silly expectation.

The fundamental problem is that we currently have no idea how something was derived from nothing.

So atheistic people simply tend not to wildly over speculate as theistic people do.

Denying that the burden of proof lies with the theist, really is just avoiding the real fundamental question.

0 to GOD, or 0 to BOB, or 0 to dave, or perhaps 0 to BIG BANGO......The names which are all relatively recent human constructs, are all wholly irrelevant.

So you say a GODS essence is unknowable.

Which means, you have know idea what GOD is, yet still believe in it.

Which really is blind faith in a loosely calculated assumption.

Whereas I know the essence of the ultimate reality is unknowable, freely admit it,  so believe no creation hypotheses and therefore make no unsubstantiated claims.

But hey...We are both content.

Well "Ultimate Reality" is a TWO word term which as a specific meaning....Though that meaning doesn't  tell us what GOD is specifically.

A GOD may well be the ultimate reality, but there again the ultimate reality may well not be a GOD....It might just be BIG BANGO or a LITTLE PUFF or perhaps a hundred and one other things.

Who knows?......Mopac definitely doesn't, that's for sure.

They might as well keep saying Rhubarb, as keep saying Ultimate Reality. 

So am I to assume that your source is not necessarily the Christian Bible...But more so the diverse views/interpretations of other theologians?...Never really thinking for yourself.

I would suggest that in terms of his questioning  literally, Stephen is as much a theologian as any academic is.

Isn't it just simply a case of who you prefer to listen to and who you would rather ignore?

You probably read my earlier post, but chose to ignore it.

So what is it?

It maybe one thing, but from a human perspective it could be a million things.

Though "It is what it is",  and it is also everything that it isn't.

So what isn't it?

As for what it might be:

I would suggest that it is a finite universal point of collapse and re-initiation which could be regarded as a GOD principle or a BIG BANGO or anything.....Nonetheless not a belief but pure speculation....Though like every GOD principle/ultimate reality, including yours, we have to momentarily and conveniently disregard an absolute beginning.

I speculate on the unknowable, whereas you fixate on a belief in one of thousands of possibilities....So based upon your criteria, if I am a nihilist, then you most certainly are too, because you are clearly also speculating on the unknowable.

@Ratman

That's the trouble, when a Presidency ( arguably the most important job of all),  goes out to the highest bidder, where the only necessary  qualification's for the job are access to a large pot of money and self righteousness.....Oh! And seemingly, rapidly approaching senility.

Ignorance is bliss, hey?

I would suggest that you have a read of a dictionary and fully absorb the definitions of these words that you casually bandy around.

Nonetheless, do not avoid the questions....Ultimate reality or god?...And what is it?....Unless you can offer substance, then these expressions are nothing more that hollow words.

A. I have no aversion to the word GOD, and use it regularly to describe  a principle of universal purpose or ultimate reality.

B. I do not BELIEVE that there is an ultimate reality.... I merely accept the idea of an ultimate reality. 

C. Atheist just like theist is simply a label, and I do not strive to be labelled as either.....I just question the questionable, rather than put blind faith into the unknowable.

D. I could just as easily and validly observe,  that blind faith in an assumption is  "A mad position".   Though this, just like "insanity" is another cheap throw away jibe that really only highlights your anxiety.

At the end of the day, all that you currently have to offer,  is an assumption, backed up with a lot of cheap bluster and ambiguous reasoning.

So why not attempt to be definitive for once.....Ultimate reality or god?...And what exactly is it?

Within the context of the silly question, the obviously better choice would be something loosely referred to as GOD or BOB or DAVE or BIG BANGO or whatever.

Though it would be foolish to think that this proved anything other than acceptance of something.

Something is something and nothing is nothing.

As I said, the question is silly. And simply states the obvious..... That is to say, something from nothing.

The ultimate reality is something perhaps.

And your acceptance of a particular hypothesis, as truth without evidence, certainly qualifies as a  belief.

Though  questioning such unproven  hypotheses is only to be expected. 

And the tacky inclusion of the term "insanity" is neither relative to the conversation or a reasonable assertion.

The RatMan always blocks, but will not ignore you.....It's just a coping strategy and shouldn't be taken personally.

At the moment you are two flocks of bleating sheep....With two ageing sheepdogs attempting to gain control....And yes, one of those sheepdogs is quite orange.

I don't believe at all.....The word belief does not comply with my thoughts regarding creation hypotheses.

I accept the basic principles of creation and evolution as being reasonable, that's all.

Along with a vast array of tall tales, GOD is just a name that evolved to represent a possible creative influence. Therefore as I do not wish to confuse you further, I will refer to it as a BOB principle.

You have a devout belief in the unknowable..... End of story.

Opposition to a Sate will quickly evolve from individual to shared concept, into organised hierarchical opposition.

Though it was you who dropped "opposition to a state" into the discussion.

So unless you are going to be more specific, then State and opposition are going to remain hypothetical.

A GOD principle may be the ultimate reality.....  Though you have no clue as to what exactly that might be.....Whether or not such an unknown reality needs praying to, is pure speculation....You really just seem to be edging your bets with the term "ultimate reality".

Most atheists also probably accept the idea of an ultimate reality.....So the contention is not really about an ultimate reality.....It's about the accuracy of the myths and legends that theists weave around their particular version of the hypothesis.

One world, one people and probably too many people....

And we are either inherently caring or inherently selfish....And I think that the latter is generally true....Survival of the fittest and all that, is what it all eventually boils down to.

Hey!  Zog from the cave down the road  is being attacked by Sabre Toothed Tigers.

Zog who?....Let's just get the f**k out of here.

What is there to substantiate?

State in any form is hierarchical....It's how a state is able to function.

Any human co-operative no matter how liberal, relies upon A being able to tell B what to do, and B accepting that A will tell them what to do. Failure of this system will either lead to separation or temporary chaos, though in either instance resolution will be the establishment of new hierarchical structures.

it will be interesting to see how things pan out after the current U.S. elections. Will A accept B, or will there be temporary chaos?

Explain how, human interaction and/or cooperation doesn't always rely on some level of hierarchical distinction

Yep. It's semantics for the sake of contention, because we enjoy contention.

Atheism is no religion, though reasons may vary.... And belief is an indefinite word.

I'm a sceptic who runs with certain ideas but doesn't commit to belief.....Especially one without proof, as it says in the dictionary.

A state is a hierarchical system....And a state will encompass a nuclear family....You ultimately cannot separate the two.

And absence of state, either means replacement of state or not, and I contend that, no hierarchical structure, is not a human option.

State is as crude as it is, or as developed as it will become.

Minority groups with specific ideologies are very much a part of social culture.... As are institutions that control the wider flow of data, therefore controlling the success of such minority groups.

Kids with heads glued to devices are the future of social culture.... And who knows where that will take humanity?....Fortunately or unfortunately, I won't be around to find out.

Global cultural conflicts are the result of the past differences arising from the inherent limiting factors of geographical location..... Limitations that no longer impede the flow of data around the globe.

So the West will influence the East and vice versa....And maybe one day if it's not too late, we will all be in agreement.

So the biblical hypothesis/mythology has developed over the last 4000 years...Yep, that's a reasonably statement....But all very current in terms of humankind and data transfer.

And burning a book keeps you warm for a few moments...So what.

And data is out there whether it be theistic or atheistic and none of it is going anywhere anytime soon.

And the floaty sky man data was once the basis of Christianity, but has long since been open to modification...Which is only to be expected.

What is unchanged though, is the Christians (or any other theists) inability to unequivocally prove their own particular creation hypothesis.

Why do people do things?.....Because they can.....Conversion is an aspect of culture and previous experience is also.

Maybe so,  but the same is also probably applicable to theist activists.

Though as I see it,  the term "atheist activist" is somewhat contradictory in terms of pure belief.... So I would further suggest, that what you are actually referring to is the application of an ideology as the basis of  social control (to a lesser or greater degree).  Though inevitably a social control system also has to incorporate everything else relative to a societies function,  and this is demonstrably as applicable to theist based systems as to atheist based systems.

Nonetheless, the question was simple....And the answer was easy...No....Culture is far broader than an acquired creation hypothesis....Culture is also the food you eat,  the clothes you wear, the music you listen to and the technology you utilise.....etc. etc. etc.

Well, I would argue that technology has always improved lives...... As technology is nothing new......It's just that  current technological development has exceeded your conditioned expectancies.....You're now somewhat stuck in your past.....It happens to us all as we get older.... To a varying degree of course....Some people adapt better that others......Nonetheless you are seemingly not unkeen to utilise this fairly up to date system of international communication....So are you not actually applying double standards?

I never said it was.

A. Ask whosoever defined the word.

B. A real government is a real government and a philosophical concept is a philosophical concept.

C. Giving rise to the management of a state/hierarchical system is the inevitability of human social nature, therefore true socialism is only a concept....Y. What shall we do now?....Z. You do this and I will do this.....X. Will always ask the question and Y. will seize the opportunity to control.