zedvictor4

Exactly.

The reality of day to day existence......No pinning of hopes on supernatural deities necessary.

And as I stated elsewhere, you misinterpret atheism.

Atheism is nothing whatsoever to do with evolution....Two separate concepts.

And material evolution is self evident, as all theists know but are often reluctant to admit.

You're flogging a dead horse with this one.

Is  Rangar an anagram? 

I do not vote.

I am probably not consistent with atheism.

The rest is your opinion.

Nope, atheism isn't a belief in anything. 

Material evolution is ongoing and perceivable, otherwise we would still be living in trees or caves, and not remotely discussing, using electronic devices. So no belief required. Though denial required for some.

Atheism just doesn't accept the deity idea.

As I stated, you misinterpret atheism.

Atheism is nothing whatsoever to do with material evolution....They are completely separate issues....They can be associated, just as theism and evolution can be associated....Just as theism and music can be associated....Just as we can associate atheism and theism with anything, including each other....Nonetheless atheism is not a belief in evolution, whereas theism is a belief in imaginary deities.

In basic terms, atheists simply do not accept the existence of imaginary deities.

You didn't like my post because you understood it.

LOL.

And you don't waffle?

Well, belief is a dodgy word.

I currently prefer the idea of purpose rather than chance, simply based upon the illogic of the something from nothing principle. I therefore refer to purpose as the GOD principle........Not to be confused with any specific deity........And material evolution occurs in plain sight so does not require belief.

I would suggest that you actually misinterpret atheism.....Atheists simply do not accept your version of things, so no belief is required.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day it does all boil down to something from nothing, whether that be a big bang or a big god, or a big whatever. 

So in terms of creation I do not believe anything nor do I have any suggestions other than a principle of material creation.

Says you without any evidence.

And you are harmless and you have a position too.

And I assume that Stephens' source is the Christian Bible and his interpretation thereof...Just as yours is.

For me atheism  means GOD principle and then evolution....But not an ethereal Caucasian bloke that screws virgins.

If your debating just pull out the strawman thing for good measure....It's generally meaningless, but looks good and might just clinch a vote.

Gods are a standard  imaginary creation that fulfil a particular human need.

Gods can be all things to all men.

Nonetheless if you are prepared to accept the bible warts and all as an accurate account of something, then you must also accept the illogic and contradiction contained therein.

Stephen just enjoys pointing out these flaws.....Pigs and demons are one of his latest issues.

So what is your angle on pigs and demons?

Imaginary demons.

You and I should be content in the knowledge that demons as possessive entities do not and did not exist.

Though as a mythological/fictional narrative, demons can be made to jump about willy nilly, if that is what the author/story teller wishes.

There is nothing at all wrong with a good entertaining fantasy tale....Story telling was a major source of entertainment back in the day, just as it still is now.

Just rebrand the whistles.....Covid whistles for example.....If someone coughs, blow like fuck, could be the slogan.... BOGOF.

Because it's all a load of archaic nonsense Stephen....You know that and I know that.

And archaic nonsense can be anything it wants to be and anything anybody wants it to be.

A lunatic, a herd of pigs and a clever guy in a boat....go for it.

Nope, never have been and will not be for the foreseeable future.

And neither the bible nor the U.S. actually promotes such morals. 

Altruistic lip service in the pursuit of wealth and power is typically human, hypocrisy. 

If the Christian bible is an accurate account of the will of your god, then Stephens's claims are undeniably correct and your interpretation would therefore be logically flawed.

It's all in the text in black and white, after all.

So are you agreeing that the Christian bible is basically just a human based, supernaturally embellished mythology, and that your god is in fact a god that you personally design, to conform with a set of moral standards that you personally hold?

The doormen probably.

Though I suspect that the real genii are even rarer than a bunch of physicists....One person has an idea, the rest help develop it.

That's one way of looking at things.

I would suggest that humanity created gods, as a way of answering questions that couldn't be answered.

Two valid hypotheses, though I think that mine is somewhat more logical as it doesn't rely upon super-nature to answer unanswerable questions.

Also interesting that you attribute a god with a specific gender (him)....Men creating gods in their own image, for sure.

It's good to ramble....You're a thinker

You don't just have a fixed idea about things.

I would sum up your ramblings by suggesting that success is about finding a level of contentment and wellbeing....Living within the limits of ones capabilities....Which for most people does not necessitate achieving social greatness or amassing monetary wealth.

 

The role of minions such as us, is probably to produce and ensure the success of the genii.

A good philosophical answer.

The greater the genius the narrower the mind set, quite often.

Though the evolutionary importance of genii shouldn't be undervalued.

Nonetheless, a game about fictional characters and guessing the bad guys, sounds like religious arguing to me.

What do you think, is the measure of success?

Politically and socially, the U.S. is already ugly.....And no matter who wins, I don't see things getting any prettier.

Most atheists don't bother, and neither do most theists.

A few atheists nit pick and a few theists are over zealous. Which makes discussion interesting.

Well. Epistemology is as epistemology does, but if you mean the limits of human knowledge, then we continually explore the rabbit hole further.  Science (in the literal sense) allows us to extend the limits of knowledge....So we haven't gone there yet.... So maybe we will or maybe we will not.....Nonetheless, stopping and not going any further isn't human nature.

Perhaps looking forwards will eventually bring us back to the beginning.

What what?

Yep, one of thousands of examples of tradition.

But not as traditional as abortion.

Is public nudity at crisis point?

Nonetheless, nudity and our fascination with it is an interesting issue.

Perhaps I'll create a forum debate on the subject.

You have to be prepared to factor in bias.

Given the medium, it's impossible to moderate bias effects.

It must be or you wouldn't be arguing about.

I think that what you mean is, that it's a tradition you are not interested in. 

Similarly a lot of Americans are not interested in your anti-abortion tradition.

Nonetheless you are happy to adopt a 2000 year old Middle Eastern tradition, and dismiss an even more traditional  3550 year old Middle Eastern tradition.

Some might refer to this as double standards...I refer to it as selective morality....

Thanks....Though I was aware of the basics.

I was really making the point, that in order for something to go bang, then there must be something to go bang. ( Not a direct reference to big bang theory).

What fuels a creation event?

And more importantly, who or what provides the fuel.

Though if something provides the fuel, then what provides the provider....Same old insurmountable conundrum.

When stairs explode...Use the lift.

And why does nuclear fusion occur?

True...Maybe Trump is just a glitch.

Yep. if you could afford a radio and the time to listen to it.

I like to think that I can recognise common sense.

Though one persons sense is often another's nonsense.

And calling oneself a "conservative libertarian" is like putting one's cards on the table, face down.

I think  that U.S. liberty is already coughing up blood.

Why does one need a belief?

Gods are made up.

Religious myths are largely made up.

Everything that you and all of us continue to contrive, is made up.

Data in, data assimilation, data resequencing, data out = making it up.

Accusing Stephen of making it up is a very childish argument.

I'm a sceptic, so not incorrigible.

I accept a GOD principle but not myths embellished with fantasy.

Show me real evidence of your particular god and I will be instantly converted.

Of course it is. The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from 1550 BCE....Even more traditional that Christianity for example.

Perhaps certain people with interests in certain things might do.

Yep the bible is silent on a lot of things....Which in fairness is no more than one would expect from such a naive hypothesis.

Debs correct. 

Clever people, gullible people....It's the ongoing story of mankind.

Clever and gullible might at first seem paradoxical, but no, it's the ongoing story of mankind.

Dismiss the obvious in pursuit of the fantastic.

So let's get back to basics.

Considering for a moment that a bible at some point is a fairly accurate record of events and people.

Who  was Jesus?

Son of man or son of a god.

Above, you clearly suggest that Jesus was descended from,  mankind.

So you agree that abortion has become a tradition, and that it should never go away?