zedvictor4

China has over 4 times the population of the U.S.A.....So per capita, only 3 times the CO2 output is much better in comparison.. 

And anyway,  who is going to produce all those cheap commodities that we all so greatly desire.

Good old China...Providing for the World.

The flood could easily be based upon an extreme weather event,  and the bloke and his much smaller boat perhaps rescued a few goats. Though like a lot of archaic, hand me down yarns, these stories get embellished and exaggerated and eventually attain a mythological status.

Sensible folk like you and I can understand such myths for what they are.

He was a lazy carpenter who drank a lot of wine and preferred  to hang about with men rather than with women.....Well that's my understanding of the myth.

But you're correct on two counts.... There was no mention of him having a pilots licence and he died 2000 years ago. (Assuming that he was a real person of course)

Nope....It was deluded religious folk who flew the airplanes into the towers.

Not saying that a GOD principle is necessarily delusional though....Just that people are often deluded by religion.

Here you are son, strap on this vest and go f**k some virgins...I'd like to do it myself but I'm to busy recruiting simpleto--, I mean martyrs like you.

Religion hey!....Who needs it.

Truth either is or isn't a misconception.

And steak is bland chewy meat, unless you season it.

And fake steak is just as appetising if you season it.

Birth, life, death and nutrition is largely what you make of it.

And therein lies one inevitable outcome of perceivable difference.

And culture, black, white or anywhere in between, is the inevitability of memory and the seemingly overwhelming human need to live for the past rather than the future.

So which causes more problems for white folks?  White racism or white culture itself?

Though I think that it's fair to say that no one is actually black or white.

This isn't about Trump per se.  But he is nonetheless the figurehead of a regime that advocates old style supremacy.

As Orwell saw it though,  new style supremacy and old style supremacy will ultimately turn out to be one and the same. 

And to say that I trust authority blindly, is not to know me.

My Fathers advice to me was, trust no one.

Yep, we're all organic devices from the same mould, displaying variable programming and output.

I accept the idea of a GOD principle, but not a particular stylised deity....So does that make me atheist.

I certainly do not feel the need to make a song and dance about it on a Sunday morning.

Community under the name of religion....Though communities can function without religion. 

And Trump isn't scandal free?....LOL

I love Orwell too.

And some people are more equal than others....It's always the way.

Well.... Non violent civil disobedience is out of the window for sure.

And all the current escalations in racial and political tensions are just that....."Current"

I don't agree with either side of the argument.

But as a very on the political fence outside observer, it's quite clear who's rhetoric is attempting to stimulate a huge U.S social shift. And that's the guy in charge.

Trying to spin responsibility away from the guy running the show, is like blaming  Gorbachov for the Navalny poisoning. 

A feeling is a physiological response to something.

And a moral, is a label we apply to something.

Moral labels vary relative to how, where and when we acquired  information and associated responses. 

Carnivore v Vegan/Vegetarian is an obvious example.

Most if not all religions have a sense of community.

A lot depends on where one is born.

Totally wrong.

BLM was created in response to Trump's America.

If you hadn't noticed Donald is President and overseeing everything ,not Joe.

Typical spin, blaming the past and avoiding current  truths.

Unfortunately the choice of slogan "Black Lives Matter" is overtly racist, discriminatory and provocative.

All Lives Matter, would have been more noble, inclusive and less provocative.

And violence and vandalism are only short term gratification, rather than a means to an end.

Brother D won't be phased and Tradesecret can't ignore.

Brother D has it.

Ignorance is bliss.

What does this mean?

Was there an old influx?

And what is the average?

Morals do mean different things to different people, that's the unavoidable state of play. Just because you have a set of morals based loosely upon the Christian hypothesis, doesn't mean that they are universal morals....And I think that it is fair to say that not everyone that presents as a Christian will be as moralistic as you.

And the Christian biblical hypothesis isn't nonsense?...Perhaps you are a tad biased?......Though the Christian hypothesis may be correct, but no one actually knows. That's why I generalise and refer to creation hypotheses as GOD principle....Even chance happenstance comes under the remit of GOD principle. .....Something from nothing... Poof as if by magic everything appeared....Poof as if by magic a god appeared.....Same difference.

Depending upon your conditioning, a guy of some description is in your head, he's in my head too, he was put there when I was a kid and he will never go away.....A god created in our own image.....Swarthy, fair skinned or four armed.....Fortunately or unfortunately, there was also a strong atheist message in my formative years, so I grew up without a rigid belief in any god hypothesis...Such is human conditioning.

Actually prove the existence of a god, without going around the houses and beating about the biblical bush and I will be as content as the next theist.....Simple.

Nothing that Christianity currently has on offer is the slightest bit convincing though.

There are no problems with an infinite amount of time (or space) anyway....No god required.

A GOD principle is only a necessary agent of material processes..

The god you are arguing for, is the god you are arguing for.....No more and no less.

We do not as yet understand the GOD principle, and despite our supposed sophistication, we are nonetheless still reliant upon archaic myths and legends.

D'oh.

Conversely though, we have been the agents of a technological phase of evolution. Though "we" doesn't necessarily refer to 99% of the population, but rather to just the very few evolved innovators. Perhaps eventually though, the necessities of material evolution will exceed human capabilities altogether.....Maybe, if we can keep up, we will be allowed along for the ride as service agents.

And I think that it is fair to suggest, that we are already becoming slaves to technology.

The GOD principle will out, though more than likely, not the archaic god that you are arguing for.

Exactly.

GOD principle maybe eternal, and as such the fairer skinned guy or the swarthier one are viable hypotheses, nonetheless created in mans own image.

Though it's also pertinent to question whether GOD principle is responsible for humanity or if humanity is responsible for God principle.

"And morals are a variable human construct", means exactly what it says.....Interesting that you can't get your head around that simple statement.

Yep. I can run with that.

In so much as, you questioned things in relation to our residence, and the Earths atmosphere is essential in that respect. Though linguistically we define Earth and Earth's atmosphere separately.

Ok. But your opening question did ask was it "correct to say". 

The nature of the Earth and it's atmosphere and their associated life bearing qualities is quite well understood, and so the question did not require scientific scrutiny. The resolution of the question,  only really required semantic scrutiny.

Maybe it was you, that located a question in the wrong category.

Irony is.

And unironic irony is a contradiction.

And ironic seriousness is also something of a contradiction.

Though irony can be used to expound seriousness.....Which I suppose is being seriously ironic.

Being unironically serious, is being serious without the irony.

I think that you perhaps get bored.

Can you actually prove that human life really matters more than any other life?  (Religious assumption not being considered as actual proof).

I would assume that you are as selectively moral and biased as the next person.

After all, death and killing are essential for the sustenance of life.

I would suggest that everyone is selectively pro-choice and pro-life.

No.

Hair is an Interesting social issue though.

Nonetheless:

Life relies on an atmosphere, but does the Earth rely on an atmosphere?

So I fully accept your proposition. In so much as from a residents perspective we are wholly reliant on Planet Earth having an integral atmosphere.

Challenging language conventions thus, is probably not worth the effort though.

Yep....Chill buddy.

The Earth and ourselves are within the Earth's atmosphere. 

Does the integrity of all planetary spheres rely upon an atmosphere?

And I assume that the dictionary would definitely differentiate between the human and the human eye. I think also, that the dictionary would differentiate between the human being and the human body.

Such thoughts aren't hard though.

I thought that my double entendre was reasonably witty.

Did you get it?

Wouldn't that be nice?

On toast.

Convention and Oxford Dictionaries, would  appear to differentiate between Earth and atmosphere....On rather than within.

I think that convention has it,  irrespective of what one might consider to be literally correct.

Jam depletion. 

Perhaps he had a dirty head! 

A fructose bandit, that's what.

That's what German people must have said about Hitler back in the day.

All conservatives together hey!

Shittenhouse Rittenhouse, Mein Fuhrer.

Exactly.

Yes what?

Though on second thoughts, smoke tree an let the good times roll, isn't very Doc.

It would be correct to say that we reside within the Earth's atmosphere.

No what?

Are you Dr Franklin or his sibling perhaps?

If you can't work it out, I don't think that it will get any easier if I try to explain....Ask your parents or supervising adult, for assistance.

I think therefore I am...That's as certain as I can be.

I don't claim to be Atheist...I prefer not to be a labellist.

I don't necessarily need to explain the universe....Though I do like to contemplate such things....Though the only plausible explanation for the existence of matter, is magic...All other hypotheses fall down before they start.

I exist thanks to my parents...Though whether or not existence is a good thing, I've no idea.

And morals are very much a variable human construct.

You obviously never had bibles with pictures when you were a kid....And we all get brainwashed, it's the nature of the beast....Ultimate questions are not the exclusive remit of Christians.  We're all allowed to have a stab at them, you know.

Maybe newer P.C. picture bibles have a swarthier dark haired version of god.

Vishnu is as reasonable or unreasonable as any god hypothesis.

I don't believe in either, as belief overlooks proof.

Interestingly though, "chance happenstance" is as plausible as any other hypothesis that relies upon a magical beginning....And that's all of them.

Pooooff!....And there was a god.

No what?

"No",  with no accompanying explanation, is straight out of the Dr Franklin text book.

I love this stuff....And it might or might not be nonsense....And great if you're being paid regardless.

Ricci flatness and The calabi-Yau manifold....It's all in the name.

Wouldn't be as plausible if it was called the Smith idea.

Instinct and the endocrine system are extremely cynical.

So what is LOVE really all about?

Interesting how you incorrectly associate atheism with the Big Bang.

I personally, am sceptical of all creation hypotheses.....Scepticism tends to be the result of a lack of real proof.

When I was a child, the ethereal light skinned humanoid version  was the image portrayed in bibles and bible literature..... The time when people attempted to brainwash me with tall tales.

Maybe there is a newer P.C. Semitic version available now. Nonetheless a god created in mans own image.

And Vishnu was an example of an alternative god.....Humanoid, but with modifications.

As ever, I will always accept the idea of a GOD principle....Simultaneously, nothing and everything to do with the above.

Yep I was agreeing that you think that some P.C. is bad.

But you will undeniably also think that some P.C. is good.

Typically you will tend only to complain about the things that do not suit your way of thinking.

You're right though.

Death is inevitable.

And 183,000 is an emotional number.

Poetry.

I'm with Oromagi.