zedvictor4

Yep sure, I'm no different.

I take on board data and formulate ideas and responses.

Though, popular culture is  variable and all the available, diverse and opposing information is out there. I just don't see logic in popular theism/deism hypotheses.

Science is science (see basic definition). The knowledge derived from scientific scrutiny offers increasing levels of logical explanation....Nonetheless the inconceivable beginning remains so and we are left to speculate on the unknown fundamental principle.....Something from nothing....I am happy to refer to it as a GOD principle,  though  illogical tall tales just don't cut the mustard for me.

I would add, that like you my interest in such matters has come latterly. My formative conditioning was based in a Christian influenced society and education system, though my home life was very non-religious with a devoutly atheist Father and an indifferent Mother.....Therefore I think that it's fair to conclude, that how I think today is definitely reflective of my upbringing/conditioning.

Nope, it's feasible but unlikely.

In what image was a human like god created?.....And more importantly, how and from what? 

And what did said god create us from?....Are we therefore expected not just to accept an uncreated god, but also the uncreated raw materials of the universe? 

Basically, where did all the necessary stuff come from?.....it's a question that can easily be pushed to one side, but a question that will not go away, and a question that cannot be resolved.

Thanks for asking, but I am also not a gamer and probably not available at the necessary times.

Hmmmmm.

I feel that your syntax needs brushing up a tad, and that's a certain fact.

I was running with an idea that was genuinely interesting........ I try my best to engage. 

If they are legitimately trained, then presumably they are legitimate?

So what's the problem?

Perhaps you have a conditioned fear of others that are somewhat dissimilar to you.

The mass is you or I.

You would seem to be suggesting that we are an amalgamation of "twilight organisms". Which is a fascinating concept. So based on that suggestion we can further suggest that the function and processes of the mass are wholly reliant on the function and processes of "viri".

Relative to my previous questions though, how or what gives these twilight structures a potential other than just chemical structure?

If we regard the evolution of everything in terms of increasing scale of structure, could we not therefore suggest that "life" is perhaps a fundamental potential/component that reacts with specific chemical structures.....The real GOD particle perhaps.

1. In a corner is in a corner.    A squirrel will always try to run and evade if threatened.

2. Protect if possible, though when the odds are stacked against run and try again.

3. See rule 2.

The survival of the adult and it's breeding potential is paramount...Abandon and try again is often the only option.

Concept over instinct is an evolved human tendency. 

Interesting stuff.

So is the life of the mass, only function and process relative to the function and processes of "twilight organisms"?

Is the mass fundamentally an amalgamation of such organisms and do said organisms have potential that exceeds the potential of the mass?

Therefore is the human understanding of life based only in consciousness rather than in physical processes?

It's nothing to do with religion per se.....It's the nature of the State in which religion is practised.

In an authoritarian theocracy you would have been stoned to death for not being "Jewish" or "Christian".

Though who would know if you didn't say so?....

It's the dumb ass nature of religion.

And if one didn't expend energy in some form on the "sabbath" then one would be dead anyway.

And I think also that the Jewish sabbath is Friday pm until Saturday pm...Though correct me if I am wrong.

I would disagree.

Instinctively:

1. Fight or flight.

2. Survival at all cost.

3. Property is irrelevant.

What you promote as instinct I would regard as social expectation and materialism.

I would suggest that real instinct is anarchy, and "moral instinct" is the expectation of "THE COMMUNITY"....It's perhaps a case of the evolution of matter over mind.

OK.

So what is the difference between life and death?....Simply in terms of what is present one second and gone in the next.

I like this reference, but without the viri......But what renders such twilight organisms the power of life or life giving power.

if you dissected  every molecule of the mass and thereby understood every living process, would you be able to tell me what actually gives the mass life?

Yep I think that this clearly reflects the BLM mantra.

I hold that BLM is nothing more than contradictory racism.

By protesting against difference, you inadvertently or deliberately promote difference....And by violently protesting you just provoke animosity.

If you want to get ahead  in society then WORK at it and earn respect, and this applies to everyone irrespective of skin tone.

Very true.

The very nature of the mass (subconscious) and the programming of the mind makes the whole an integrated part of a system.

Half true is half untrue......Though you are correct, natural hierarchy will always eventually prevail.....So  better to have a fairly reasonable social system that offers opportunity, rather than an absolute them and us system, where you do as you are told.

And comedians are in it for the money just like everyone else.

Because they paid attention at school.

Though "sophisticated sentences" is something of a contradiction.

What is life?

Black Lives Matter is an inaccurate slogan that promotes racism simply by differentiating Black Lives.

Racism is not exclusive.

All Lives Matter would have been less discriminatory......Though the philosophical jury will always be out on this issue.

Well, atrocity is a collective decision...A social or "state" judgement that takes precedence over the rights of the individual..... Which was the point I was making.

"The state has absolutely no reason".......I would suggest that state/ society always has good reason to consider the implications of issues that may effect it.

I was merely suggesting that out of a population of 7.6 billion humans, the percentage of mature individuals that are physiologically  incapable of "normal" reproduction (male sperm producing and female egg producing) is extremely low....Other than this, I agree that how  people choose to alternatively achieve sexual gratification should be a matter for mature consenting adults to decide..... Though the very nature of society and state, will always incur moral judgement.... For example the "State" judges that paedophilia is immoral.....Solely based upon the rights of the individual, would you say that this is an unreasonable moral judgement?

Well, there are certainly a plethora of arguments and variations of the GOD principle.

Though I was referring directly to the biblical god and it's various derivations, nonetheless the necessity for non-causation applies to all models, as nothing,  and more so something from nothing is seemingly inconceivable.... I was therefore simply extrapolating from the basic premise of non-causation, the unnecessity of a tangible, myth based god. Because if one thing can exist without cause then everything can exist without cause.

That is not to say that  material development and the evolution of things thereof should not be referred to as a GOD principle. It is the  mythological god hypotheses that accompany human development that I take issue with..... Gods created in our own image....Naive solutions to an inconceivable beginning.

I will read up on him.

Not sure of your point.

A natural age related decline in fertility and libido is what it is, and is not particularly relative to socio-conceptual  diversifications of sexuality.

People living for more than 50 years is something of a recent evolutionary achievement anyway, and perhaps a separate issue.

Are you suggesting that perception is fallible?.....For example; what we see is not necessarily what we are looking at.

There is no known starting point.

You fantasise and create a fantastic starting point

And nature is nature and super nature is fantasy.

And what creates the creator?....It's the unavoidable question that theists always avoid....Or should I say ignore.

Simply saying that the creator does not need to be created is admitting ignorance.

Nonetheless, If something does not require creation then there is no need for a creator anyway.  Thereby, an infinite god negates itself.

You only need to quietly disagree at the ballot box to make a difference......Though I cannot vouch for the integrity of the U.S. electoral system.

And the nature of ordered society and government means that it is never truly free.

Though the best way to free yourself from such things is to ignore them.

Well, my above statement suggests that incapability is an uncommon condition or physiological aberration. 

Otherwise, instinctive programming renders all others interested and willing.....Though alternative modus operandi are now widely accepted as a social norm.  Outcomes in these instances, currently do not produce offspring......Laboratory farming should be regarded as a separate issue.

I would suggest that inalienable rights in terms of instinctive programming are unstrippable, whereas conceived and established behaviour is always subject to the vagaries of society.

You would only need to prove it once.

And I would argue that the mind can only determine the mind....And can only assume what it cannot directly perceive. 

And over egging the narrative custard is simply that....And in fairness that is what you are good at.....Nonetheless it does not prove the unprovable.

So where's this god bloke then?

Multi accounting is an internal affair.

And "sexual advances" in a remote context, is itself a laughable concept.

The distinction between actual sexual intentions and goading based upon innuendo is pretty distinct.

I agree.

Socialism would work, but the logistics of re-educating an entire nation do negate socialism's chances somewhat....Though I think that getting everyone to agree in the first place would be even harder.....As people enjoy disagreeing.

And emigrants leave.....And communist utopias always fail for the above reasons.

In the end it boils down to a choice between autocracy and democracy....So be grateful that you can openly disagree with the other side.

Hardly fantasy when compared with biblical tales.

Though I do not deny the validity of any hypothesis that attempts to resolve the unresolvable.

But "him".....A misogynist god created in your own image...as ever.

And what do I "replace him with".

I replace him with with a vague hypothesis, a tenuous possibility of a GOD principle that affords everything purpose.....No more, no less.....No tablets of stone and unsubstantiated meetings up mountains or floods and impossibly big boats  or wise men out of the east and blokes nailed to crosses and resurrection.

Ha!....And you have the arrogance to say that I fantasise. 

So wherein lies my fantasy?

The left isn't tolerant of the right and the right isn't tolerant of the left.....I would suggest that most people are tolerant, or you would have had another civil war by now.

I think that it's just a case of people enjoy opposing something......I'm this and you're that.....It's what we learn in the playground and it stays with us the rest of our lives.

After all, adults are no more than big kids.

It achieved something.

Let's hypothesise and ask, if Mr Ethan were to sue debateart and it's moderators  for defamation of character. (British Law, not sure of the U.S. equivalent) Claiming that they had been wrongfully been accused of sexual harassment.....How would the above casual regard to site management help in your defence?

You think others have bad ideas and others think that you have bad ideas....Tolerance of this system is what gives you you're freedom to openly comment and criticise.

As you admit....You wouldn't appreciate the alternative.

Who or what do you think validates your ideas?

A fair election will decide........Though to an outsider,  the U.S. electoral system seems far from straightforward.

There is a physiological norm, whereby under normal function A inseminates B and perpetuates the species. Physiological aberrations that do not fit this required normality are specific but also collectively more commonplace and thereby become a separate physiological norm.

"War" is concept and product of the mind... Whether or not we can separate mind and matter is less clear.

So are "we" talking United States of America or Ununited States of America.  

Do you see benefit in a One Party authoritarian system, similar to Russia or China?

So what constitutes a minor in these circumstances?

And how do you know the actual age of debateart contributors?

I will take you're word for it.

With the price of a presidency being so high, it really does limit the quality and integrity of the potential purchasers.

And that the whole presidential circus and corrupt election system is allowed to continue, does say so much about  American culture and human nature in general.

@RationalMadman

So ask me a direct question

Yes I get that impression.....I ought to go take a look.

@Ratman

So he bought a presidency and got his name in the history books.

Ebuc is Ebuc.....I'm not sure if they are even capable of communicating at our base level.

I would definitely decline a face to face meeting though.....I  prefer to to keep the online enigma, online.................Am I being egotistical?

It is true and there is no real proof.....And you also, shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.

I would not wish to deny you or any other denomination of theist the right to believe in fantastical hypotheses....I'm simply not prepared to run with them myself.

Though, based upon your level of evidence requirements, I would expect you to accept that every other religious concept is also absolutely correct.....Is this not a reasonable expectation?

@RationalMadman

So the soul is an entity.....How can you actually prove this, and thus elevate your opinion from say so to known fact.

I would suggest that you generate your soul in the same way that you generate your opinions.

There's name calling and goading, and there's sexual harassment.....Two completely different issues.....I would suggest that it is inadvisable to accuse someone of sexual harassment without proper cause.

Stephen knows that his posts will goad Mr Ethan, and we have come to expect an acerbic response from Mr Ethan.

And the "minors" issue I raised was somewhat overlooked......What is the debateart position with regard to this?...And what are the statutory requirements with regard to minors, when providing an online service that allows direct contact between minors and unrelated adults? 

Why would that be though?

People usually get annoyed for reasons, rather than for fun. 

Politics...It's something to disagree about for 4 years and then it's circus time.....Everyone loves a clown.....We've got one and you've got one.....And then everything's back to normal.

Let's hope that big top hasn't got dodgy rigging.