zedvictor4

I switch my laptop on and it works just fine....Nothing else required.

A niche provider is just a niche provider just trying to sell you niche provision.

And if you don't understand the word niche, use your browser and check out the definition and you will probably get exactly the same result as I would.

Well, I suppose that's a reasonably logical philosophy, though somewhat nihilistic.

What the hell would a consequence free life be?.......Sort of death really.

And I would suggest that all States are both Blue and Red, but to varying degrees.

Or is it a Red consequence that individual lives are of no consequence?.....If so, why the big abortion thing?

The internet is  what the name implies and  also is what it has become.... And an assumption that a niche provider can offer a better service is typical of the human desire to be  special or be seen to be special.

Mines an "Artisan Beer" please.

Apologies.

I was feeling a bit obscure.

Though the question is presented in such a way .

I guess your caught between a rock and a hard place then....Having to decide which one is the least perverse, corrupt and stupid.

Why, out of a population of 327million people does the U.S. struggle to find a decent Presidential candidate. Perhaps there just isn't such a thing, given what it takes to become a presidential candidate, that is to say, rather a lot of money...Some might say dodgy money, though I wouldn't begin to presume.

And why do the American people keep voting for them.....I think that it's what's referred to as outsheeping the sheep.....Baaaah.....Same here in the U.K....Same the world over.

People is as people do.

Not true.

Why would the spread of Christianity  from the "Holy Land" only head northwards. The Coptic Christians of Egypt and North Africa were well established by the 2nd century.

As I stated, Europe is simply a delineated area of a map.  Christianity and  associated similar religions spread variously with people, primarily from another region otherwise delineated as the Arabian Peninsula of Asia.  At the same time other well established religious philosophies dominated elsewhere. Hence 66% Non-Christian.

Perhaps Europeans just made better sailors.

Hmmmm.

I think that you didn't quite understand the message.

It's important to remember that omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are  only assumed qualities of an assumed god.

Nonetheless....If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of?

Surely it can only be a simulation of a universe.....Therefore you might just as well have the non-simulated version....Which would save all the faff of creating one  universe and then simulating another....

Though, if you've got an infinite amount of time on your hands, then what do you do?....

Variety is the spice of eternal existence as gods probably say.

An island is an island and therefore self contained.

What the discussion is actually about. is assumed human difference relative to a global location.

It would be better if people considered human isolation relative to universal location.

But if you don't teach your kids common sense, they will more than likely grow up believing in non-sense.

If you want a concrete solution, then add four parts aggregate to two parts sand and one  part cement and then combine thoroughly with water.

N.B. Always wear safety equipment when mixing concrete...It is especially important, not to inhale cement dust.

This is my concrete philosophy.

Does this yield for you?

Communism, atheism and theism are all concepts that define the same thing...The human ability to to manipulate and utilise data inputs...

The variability of output is only to be expected, especially, when one considers the factors that have influenced human social development.

Utopia is yet another, imaginary concept.

Sleep, wake, eat, work (a metaphor for hunter gathering), eat, procreate, sleep, survive for as long as possible and eventually die......Communism, atheism, theism, utopia is all stuff we consider when we have nothing else that requires consideration.....Though that is not to undermine what may or may not be the purpose of an evolutionary process and the development of human society therein. 

Though without theism there would be no atheism and vice versa....but there are.

Is ringing your bells a metaphor for masturbation?... Ergo rapture is ejaculation.

Same old s**t then.

Based on your definition of insanity, then just about everyone on dart is insane.

Nope...bang on topic.

Though more than one syllable.... so perhaps beyond comprehension.

Donald and Boris just don't have the same chemistry as George and Tony did.

Though Donald blows hot and cold with his international bromances....It looked like he and Emmanuel were really getting it on at one time....

He even had  brief flings with Kim and Xi....But to be honest they were never going to last, were they?

Well....People spread across the world and Europe became Europe when a decision was reached to refer to a particular area of the Earth's surface as Europe and though the boundaries of Europe may have varied slightly over time, I would suggest that it never extended across the entire planet.... Certain popular religious mythologies emanated from a region outside of Europe and were variously adopted and adapted as the basis of or as a part of  social systems and social governance.  The successful spread of what became European people and their adopted religions and social culture is a great deal more to do with the ingenuity of the people than it is to do with their adopted religions...The spread of European culture and adopted religions was successful, relative to the success of Europeans. Just as the success of other similar cultures and religions was relative to the success of other  people who had adopted  modified versions of the same basic tenet. Islam for instance. 

So, the spread, popularity and therefore assumed success of any culture and it's adopted religion is still no more than what it has become, and whilst  33% of the Earths population has reputedly adopted Christianity as a basic social tenet, Christianity has nonetheless not successfully spread to the other 66%....Though how such statistics are reached is open to question, I would suggest that 33%/66% would not necessarily be reflected in a popular census.

And I would reiterate the point that the future success of any religion will be based upon birth rate rather than the religion itself.

And of course, none of the above can actually validate the original mythological basis of any popular or less popular religious creation hypothesis.

George Dudya's buddy was a guy called Tony Blair....Remember him?

I would suggest that debt is relative more so to the distribution of wealth rather than the creation of wealth.

Though aside from that... When I see debates such as this, I always think that it begs the question....Are the United States of America, really United.

It's the same here in the U.K......People tend to think it's better to be a part of something smaller.....Until such times, when they realise it's safer to be a part of something bigger, of course.

Will you fix it by voting for a numpty that thinks suggesting to a World audience that the consumption of household disinfectant might be a solution to the coronavirus problem, is what it takes to be a President. 

Yep you probably will.

Though on reflection and in comparison to a lot of his forebears. he hasn't made any notable World affecting cock-up decisions.

i suppose that we should  be grateful for Melania and also that he doesn't have a sister like Kim Yo-jong.

As they say....Behind every good man.

I'm grateful that you didn't compare me to George Dubya's shoulder to shoulder buddy.......Or should I say lickarse.

I do feel that our participation in the 2nd Iraq conflict was a tad dictated.

A constitutional monarchy may or may not be a benevolent dictatorship....In fact all governmental systems require a level of imposed authority, otherwise they would fail to be governmental. 

Usually we do not associate dictatorship with benevolence....I would suggest that your use of terminology is atypical

Personal gain is more likely to be fettered by the person rather than the system.

O.K....I'll run with Constitutional Monarchy......But with a reasonably liberal  and democratic administration.

How's that for British diplomacy?

If you mean that the purpose of everything including life is part of greater and ongoing universal purpose then I  fully accept that as a valid hypothesis....It's what I would refer to as material evolution rather than change....Obviously the organic/living species part of the sequence is the most important bit as far as we are concerned.

What the F does that mean?

You've exceeded your one syllable rule and look where it's got you.

Well...I would have to agree that DebateArt is a cut above other sites that I have participated in.

And as feel I liberally democracised rather than dictatacised , then I see no reason to go anywhere else.

Do you feel autocracised in any way?

N.B.  I made up democracised , autocracised and dictatacised, but they seem to work O.K.....It always worked for George Dubya.

Ah.....But this supposedly isn't a moral argument.

Debate websites is a competitive market so dictatorship would probably result in a battle between a few hardliners and everyone else just leaving to find a more appropriate alternative.... You can only dictate if you have a captive audience.

I would describe DebateArt  as more of a liberal democracy.

I've thought hard.

So what do you mean by non-living entity?

And the thread was really concentrating on human purpose as opposed to maggot or bacterial purpose or  the purpose  "non-living entities".

And of course the big question as ever is, does human existence actually have any greater universal purpose at all?....Which in the end will probably all boil down to some sort of religious or pseudo-religious argument.

You've obviously got too much free time on your hands.

Perhaps you need to get out and meet people.

"Religious performance" is relative to sexual performance, that is to say birth rate, and currently Christianity is being out performed.

If you don't produce the kids then you cannot produce the Christians.

Well, I already read your posts and continued the thread with counter posts, which is the nature of the exercise, as I see it.....Though not everyone seems to regard debate and discussion in quite the same way.

Am I a belligerent azzhole, simply because I don't necessarily agree with everything that you suggest.

It was not me that brought primates and Eskimo's into the philosophical equation.  So the  philosophical issue (justifying the consumption of meat) as i see it, is essentially a personal and moral argument, very loosely dressed up as  an interest in human health and dietary issues.

So let me give you a simple response to your question:

When a person does not feel morally obligated to not kill and consume animal flesh, then meat as part of a balanced and varied diet is no more or less healthy or unhealthy than a wholly vegetarian/vegan diet. 

Nonetheless there are other factors which impact upon health and the suitability of diet, which should be taken into consideration.

What is African D.N.A.?.....Do you mean human D.N.A.?

Africa is only defined by an imaginary line on a map.

Right wing nut jobs, left wing nut lobs, moderate nut jobs....All nut jobs is nut jobs.....That's the problem.

I hope that you're not a discriminatory nutjobist 

I would also suggest two options....Chance or purpose.

Chance and purpose are both reliant upon the same basic principle....Something from nothing....Therefore both are just as likely or unlikely.

Theists pluck a god out of thin air without proper explanation and then proceed to surround it with a fantasy tale based upon the lives of a particular group of people that may or may not have existed at a certain time in a certain place, all relatively recently in terms of  human history ....This is the problem with theism....An assumed purpose based upon one of many god principles, embellished with meaningless ritual and mythology, but with no real evidence to support it.

The term god principle merely utilises the commonly used and widely known word "god"  as a suggestion of purpose, but does not assuredly implicate an imaginary uncreated  entity as the reason for a purpose.

Nonetheless all hypotheses are on the table, but firstly any hypothesis that seeks to be a complete hypothesis must therefore overcome the something from nothing conundrum.....And an imaginary uncreated entity that for some other unexplained reason  just doesn't need to be created, quite frankly isn't good enough.

Furthermore any hypothesis that is also based upon the theist principle of unnecessary creation is also valid. Therefore chance is just as likely as purpose, if not more so and if you think about it logically the theist principle of unnecessary creation is actually  more suggestive of chance than it is of purpose.

And by chance  a god just appeared out of nothing and proceeded to create everything......Reminds me of the children's story "Mr Benn" where things appeared "as if by magic"....Maybe that's because they are both imaginary fantasy tales.

Nope.....Theists figured out a hypothesis which cannot be unequivocally substantiated....Atheists also hypothesise, (god principle included) but without the necessity of religion.... The difference is that theists will not admit that their hypothesis cannot be unequivocally substantiated, whereas the atheist tends to remain sceptical about all hypotheses, including their own....Prove to the atheist that your hypothesis is in fact wholly correct and the atheist will be happy to agree.

Well "design" has connotations which lead to other issues.

The fact is, that we are capable of digesting a wide variety of foodstuffs including meat and this is what we have done for millennia. So we have therefore developed as omnivores and not become extinct because of it.

I would suggest that the key to health and vitality is a varied and balanced diet, and this is now easily achievable  without consuming meat or animal derivatives. But this is a relatively modern possibility. Not so long ago meat was a vital component of a balanced diet. The wide range of foodstuffs and supplements that are now constantly at our fingertips is only a very recent social development.

As I previously stated, it's easy to espouse a newly constructed morality from a position of comfort.... Come the apocalypse and you will be eating your neighbour if the supermarket shelves are empty and your neighbour  is all that is available.

How humans classify chimpanzees is irrelevant, classifying is simply an exercise that placates the human need to classify things. The fact is that chimpanzees kill and consume animal flesh....So in fact chimpanzees should rightly be classified as omnivores, or perhaps aggressive omnivores.

Maybe one day we will teach chimpanzees a bit of morality. Because currently they don't seem to appreciate the concept.

And Eskimos live where they do, just as you do.... Though maybe you think that a bit of forced relocation and moral brainwashing is the moral solution to that irksome issue.

More interestingly.....Is the U.S.A. a Nation?...Or just a collection of States...More of a Sub-Continent perhaps.

If dark skinned people are referred to as African Americans does that mean light skinned people are European Americans etc. etc.

Of course, all groups  tend to want to divide themselves into ever smaller and smaller sub-groups.  

Eventually it's just you and I.

Exactly.....You said nothing about bias, though Mr Spode did.

Just as it sounds like that to you.

Who and what are you quoting, you've lost me there.

Atheists understand the truth of day to day reality and are dismissive or sceptical about the likelihood of fantasy worlds contained within mythological and supernatural hypotheses. So no truth claims necessary as far as the atheist is concerned....The onus rests wholly upon theists to prove their truth claims, with fact rather than with fiction.

Me personally, would be just as happy with either an existent god or no god. It wouldn't make much difference if any at all, to day to day reality. Other than we would have to find something else to disagree about. 

Of what real use are aesthetic benefits?....

Did I need an aesthetic benefit to be able to ask you these questions.?

Are you attempting to establish a hierarchy, primarily based upon financial value rather than upon cognitive acuity?...

Not that green coins have a lot of value.

And theism is not biased?

And there is no sound argument for theism either....Both arguments are rendered equally unsound by the nature of the argument...Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence....As the atheist hasn't developed a mythological and supernatural hypothesis that requires substantiation....Hence a bit of scepticism is justifiably pertinent.

Sounds like your describing a theist there Mr Ethan.

Eskimo culture evolved around what was available, and that didn't include a lot of fruit and nuts, and health and life expectancy were what they were.  Eskimo's were driven by the necessity of survival and not by a constructed morality.

You live  in a comfortable environment where you can afford to construct moral concepts, but not everyone chooses to adopt your personally assumed morality.

And Chimpanzees love a bit of Red Colobus Monkey, brains first....No morality available.

And if omnivores are meatheads, does that make vegans nutcases?

And a religious Joe and the fatted calf....

Re.  #26.

A tad subjective and also a tad arrogant, to say the least.

Given the historical nature of the bible and it's compilation, I would therefore suggest that interpretation and the acceptance thereof, is the more pertinent quality of the theist, rather than grammatical and cognitive acuity.

Discernment is the atheists best quality....The ability to see the wood for the trees or sort the grain from the chaff, as it were.

Maybe I am a normal person that tends to  impersonate atheists.

If you're ever in the U.K. you more than welcome to call in for a beer and a chat....But let's just keep religion off the agenda.

Cycling and family are my two main religions...But not necessarily in that order.

I usually, only put my atheist hat on between 6.30am and 8.30 am U.K time.

Maybe all the above comments just state the obvious.

A.I. in essence, is no more or less a programmed database than homo sapiens is. Albeit (currently) non-organic as opposed to organic.

Sapience (though a somewhat variable definitive) in essence describes advanced intelligence, and A.I. will certainly continue to advance.  I would suggest that this is an evolutionary certainty/necessity.

Though I always think that the human term "artificial intelligence" is something of an arrogant contradiction...As intelligence is intelligence irrespective of the structural qualities of the computing device.