zedvictor4

When you refer to " idealistic and notional ideas", are you perhaps referring to something like religion?

And how can we be certain that what happens within our heads, corresponds 100% with an external reality?

I presented a fair comparison of two reference texts.

Acceptance of either data source is largely based upon trust.

It is therefore fair to suggest that one should not "depend" upon any unverified data source.

A system is a system and can be understood.

My point is that individual States have their own systems headed by a Senator.

Whereas the President is the head of state for the total "immaterial" population, representing a single system.

It would therefore be more logical if individual States were regarded as "immaterial" when electing the National head of state.

One person one vote....A President elected by a majority of the people of the U.S.A....No contrived Electoral College vote necessary.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Why do you regard  the people of the U.S.A. as immaterial?

Lucifer is one variant of the mythological baddy.

Horns, tridents and a fiery appearance are popular depictions.

Though I think that I am correct in saying that Lucifer is an Old English word derived from the Latin Lux, meaning light + fer, meaning bearing. referring particularly to the morning star,  which is in fact the Planet Venus.

Somewhat plagiarised by latter day Religious types such as Christians perhaps.

Which in a way, goes to show how contrived religious texts actually are.

Therein lies the crux of most issues.....assumed difference.

If one is compelled to assume a difference, one will grow up believing in an assumed difference.

Culture is conditioned non-sense.

Ask Mr Coronavirus.

Top of the morning to ya.

The Irish have always been pretty good at bullying themselves.

Don't be fooled by American Irish propaganda.

So:

How many individuals make up the total  population of the U.S.A?

And how many individuals make up the Electoral College?

Now there's a simple statistic and a very unbalanced one at that.

Why can you not be in the Democratic Party and vote for Trump?

It's a bit like saying I walk therefore I cannot ride a bicycle.

Nonetheless, the President represents all and individual states have there own representatives.

And a State vote only represents a majority within a State.

The Electoral College system is so overtly non-representative and corrupt, that if it were the basis of Presidential selection in a less significant Middle

Eastern Country, the U.S.A. would already have bombed the fuck out of it.

If we allow it to, then it probably will.

Of course the real issue will be, where the A.I. gets it's information from.

For example. A.I. could easily choose to reject Christianity and adopt Sharia Law as it's guiding principles, or vice versa depending upon who programmes what and where.

Digital terrorism or digital tolerence?

Well yes I cannot argue with that.

In so much as inputting data and formulating a seemingly simultaneous response is thinking.

Though I was using the term "think about it" to hopefully induce a lengthier period of consideration.

One can only hope.

I will check it out and report back.

Just say whatever.

They're not going to change you and you're not going to change them.

I must admit, that watching church on T.V. can be entertaining.

The more flamboyant the better.

Would you describe yourself as a zealot?

Well.

That statement's conciseness unfortunately makes it totally incorrect.

Think about it.

Plague is here an apparently pestilence is on the way

And we've just had the floods here in the U.K.

Perhaps they've all begun to realise that it's actually a human thing rather than the wrath of god.

What was the serpent?

The Penis of course.

And the ripe fruit is an obvious analogy too.

It was an analysis of basic instinct in the context of a naïve, mythologically based, creation hypothesis.

But don't you realise that a god doesn't say anything in a book.

People write things in books, that other people then repeat.

And the very fact that I am communicating on this site should indicate that I very much enjoy discussing such issues.

"I agree that there is no real or factual evidence for the Christian god ever existing".... I appreciate your honesty.

Do you appreciate my take on "Thou Shalt Not Kill"...The inconsequence of humanity in the eyes (figuratively speaking) of a universal god.

Luciferianism is just another spin on the same old deistic mythology.

So what's new.

Water and cleansing are obvious targets for ritualism and therefore have probably been regarded as such, for as long as it as been possible to regard them as such.

Atheistic and theistic con artists alike.

So your impression of Wikipedia was therefore, also irrelevant.

Fair enough.

Though it was you who initially presented a data sequence for analysis, which allowed for me to make an inevitable comparison.

So why do you criticize me for your own error of judgement?

I just think that it is not necessary to personify a god principle in this way.

Attributing human characteristics to something that is probably non-human.

Meanness is a human character trait, which is something that I cannot apply to what I conceive to be a god principle.

So how do you know what a god preaches?

When have you ever witnessed a god preaching?

Well stated.

Hopefully faith in masks, gloves and the sun will see us through.

Though immunisation is probably the better long term solution.

It's foolish to think that borders mean security and separation.

I would suggest that the term "nature" applies to everything....As such the term  "super nature" is perhaps inevitable but probably unnecessary.

In an oscillating sequence of universes, god would be a necessary creation that would enable the re-initiation of the sequence.

Create a god to create a new universe, to create a new god to create a new universe etc. 

God would be the ultimate purpose of material evolution.....A flux of knowledge, data and energy.

And so to answer Stephen's question...The superfluous machinations (killings) of an organic enabler (humankind) would be irrelevant and inconsequential.

So what about the serious suggestion that a god would not view killing in the same way that we view killing.

We make an assumption and therefore expect a god to comply with our assumption.

Wouldn't it be a tad arrogant to expect this of a god?

So do you understand the problem I have with your version of things?.....Acceptance without proof...Belief.

It's not that I am saying that your version is incorrect....It's just,  as I see it, your version is but one hypothesis.

Accepting one option and ignoring other possibilities is undoubtedly an easy fix.

So do you accept that other people see things differently?

So what do you mean when you say "knowledge of reality".

Why not work on the idea that a god was and a god perhaps will be again, but for now we are on our own.

Well stated.

Well.

Eternal universe is the dilemma.

No beginning is the problem...Once the components are in place there is then the opportunity for eternality....Never ending.

In this respect I subscribe to an oscillating universe hypothesis, and consequently can accept the notion of a god principle, which though is far more about the functionality, sequence and re-initiation of a process rather than anything to do with spirituality.

Spiritualising the god principle is probably an inevitable and also perhaps necessary phase of organic development though.  Especially If we regard the history of religion and the role it has played in the development of knowledge and understanding. In so much as, religious institutions provided focus and opportunity for learning, science and technological development.

No beginning though.

What is your take on the beginning?

It's also an easy fix to ignore the issue.

And energy is a property of matter rather than matter being a property of energy.

As I said, backward thinking.

Probably from a comfortable isolationists perspective.

One World and nowhere else to go.

Coronavirus certainly had no respect for borders.

Not sure what you meant re circuses and zoos.

Nonetheless when you consider the necessary logistics of the ark thing, it would have needed to have been one hell of a boat.

As for the hypothesis problem:

The underlying dilemma with all creation hypotheses is the something from nothing principle.

I personally cannot accept the idea that the something exists eternally.

Ok, so it was perhaps a bit tongue in cheek. 

Nonetheless the analogy isn't so ridiculous if you think about it.

Resisting temptation and the sins of the flesh and all that.

The irony of this is the information that the bible offers is unreliable.

I agree that research should extend beyond a mere archaic mythology.

The comparison was there to make.

No.

I think that what is being referred to is a time of ignorance.

Figuratively speaking......The one eyed serpent and the juicy peach.

Not at all.

Floods are common place.

Boats are boats. 

And mythical exaggerations are what they are.

And the god things is a valid hypothesis, but falls down because of the existence of a god....The theist hypothesis like all other hypotheses never quite start at the beginning.

Looking at it globally.

I would expect that there are millions of people that would be more than content with what you might consider to mediocre.

We are all citizens of the World.

No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng.

So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.

I would suggest that we should all appreciate the hypothetical nature of such discussions.

Ok.

Independence is backward thinking.

Such is the human condition hey.

Yes. 

But that is based upon your assumption, that a god is real rather than a concept. It also implies that a universal god is only really concerned with human existence.

My assumptions are based upon a hypothetical, universal god.

Taking into consideration a god's universal responsibilities, rather than what would be just an inconsequential organic life form, languishing upon an inconsequential speck of rock, somewhere within the vastness of space.

Why would a god, the precursor of mankind, be a variety?

I think that Hawaii should be independent.

And Alaska.

And Texas.

And Rhode Island

And......

On the one hand people strive for equality and on the other hand they like to think that they are different.

What we need is a god to pop down and put people straight on a few things.

Ain't going to happen though is it?