Total posts: 13,876
-->
@Swagnarok
Because the believer...……..upon the hearing of the word.
So what do you think that all that ritual bible-speak actually means?.....Or does it just roll of the tongue with little thought?
I would suggest that your juxtaposition of bible speak and human social reality clearly emphasises the negativity of theocracy.
Human social government, the real manifestation of justice, imposes law, irrespective of a religious hypothesis.
And how can 2000 year old bible-speak fully relate to modern law?
As I previously stated....Theocracy is tyranny.
Created:
-->
@User_2006
I see Dr Frank as a cynical yes man.
Nonetheless, I agree with him in this instance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You said "I see"
So what do you see?...A holy, perfect man could describe a million different images...So what is your perfect image of a man?
Ok, all things to all men..... Nonetheless, a perfect man is an arbitrary decision
And why would a hippy be my nemesis?
And me and who?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well as I stated.
The Christian biblical god is hypothetical irrespective of belief.
Therefore any standard that is applied is also hypothetical.
All that we do is design and set human standards.
So my personal conclusion is that a universal god would not be overly concerned about the problems of one evolved organism here on Earth....Such a small problem in the context of a seemingly infinite universe.
It's a bit like us worrying about swatting flies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Have you created a god in your own image then?
Or is it the stereotypical image of a hippyish looking Caucasian bloke, as seen in bible illustrations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Stephen
It's somewhat naïve to assume that an actual god would be a particular one that you prefer to refer to.
As it is not proven that there is an actual god
Or if it was proven.... which particular one it was
Or perhaps it would be a completely different one altogether.
It is therefore impossible to say what regard an actual god would have in respect of killing.
All that we are certain of is that there are a variety of ways and means that bring about the demise of the organic mass (Human)
My suggestion is that a god would probably look at the state of the world and probably not give a toss, especially when you consider expected birth and death rates globally. (A god would be global not regional)
As far as we are currently able to know, murder is a human thing that only bothers humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Point proven.
Theists will not be honest.
Created:
-->
@Alec
So what is bible law and who gets to make it up and who gets to impose it?
I think that what you propose is simply good old tyranny dressed up as religion.
I sure that there are one or two Dart members who would be keen to wield the stick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Are you attempting to use quantum mechanics as an explanation for a god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think that you perhaps have a stylised picture of a Muslim in your head, maybe derived from media images rather than from personal experience.
A bit like an Iranian Muslim assuming that all Christians are White Caucasian.
Interestingly though, the ethnic mix and physical characteristics of the Iranian people is quite diverse. Which isn't surprising if you study Persian/Iranian history within the context of the wider Middle Eastern region.
Islam is a religion and a Muslim is an adherent to Islam and anyone of any race, skin tone or ethnicity can be or become a Muslim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Hmmmm….Conveniently inconsequential.
It's interesting how a text so full of fact, is simultaneously so short of facts.
Sort of pseudo-hypothetical mythology as it were.
And exodus didn't say anything...It was the compilers of the mythical hypothesis that came up with tales.
Some might say that the inconsequence of the text, as you put it, is somewhat devaluing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Which specific mountain did Moses ascend?
Or was it just a metaphorical mountain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well.
Tough one, because of the ambiguity of the English language, using the "ist" suffix directly doesn't work and in fact sort of means the opposite.
So Anti-Hindu is therefore probably the best available option.
So if you want to create a specific word, then feel free to do so.
Hmmmm…..How about Theoantism…..Therefore, Hinduantism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
One wasn't trying to prove a "bloody thing".
Anyway last post on this thread.
Regards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Bigotry is an inward thing relative to the bigot.
The process of thinking is such that bigotry or intolerance is self contained.
Similarly, a third party awareness of said bigotry is also self contained.
Bigotry manifesting as active opposition to something is probably best defined by using the "Anti" prefix, as suggested by Dr Franklin.
"Snti-chrostinay"...Well, I assume that they were trying to say Anti-Christian.
A Phobia is an irrational fear or aversion....Another internal data construct....But not necessarily one that results in intolerance.
One is extremely fearful of spiders....Arachnophobia....Though one is wholly tolerant of a spiders existence for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Well.
One was not disputing religion or faith or belief.... Confidence and acceptance of ones own thoughts (or data constructs as I refer to them), should be a given right.
All that one was asking, was for Theists to be honest and admit that they had no actual proof of their chosen god....(Real physical evidence that can be shown to a sceptic such as myself.)
As there has been no evidence to the contrary forthcoming. I am therefore confident that the truism as presented is in fact correct
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Bigotry is bigotry.
Separate words are unnecessary.
And Islamophobia is not bigotry....Two different words with two different meanings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Hello Ragnar.
Most religion threads have a tendency to evolve in a similar way.
Nonetheless, I will now leave this one alone altogether, confident in the knowledge that my point has been validated
Regards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Interesting how you ignored all the relevant statistical data in my previous post.
And the attempts at refutation that you did give were, it has to be said, complete nonsense.
Statistics as presented are not based on conversion, that's just a foolish claim.
Children born to Christians will be counted as Christians as those born to Muslims will be regarded as Muslim etc.
Your argument seems to have reduced to wild self affirming claims.
And a multitude remains a multitude.
And your bias cannot change reality.
And your argument is not a lie....it is just the same old unprovable assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
But still no proof.
You see, things can be as complex or as simple as you care to make them...….Neologisms this and epistemological bullshit that.
But the bottom line remains the same.
Have a nice day sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@weareacouple
I quite enjoy being naked myself.
But as yet this year in Central Wales there hasn't been an occasion when I would have wanted to have been out of doors with no clothes on.
And when there might be... covering up loosely is often the better alternative to worrying about sun protection.
It really should be just a case of personal choice relative to use of available time.... Nudism as an activity though is something that I could not find time for....I already have a well established modus operandi that I am content with.
And so in the interests of debate, what do you think about the other related issue that I identified....Confidence in ones own skin and yet the need for assumed enhancement.
No criticism just a moot point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrSpy
Is there any real point in trying to reconcile an abstract concept, other than the exercise of trying to reconcile an abstract concept that is unreconcilable.
And a god can do anything imaginable.
And the likelihood of a tree and it's function is as likely as the observer and it's function.
And we assume that the qualities of the universe are what they are, whether or not we are able to know what they are.
And so we assume that we do in fact understand the physics of sound and also the difference between the standing tree and the fallen tree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
@weareacouple
People clothed themselves because they were cold.
The taboo has become a collectivised and well established data construct.
It's so easy to blame everything on an assumed god.
Though using nature as a philosophy, one might therefore question the boob job....One is either confident and therefore content in their natural body.... or not so perhaps.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Athias and therefore athiasism has one intent.
That is the glorification and adoration of their own intellect.
I would suggest that they are really not that interested in a god.
So with no proof forthcoming, the truism remains intact.
Though the truism has never sought for proof of a god.
All that is required is for the theist to admit that there is currently no real proof of a god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If the world population continues to expand then the numbers of those regarded as "Christian" will inevitably expand also.
As will the numbers of those regarded as atheist.
In terms of percentage though, approximately 34% of the world population is considered to have a Christian label, which means that approximately 66% is labelled differently, including approximately 12% atheist/agnostic.... All of which can rightly be regarded as multitudes.
So non-Christian is the greater and Christian is the single greatest...It really all depends upon how one chooses to manipulate statistics and present information.
And of course a lot depends upon which sectors of World society breed and expand the most rapidly, because the transfer of labels is obviously relative to the expansion of multitudes.
Nonetheless, no amount of statistical manipulation will validate a religious text.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
I tend to use the word data because it is short to type.
Information and/or knowledge would perhaps be more meaningful.
I'm interested in the interaction between the mass, data and function, and in the context of moral relativism, how one consequently is able to pin down morality to be something other than one of 7.6 billion different ideas.
Are we one society of 7.6 billion or are we a society of 7.6 billion individuals.
Do we have a hive mind?....is uncritical conformity possible?
The notion of spirituality as a moral or governing influence separate to the internal acquisition and manipulation of data is undoubtedly interesting, especially as material evolution has come to a stage where we now realise that data can be formulated and utilised independently of the mass and/or collective.
Though I would still suggest that archaic interpretations of spirituality were inevitably naïve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The bible is an inanimate book that cannot convince anyone of anything.
It's people who influence people.
And one doesn't need statistical data to quantify a multitude.
And it's a fact, that most people who loosely regard themselves as Christian have never read the bible.
For most of them all that Christianity means, is dressing up and doing a bit of singing on a Sunday morning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"But principles never are"....can you validate this?
A moral principle is an idea.... That's the way a data construct works.
So, who's idea is the moral principle?
Variable actors = variable intent + variable relationships = variable morality or a variable moral assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
"Semi-leterate" hey....Who's the "semi-leterate" one then?
And the bible being unconvincing is evidenced by the multitude of people unconvinced by it.
For every argument there is a counter argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheJackle
The benefits of vaccination obviously outweighs the risk.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that vaccination is 100% safe.
Care to discuss....No words bigger than vaccination allowed.
Though I think that what you are actually saying is that some people use words that you don't understand.
The onus is therefore on you to research, understand and add such words to your own personal database for future use and reference.
It's called learning and you're never too old to learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No.
This is how some humans work.
Some people do not depend upon the same materialistic and social stimuli that you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Athias is as Athias does.
And esotericism has been around for centuries and proven nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In other words...The human appreciation of what is.
Everything is or is not random.
Fortunately for us everything is not random.
So we are aware of this and assume that it is the work of a god.....Absolutely fine...But we have no way of knowing if this assumption is correct.
The assumption isn't the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You have become reliant upon a gregarious and materialistic modus operandi.
All your functional and mental requirements start within you...In just the same way, all the solutions do too.
Your internal data sequencing has become ordered to suit an established modus operandi (habit)....If you think carefully, it is very easy to reorder and therefore modify what has become the established or habitual behaviour that you have become reliant upon.
Thoughtfulness will lead to contentment.
And contentment is not reliant upon either materialism or gregarianism.
In fact the real key for you would to be to adopt and recognise multiple operational systems...That is to say, reorder your internal data in such a way that allows for you to be content with both an uncluttered isolate existence as well as the materialistic and gregarious existence that you currently favour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well yes.
But in that context truth is irrelevant and has no meaning.
Truth only has meaning if it there is something to regard the truth.
And as far as we are aware it is only humankind that finds a need to regard the truth.
Therefore truth is relevant only to humankind and the physiology and processes thereof.
So not knowing is as relevant as knowing within the context of limited human knowledge and human function.
So "if" being the question and human regard being the qualifier.
We can therefore attribute "if" the same status as truth, irrespective of what may or may not be eternal truth.
Because as far as humanity is concerned.... What qualifies can be either, what is or is not currently known to be true.
The equation is reliant upon the human, otherwise there is no equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Theists are The Troubled Men.
Because most are clever enough to be fully aware of the truth.
Seeds of doubt, as it were.
The atheist has no seeds of doubt in this particular respect, as there is nothing to doubt.
I would suggest that the internal dilemmas of some theists, often manifests as bitterness and antagonism.
Created:
Posted in:
And yet you have no time.This coronavirus shit has me bored out of my fucking skull.
And so you are doing something.
You are probably your own limiting factor then and just find things to blame your inertia upon.....Overthink.
Happiness is fleeting, almost mythical.
Contentment is bliss and contentment is internal and there for doesn't necessarily require new input or external stimuli.
There can be just as much contentment found, doing nothing as there can be found doing something.
Or it could be just a testosterone based problem.
Masturbation then, in the absence of a third party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"What is currently not true", is not necessarily not true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Numbers is irrelevant.
If there were 7.6 billion theists and only 1 atheist.
it would still remain impossible to prove the existence of an external god.
Who believes what isn't the issue here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrSpy
Which is exactly what I stated. ...And so we agree on that aspect of things.
Though my argument was, that quantum mechanics is an internal data construct/hypothesis that attempts to explain actuality.
So, rather than as you suggested, maybe it is the falling tree that substantiates quantum mechanics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
The evolution of the species as it were, compared to the evolution of data within the greater society. Because It is all to easy and apparent for society to become the self, that is to say subjective, irrespective of what might be assumed to be objective.
1. And so, do you think that inherent data has evolved significantly enough to be able to effect physiological function?
2. Or have social improvements like assumed morality, only ever been defined by conceptual collectivism?
3. But can we actually differentiate between physiology and data, given the nature of the human condition?
4. Nonetheless, in the context of a wider society and therefore also in the context of moral relativism wherein lies the collective moral judgement?
5. Has it become inherent, or is it only acquired and affective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ha Ha.
Not chasing.
You just tend to have the time advantage.
And it's just a debating website Mr Ethan....No winners, no losers....Just entertainment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Haha.
No droning required.
Ethang5 is entertaining enough.
So no actual god then?...Just the concept....Absolutely fine.
Case proven...Truism correct.
Theist integrity though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@DrSpy
Things happen as they do.
No miracles required.
The human desires, creates and desires miracles.
And so the tree falls and does and doesn't make a sound, which is what I inferred (given the definition of the word sound).
And ethang5 implicates the big one.....Typical.
And Schrodinger's cat is human over-think.....Typical
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Anyway time to go now and think about more important business.
So here's to tomorrow morning....God willing as you might say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Not running, still waiting.
Nonetheless....Why do you think that a god needs praying to?
Wouldn't an omni-god be aware of your undying commitment?
I sure that an omni-god would rather that you were safely tucked up in bed with Mrs Ethan at this time of day.
Created: