zedvictor4

Be careful what you say.

You are slowly tending towards bigotry in our discussions.

Check me out.

I never say "there is no god", that is what you say I say.

I say that I cannot prove that there is a god and also that I cannot prove that there is not a god.

It is you that makes the bold claims without providing proof. (Sophistry)

As such, as far as I am currently able to be satisfied, the god hypothesis is as valid as any other creation hypothesis.

And..."Unless you progress past mere etc."

Such frustration Mr Ethan... You should be tucked up in bed by now with Mrs Ethan and not fretting over an insignificant web debate.

The falling tree creates sound.

The lack of a mechanism to detect sound is what it is.

Quantum mechanics would probably explain this.

Kim has an amazing hairdo.

I sit here...

And you sit here day after day hopelessly struggling to avoid the truth, often whilst most other Americans are tucked up safely in bed.

With no coherent proof of the god you are so certain of.

And I can sense that you are angry ,lost, frustrated and confused.

So I say unto you.

Though proof be none.

Nonetheless be happy with your internal god concept, as I will be happy with mine.

And when such evidence might manifest itself,  that we might be certain of the external god.

Perhaps then we might both find contentment.

The atheist that seeketh the truth doth not deny, but only seeketh....Zed 4

Well as there is no proof,  obviously not you. 

Which is exactly what faith and belief is....Which isn't the contention.

You seem to miss the point somewhat.

The point is the discussion of a contention.

Et tu Brute.

And still no proof.

And have a nice day.

So no proof then?

And I see that you have jumped aboard the EtrnlVw supposition train in an effort to change the subject.

Whilst the Athias train goes around in circles.

And the ethang5 train hits the buffers.

And there are still no gods waiting on the platform.

Choo Choo.

Your attempt at Athiasism is incoherent and confused.

You should stick to the style of debate  that you do best.

I'm still awaiting proof.

All supposition, not proof.

Why is it so difficult to admit that you have no real proof of an external god?

Well senses are physiological function.... 5 or more, whatever.... It really depends upon how function is classified,

Though being hit on the head with a mallet is just that.

God massaging your heart is an internal concept that triggers an internal response which might make you want to cry out in utter joy.

But how can you  prove to the wider audience that it was actually a god massaging your heart?...You cannot.

It's no good just saying it was, simply because that is what you want to believe. (Nonetheless your prerogative)

At he end of the proverbial day Athias.

The best that we can both do is assume that we are certain of something.

And I assume that there is an externality and that the mass has internality.

And as there is no consistency in the god concept it is reasonable to assume that assumed gods are sometimes assumed to be external, but nonetheless, the internal concept in what ever form, is only resultant of internal data manipulation rather than an externally real god..

All that one asks is for proof of the external god rather than for proof of an internal assumption or concept.

One doesn't doubt the nature of the internal concept, what one doubts is the existence of the external god.

So hard proof please and less Athiasims.

Hey Boris, Donald, Kim.

Yep very entertaining, though I believe that Kim can be a bit of an asshole at times.

And good luck in the upcoming elections Mr President.

And get well soon Prime Minister.

Labels are just  labels.....So label me how you will.

And the racist is conditioned

And save for a few numpties, the black/white thing is pretty much history in the U.K, perhaps it's still more widespread in the U.S.

Doctors displaying various degrees of darker skin tone are very commonplace here and widely respected.

And which alleged god?

And fame is a concept.

And a virus is what a virus is and the recovery of the individual is largely dependant upon the individual.

And as I tried to point out. ...Moral relativism is in fact problem free, because of the nature of how the concept of moral relativism manifests itself.

The problems or not of moral relativism are merely secondary concepts derived from the original.

Oh.

And reality is nature.

And miracles and super-nature are mythologically inspired.

As far as I am aware. (No assertion)

Prove me wrong please.

But don't just say I'm wrong, because you say so.

And who's asserting?

Can you prove any of these claims.

I certainly cannot disprove them, and have never claimed that I could.

Hence the honesty of the atheist and the dishonesty of the theist.

It does seem rather like you rant because you were taught to rant...That is to say, you appear to have a rigidly conditioned mind set.

And if there is no god debate then why are you debating?...Just be content with your faith and do something else.

He's our entertaining leader.

Just like the Orange Guy.

What's his name/…..Donald.

And the Tubby guy with the hairdo.

What's his name?.....Kim.

In fact it's the hairdo's.

You can still like him.

Melcharaz the ranter.

Check me out.

Have I ever denied the possibility of a god?

The god hypothesis is a as valid as any other. 

The truism does not ask that either the hypothesis or peoples faith in the hypothesis should be denounced.

The truism only asks that such people accept that the god hypothesis does not prove the existence of a god. 

All assumption without proof.

You have introduced the god debate and the god debate is ongoing and therefore unresolved.

And so can you prove the existence of an external god and therefore unequivocally verify the statements you asserted?

Good morning America.

I can perceive the screen in front of me.

And if you can show me a god I will be able to perceive that also.

I acquired the god concept as data input long ago. Though I have never perceived the actual thing.

Same old same old.

I think that I will refer to it as Athiasism.

So prove the existence of an external god then.

And how do you think that knowledge/information/data (other than inherent functionality) gets into your brain?......I would suggest, acquisition.

The term acquired data is therefore aptly descriptive.

Nonetheless, all internal processes, even if reliant upon external stimuli.

So show me the external stimulus that is a god....I have never stated that such a thing does not exist....All that the truism asks is for proof that it does.

Your new approach is still only an internally based assumption.

Hey.

I like the new hippy style.

Guru Athias induced it would seem.

And so when is anyone in the Dart god club going to give me proof of an external god?

Never.

How does one separate perception from the human condition?

The human condition is everything to the human.

Nonetheless, the truism makes no startling claims.

Zedvictor4 the atheist cannot prove that gods do not exist.

Can ronjs (presumably the theist) prove that gods do exist. 

So....We can both conceptualise gods but that is not the ongoing contention.

The ongoing contention is the existence or not of an external god.

The Athias style academic discourse is all well and good but only seeks to distract from the real issue.

Well

Posing philosophical problems is just that.

But a problem is only a problem if it is a problem.

And therefore my response addressed the issue of academic problem solving rather than the academic problem itself.

And Melcharaz makes wild assumptions. Will you be taking them up on this issue?

Or is it just O.K. because they are a signed up member of the god club.

 

Patience Mr Ethan.

Saturday 7.30 am and no need to get up quite so early.

Well.

"Epistemology" is what it is and does nothing to explain or reduce the dilemma that is, mans uncertainty. Epistemology is just another internal exercise concerning the manipulation and ordering of data.

So we accept operational parameters  within a certain level of internal certainty based upon acquired data.

Therefore a concept is the internal manipulation of data and as such gods are internally valid and therefore able to be regarded as an internal certainty and I would imagine that no reasonable person would deny the existence of gods as an internal, conceptual certainty. Similarly no reasonable person would seek to deny the theists ability to convert their internal certainty into an assumed external reality (belief).

 Nonetheless, the theist makes an assumption based upon internal processes. They assume that their interpretation of data and god concept unequivocally proves the existence of a god as an external reality.... If this is not correct, then why does the theist struggle to accept the truism?

All that the truism asks, is for the theist to be honest and accept their god concept for what it is and also for what it has become, which is an internal certainty and a consequent assumption.

Hello it's me. Zed on British Time.

The problem with moral relativism is that it is philosophical bullshit.

Which is great in terms of high brow debate and literary discourse but not particularly useful to the man in the street.

 

Nonetheless:

Moral relativism is, acquired stored and utilised data and the ongoing  evolution thereof.

And reform is the ongoing evolution of data and/or society.

And morality is an assumption, which may be modified relative to how data and society evolves.

And good and evil are assumptions, which may be modified relative to how data and society evolves.

And you mentioned a god...And gods are still only assumptions and the attribution of assumed morals to assumed gods is doubly pointless.

The benefit of hindsight hey!

Wouldn't it be fantastic if we could see into the future... We could sue for compensation before the event actually occurred.

Or better still, just kill the fucking Bat and the Pangolin.

Exactly.

Some people thrive on offence.

And all here should be patently aware that offence has become a lucrative business.

Invent a crime, create a law, and Bob's your uncle.

it's almost thought crime Big Bro.

LOL....Sorry, but womb bullshit.

And the brain is what it is and observation is what it is...No brain=no observation=no acquired and stored data= no EtrnlVw=no ritual speak.

And I freely admitted that I was as conditioned as you, only slightly differently....Which really is the basis of the ongoing contention and why websites such as this exist.

And feeling sorry is a sorrowful attempt at a cheap and meaningless dig.

And your integrity in respect of your own personal mind set, is not being doubted. One only asks for you to be honest and accept the truism...It's not as if you are being asked to denounce either your conditioned principles or your belief in a god.

And yes, questions...When will a theist actually prove that a god exists?...Will it be tomorrow?...Probably not, but you never know.

The two unequivocal facts,  atheists cannot prove that gods do not exist and theists cannot prove that gods do exist.

Hey. Churches, castles etc. are fantastic architecture and a testament to the skill of the stonemason.

And no one suggested that there was anything wrong with a bit of singing and dancing....As you well know, Mr out of context.

A god might exist independent of man's concepts....You cannot prove otherwise....You simply assume that you are correct.

Speech and communication hey....What an evolutionary balls up that was then. 

Or was it a god's fault?

And offence is a data construct that has been recognised to have value.,... So it can obviously pay to be offended....  if it wasn't we would no doubt have ignored it.

Such is humanity.

Let's get something straight here.

To be a sentient human being is to be conditioned.

You didn't leave the womb clutching the Bible.

It was Mummy and Daddy and  Aunt and Uncle and Brother and Sister and the next door neighbour and the clergyman and the teacher and the television and the internet  etc. etc. that conditioned and produced EtrnlVw.

Your internal database was conditioned, like it or not.

Everything that you present on this website is a product of your conditioned self.

And you and I were conditioned separately and differently....Therefore the conditioned rhetoric that you regard as meaningful, has very little meaning in my head, other than being inconsistent with what and how I was taught to understand.

Nonetheless, at least I am honest and able to freely say that I cannot prove that a god does not exist. 

Whereas you vainly continue to hide from the truth amidst a fog of conditioned ritual-speak.

Most:

Well, given the nature of how human based data was and is accumulated, I would have to agree with you and say that "most" was being somewhat generous.

And the Christ tale is supposedly based on events that occurred approximately 2000 years ago... And prior to that was the gathering of data from other civilisations such as the Egyptians, Greek and Roman etc.... Which in one example came together as the Christian creation hypothesis

To be quite frank, it's quite silly to try and ignore the fact that a lot went on prior to and separate from Christianity.

And the who discovered America argument is completely irrelevant. and also very silly.

And "new" was just reasonably respecting  ongoing scholarly and scientific understanding and progress.

And plagiarism might be illegal by today's standards, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't back in the day.

Nonetheless:

At least you're not one of these U.S. Christian fundamentalists who think that the beardy guy threw it all together 6000 years ago.

Credit where credit's due as they say.

And:

With reference to the truism.... I cannot prove that there was no external influence in the development of the sphere. (neither can you prove otherwise). Though an external influence would not require the human necessity for pointy buildings and all that singing, dancing and preaching on Sunday mornings, or whenever you might indulge.

And come to think of it....Where is the boundary that denotes external, in terms of both Time and Space.

3.2 billion years ago was about 3.2 billion years before mankind came up with the Christian god concept.

The evolutionary development of our planet would have been how it occurred....No god required.

Sounds ultra right wing to me.

As I stated previously, extreme left is extreme right?

Look at communism  the failed pipe dream of hypocritical philosophers and idealists.

All attempts at communism failed the moment they started.

If we didn't know about it we would just have a bad cold that might or might not lead to complications that might or might not cause us to expire. 

Same old shit as Eugene would say.

Nonetheless, It's interesting how "the virus" is becoming more of a financial crisis and less of a health crisis. And of course a big political weapon.

Oh! The immorality of a virus.

Only ebuc knows what ebuc thinks.

They might or might not be a genius.

Though I would suggest that we use 3 to represent a quantity and can also make up quantities to represent 3.

A virus is a virus.

And blame is big business.

Well that is also your "schtick" which I have simply thrown back at you.

Nonetheless I do sometimes detect an element of frustration in your replies.