zedvictor4

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.

Most scientific or pseudo scientific or non-scientific compilations and presentations of thought data, draw upon previous compilations and presentations of thought data. It is simply the nature of the evolution of knowledge.

So you cannot dismiss or accept information just because it might or might not fit with the desired Christian model.

And it's easy to forget that there was a whole world of unconnected data out there, long before the Christian god concept and creation hypothesis got up and running. Which explains why the Christian model has never been globally accepted as the basis of creation.

In short, the Christian bible is a whole load of repackaged and redesigned information with a few new ideas thrown in as well. Some of which will be pertinent to current levels of understanding and a lot of which is undoubtedly archaic mythology.

And of course, how the scholars of the time were labelled or labelled themselves or were manipulated was relative to social circumstance and social pressure.

In other words, thank you very much we will accept your ideas and take them and refer to them as Christian.

What we refer to today as plagiarism.

I haven't a clue.

Your reasoning is tending to get more and more obscure.

Well.

That last reply was a whole lot of angst driven non-argument if ever I saw it.

And I was told...Never volunteer for anything.

To what are you referring?

Still happening, not quite as bad, but still as annoying.

Had to do two re-writes and am now giving up for today.

Back tomorrow hopefully.

Regards.

The RatMan likes to block but the RatMan cannot ignore.

It's all a part of the fun.

Don't take this debating thing too seriously is my advice.

Who's fighting?

I'm just whiling away a moment or two engaging in entertaining transatlantic discussion.

That's if I can interrupt your cosy little back scratching threesome.

What would a religious debate be without both the theist and the atheist....There's not so much fun in mutual self gratification....You would soon get bored.

And amidst all your pious aggression and stress you forgot the K in "nobheads".....Knobhead!...LOL...Only messing around....Regards.

If a company fails due to a lack of worker motivation then your out of a job. Your putting yourself out of a job. The basis of the company is largely irrelevant.

So answer me this:

What do you regard as being the motivation to be successful within a job.

Conditioned rhetoric is as conditioned rhetoric does.

Conditioned rhetoric cannot prove the existence of a god.

All that your conditioned rhetoric does is confirm your own particular internal data set....Mr Ethan refers to this as shabby.

I would say that sinking to the level of "shabby" in a discussion, is shabby.

As things stand the truism is a truism.

And your contrived statements are just that.

Interpretation is as interpretation does.

And the transfer of data is as the transfer of data does.

Nice try Mr Ethan but it's all been done before.

And words cannot prove the existence of gods.

Nonetheless, gods maybe...Though the gods hypothesis never starts at the beginning.

Whoops.....Gods....away we go then.

What's concrete about the same old eulogising then?

You're just preaching.

Reinforcing your own assumptions.

And if a guy called Jesus did exist and he wasn't Joe's son then I would suggest that he could have been the son of a  Northern European trader.

This would explain why Jesus is always portrayed as a sixties hippy type.

And Mary said unto Joseph.

God came unto me and impregnated me with his child.

And Joseph replied, d'oh.

No..... You say that it is a complete cop out.

I could say exactly the same of your argument.

I could say that your obvious concerns manifest as denial.... Denials of the effect and of the cause and of the potential outcomes.

I maintain that The Earth has one climate of variations.....And experts (love them or hate them) tell us that the overall climate is altering significantly as a result of human activity.

Nonetheless....Que sera sera according to Doris.

If you fail, your out of a job anyway.

Though as I initially stated the job isn't the primary motivation.

Money is the primary motivation. 

Process data....Perception stimulates a reaction and will promote a response, which may be regarded as either positive or negative.

A decision....Within a brain, it is decided that a god exists or not.

Though, rhetorical glorification cannot alter the basis of the function....No amount of fanciful words can make a god concept externally real.

So the god concept is real enough inside your head.

But can you be honest and admit that you have no way of converting this internal notion into an external reality?

Yep.

But apparently they new all about time travel and teleportation. LOL.

Nonetheless you're correct..... Time travel and teleportation have been the themes of fiction for centuries.

And you're also correct....There's a huge difference between available data and unfounded guesswork.

And I expect that every other religion could make exactly the same claims.

Just more pie in the sky attempts at proving the existence of gods.

I have converted from teabags to loose leaf tea.

Ergo tea leaves are religion and the bags are the work of the devil.

Camellia sinensis is a minor beverage-god and should be worsipped regularly.

Eternity is easy.

Though thinking is the human condition. 

Therefore eternity will be questioned.

Always something is just as perplexing as something from nothing.

And "Kalam" is simply blah de blah de blah god.

The Chinese Government is about as right wing as it gets, as is how it imposes rule and law.

All the other regimes that you listed are fairly moderate. Though the U.S. does have a more right wing tendency towards foreign policy.

Left wing is pretty much an unworkable ideology.

The more the left moves to the left the more right it always becomes....China for example.

Work or get fired.

Work or fail.

As I always say, the Bible is a valid quasi hypothetical mythology compiled by men, utilising data that was available at the time.... Separate the realism from the mythology and one will no doubt come across an element of reason.

Civilisations that predated Christianity will no doubt have provided much of the data that went into the biblical hypothesis.

Development through science is ongoing and didn't start and stop 2000years ago.... I don't remember the stable being lit by electricity nor Joe and Mary arriving at the maternity unit in their 4x4. 

Race is a word with multiple definitions.

I'm not going to list them all. so just check your dictionary.

Suffice it to say so though, your assertion is not accurate.

The Earth does not have an ideal climate.

The Earth has a climate relative to natural environmental activity, which includes human activity and all it's consequences.

The Earth will continue to wend it's thoughtless way around the Sun for as long as it will do, irrespective of what may or may not live upon it's surface.

Though perhaps there is a God watching who will adjust the temperature settings if things get a little too hot for us.

Though I doubt that very much.

Nonetheless the Fauxlaw  argument that because Australia swelters whilst Siberia freezes somehow negates human concerns of climate change, overlooks the simple fact (that I poetically emphasised previously).....The Earth has one climate of variations.

So the permafrost thaws whilst the outback burns....So what? 

Too many people worrying about too many irrelevances and I don't suppose that the coronavirus is going to alleviate the problem much

Just keep stockpiling the toilet paper.

Because they are comparable.

In so much as, although they have discernible differences,  they nonetheless have obvious similarities.

Cats and Dogs etc.

What's up Doc.

"because the Roman empire created WW2

seriously, God created the world but not the coronavirus, this was a chanh of happening."....WTF.

A literary and grammatical abomination.

One climate of variations.

And a variety of thoughts

Such tenuous fluff exhibits