zedvictor4

Nope. 

Cannot post to any other Forum this morning.

Typical.

And the above.

All except the above.

All other attempts to post this morning have failed.

Failure to post to Forum, and compositon is lost.

This is the second attempt at posting this.

So are you Irish or of Irish descent?

The old glitch is back and worse than ever.

Look it up then and see to how much of a lesser or greater extent you think that might fit in with the basic principles of Taoism.

Isn't everyone a Taoist to a certain degree.

It's more a case of recognising it rather than converting to it.

And I think that it's still possible to debate online as a Taoist.

Or maybe the Madman is giving up all their worldly goods and emigrating to China.

Just like Alaska is Canadian etc etc.

How can you eradicate Christianity, without also eradicating Catholicism, Judaism and Islamism etc.

They all originate from and maintain the same basic foundation.

Artistic expressions really.

Nonetheless;

"Some".

No..... Religion in general..... I'm not picky.

As I always say, all hypotheses are valid as such.

But religions have a habit of extracting large sums of money from their dutiful followers.

Someone somewhere get's fat at the expense of the gullible.

And maintaining all that religious infrastructure doesn't come cheap.

If a god does exist, then it surely doesn't require a multi-billion dollar industry here on Earth to back it up.

Believe in God my son, and fuck the church roof. (Though maybe church roof's in the U.S. aren't such an ongoing problem as here in the U.K.)

Spam

The geological record is what it is and pre-human climate events are not relevant to either today or tomorrow, in the context of human society and how humanity will have to adapt to cope with climate change and also how society may or may not have to change in the future.

As far as we humans are concerned the bottom line is us and our survival as a species. Whether or not the Earth's climate fluctuated in the past or will do so in the future is of no other significance.

7.6 billion people with a devil may care attitude to their environment is absolutely fine as far an old nihilist like me is concerned. I would be long gone before the shit really hit the fan.

Oils are naturally occurring organic substances and therefore renewable.

Nonetheless,the greater need is the reduction of carbon emissions.

The evolution of renewable technology is what it is, so it's no good expecting overnight solutions. For now we have to accept that green systems will inevitably have to include some less green components.

The earth is bombarded with free energy from the Sun on a daily basis so perhaps our greater efforts should be aimed therein.

So where currently are new reserves of crude oil being lay down.

Oddly, for such a wordsmith, you appear to also have a basic misunderstanding of the word belief.

"Came down" is simply a well used phrase... Check your bible.

You have a basic misunderstanding of atheism.

The atheist cannot deny something that cannot be denied.

The atheist simply does not believe.

And if gods are not physical then they are an assumption.

And the truism remains just as ever.

Be honest...No amount of your clever words will ever prove the existence of a god.

The honest atheist is certain that they cannot disprove the existence of gods and therefore has nothing to prove.

So the truism remains so.

I just love your logic!

I'm certain that you're a really nice guy and I do not wish to offend at all.

But there is rarely much logic or logical progression to your argument.

#43 for example, really is just a string of immaturely put together and incohesive soundbites.

Nonetheless:

I don't think that the U.S. will "go tyrannical" and I think that the current U.S. head of state is no more or less worrisome than any of his recent predecessors. The left will always tend to oppose the right and the right will always tend to oppose the left and if you consider yourself to be either left or right then you will no doubt have a tendency to be biased. In the unlikely event of illegal immigrants obtaining assault rifles, then there would be a short term period of chaos, after which deportations would more than likely increase. 

Let's be honest and logical for a moment.....There is a huge difference between illegal economic migrants and heavily armed terrorist insurgents.

I see you've started spamming again.

Topic is worker owned companies.

And there is far more than just "the company" that will affect and incentivise worker performance.

Workplace structure, especially where security is relatively assured and responsibility is always ceded to hierarchy, can just as easily lead to institutionalisation and a lack of motivation.

I was merely suggesting that where there is an obvious and necessary link between performance and all areas of personal success, then motivation will always be paramount to the worker, irrespective of company structure.

Day to day existence for most people extends way beyond the work place and a comfortable existence requires financing.

To facilitate the individuals greater needs isn't it therefore vital that a workers company remains profitable irrespective of structure....Cooperation.

Nonetheless, equitable output of reward obviously requires equitable investment of both financial investment and effort/time. All embodied within a

clearly defined and legally bound contract.

Of course there is also the simple argument that the incentive to succeed would be more so within a company where success or failure is of equal responsibility rather than in a situation whereby responsibility is always ceded to hierarchy.

ABC..DEF...…...XYZ makes no difference. All are symbolic and diagrammatic representations of cube, ergo space/mass.

The observable is space and mass.

The conceptual does not require external observability or reality. The conceptual only requires imagination.

No problem.

Things like that don't bother me.

I just thought that it spoiled a good piece of composition.

Regards.

I just love your logic.

But what has this got to do with the proposition?

Yep.

A reasonable exposition until you let yourself down with the last word.

Nonetheless... Straying completely from the proposition.

Show me God.

Nonetheless lets dial back.

The truism nor the atheist has ever sought to deny the existence of a god. 

In fact the atheist and the truism emphatically state that the existence of a god cannot be disproved.

Nor has the truism or the atheist asked that the theist should prove the existence of a god. 

Nor has the atheist or the truism suggested that the theist should stop believing in a god.

Therefore the atheist is being honest.

All that the atheist asks is for the theist to also be honest and accept the truism.

So why can theists not be honest?

So modest.

Just words that can be manipulated....Neither disturbing nor thrilling....Though there may be an attempt to confuse the gullible.

As man is, so God became....

Yes one admires your cognitive and literary capabilities.

Nonetheless your reply was self explanatory. In so much has your reply was only confirmation of what I expressed previously.

Clever but ultimately futile.

Belief is the human condition..... Or one part thereof.

Dry lumber has a 3D mass and the effects of moisture upon it are apparent and understood. therefore the proposed analogy is not reasonable.

2D only occurs as a conceptual proposition, nonetheless in order to afford the concept apparency, it must inevitably be subject to 3D qualities.

Space and dimension is cube and time is..... Simple, logical, rational, common sense.

Words hey!

Regards.

Just have few then.

Yep I would agree.

Though more succinctly...Men and Women are....and humans have a propensity for nonsense.

If a God came down for a chat, why would it want people to worship?

The possibility of an existent God is not proof of an existent God.

I accept the possibility of an existent God.

The opening statement is an unequivocal truism...So can theists be honest and accept it.

Negative - Positive..Wherein lies the distinction.

All there is, is one positive statement.

You are not being honest.

You are assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God.

People have been employing this tactic for centuries and it simply doesn't work.

Theists only assume. They do not prove.

What you explain is delusion.

Nonetheless, you are honest.

And intelligence is as intelligent does....Adolph Hitler was no doubt intelligent.

I think it fair to suggest that all people of all faiths and persuasions have intellect.

There is no such thing as 2D.....Logical, rational. common sense.

Bekenstein and Hawking.....1% rational, logical, common sense....99% bullshit.....It's how these people justify their salaries.

Yep....Money is every ones bottom line.

Though to be fair, it is more a case of searching for the tree in the woods rather than a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

And moist lumber warps and that explains everything?

Does anyone function/act without reason?

A reason to act is either deemed to be reasonable or perceived to be unreasonable or vice versa.

The social norm varies and has changed over time.....Obviously.

I was referring to the possible disruption to peoples current perception of the social norm in relation to where ever they might be.

We regard the past and also regard the future, but the moment that we tend to concentrate on and worry about the most is now.

Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.

The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?

Spam.

Hmm.

That last post was something of a rambling and emotive mish mash of ideas that sort of missed the point.

Early years conditioning is because it is and subsequently intellectual ability achieves what it is capable of and all is to a greater extent dictated by genetic predetermination.

So Einstein and Darwin achieved what the did because they could. Nonetheless they were never able to "rise above" and completely throw off the hang ups of their theistic conditioning.

Data written into to your memory in your formative years is the most persistent....

So as you get older and start to loose your marbles the first to be forgotten will be all the latterly acquired stuff...

Have you drunk your juice Mr Ethan?....What juice?

And you will eventually forget who your wife and children are when they come to visit.

But you will be continually asking the nurse.... when is mummy coming to get me..

Et tu Brute.

And so, because of the abstract nature of morality it is therefore my contention that morality and personal taste when regarded within an applicable context can be accepted as one and the same thing. It really is just a case of call it what you will, when you will.

And as far as I am aware, I have never babbled as stated.

My morality within the context of British social requirements is probably what might be regarded as standard.

And morality does rather appear to be your hang up and not mine.

Generally, I would regard the phrase "personal taste" as something like preference of tea rather than coffee or classical music rather than rap etc.

Nonetheless morality is still a personal decision or personal requirement....Or personal taste if you will.

A quick glance at history proves you wrong.

For example. Neither Einstein nor Darwin were able to fully allow their intellect to exceed their theistic upbringings.

And I have two children....What was the point you were trying to make?

They are both undoubtedly a product of British, local and familial social conditioning, but this does not prevent them from achieving, relative to their intellectual capability.