zedvictor4

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.

Exactly.

And I think also exactly the point that secularmerlin and myself  were attempting to put across.

Morality is personal, therefore abstract, therefore subjective, therefore not concrete, so collective morality is only a collection thereof.

Yep....That's goobie speak all right!

Makind?

Space and Dimension is Cube and time is....How is this simple and logical statement not relative to what we actually know.....Analyse carefully and see if you can give me a simple and reasonable answer to this simple and reasonable question.

If you cannot, then from here on in I will regard you as a spammer.

Hey......If it makes you feel that good.

I'm certainly an advocate of P.M.A.

Your mantra is Jesus and mine is health, fitness and contentment.

Same meat different gravy as they say.

And we're both very fortunate that we are citizens of reasonably free and fair societies.

Honesty and integrity.....LOL.

Though it has to be said that the voting system in the U.K. is a tad less convoluted.

Having said that though we do have a constitutional Monarch rather than a President....No voting required/allowed.

QE2 or President which is best do you think?

Obviously Mr Ethan thinks that their opinion is the right opinion, based upon their conditioned sensibilities.

Which in fairness is how we all tend to function, despite our self perceived magnanimity and/or righteousness.

Though some people are clearly more open minded than others.

Rights, ethics, morality etc, are by definition conceptually driven and therefore abstract. They only become concrete, when either forcibly applied by one group or individual upon another group or individual, or when generally accepted and applied by the group.

And of course how we apply right and morality is never steadfast. We are always subject to the vagaries of our own and the groups ability to be selective and biased.

As ever. 2020 will once gain be about money, and the inherent corruptibility of the system.

Which is what politics, especially U.S. politics and all it's many facets is all about.

I would suggest that actual impeachability is only relative to the ability of the system to impeach at a given time, irrespective of factuality.

As such the real "farce" is the inherent corruptibility of the system, and it has to be said, that this is probably applicable to any democratic system.

Isn't that sort of how democracy works?

Of course, in this instance the central characters unavoidably lend themselves to farcical interpretation.

For us ordinary working folk that live in a relatively free and fair society, politics and government and how they are portrayed in the media, tend to be regarded more as entertainment anyway, rather than something that constantly needs to be taken seriously. After all, our only really serious input into our respective nations politics is where we choose to stick a cross every four or five years or so.

Conditioning and instinct are two wholly different things.

Instinct is inherent, whereas conditioning is acquired.

The brain and therefore the mass will function independently/instinctively without conscious input, basically that is life.

Conditioning is relative to evolved higher levels of consciousness. The brain takes on board new data as the mass develops.

In short, early years conditioning is what makes the difference between you and I and explains the fundamental differences in the way we think and the way we tend to formulate and output data sequences in a similar but slightly different way.

God probably is or God probably isn't, for example.

Independent thinking is the nature of wise man/woman and the evolution thereof.  The ability to advance is relative to the intellectual capability of the individual and the ability of the group to cooperate.

Nonetheless, acquiescing to conditioning remains unavoidable, to even the most intellectually gifted individuals.

He something of a cherry picker though.

Give him ten points to consider and he will probably only respond to the one or two that he can twist in his favour.

Nonetheless, it's entertaining debating with Mr Ethan.

Hey, you're a popular guy then.

Truth also....We are all conditioned, it's unavoidable.....Basic operating data if you like....difficult to erase.

We can also think independently...acquire new data...assimilate...create, store and output new data sequences.

But the basics tend to persist.

When I referred to a comfortable existence, I wasn't referring to comfortable climatic conditions.

I was referring to the "crisis" as being the possible disruption of what we have come to accept as the social norm, relative to any particular region or environment humans choose to call home.

So what crisis?  Well I think that we agree, that in terms of species survival, there is no real crisis. Just change that we will adapt to.

I respond to posts that I find interesting.

So I must find your posts interesting.

And the previous post that I responded to, was something of a faux pas. Though I don't suppose for one minute that you would admit to it.

Have I ever been a theist?....Well, theism is a very broad term, but if you're asking have I ever had a firm belief in the existence of a supreme power, then the answer would definitely be no. Nonetheless I do accept that the existence of a supreme power is a valid hypothesis.

As for Abrahamic religions and other popular faiths......I have always regarded these as mythological pseudo-hypotheses..... It was how I was conditioned to think

We agree then. 

Are you sure that your facts are correct?

An interesting reference there, to the connection between Theism, obsession and compulsion. "Theism and other mental issues".

LOL.

No.

Healthcare as in State provision of invasive and no invasive therapies, is only a possibility, relative to either State or personal affordability. 

As with most things in modern human lives, accessibility is usually dictated by affordability. 

As access to an unlimited money supply has only ever been considered a possibility and never been considered "a right", then it's unreasonable to expect that access to healthcare should be regarded as an inevitable right.

Species survival is not necessarily the issue.

The issue is, the continuation of the comfortable existence that we have come to expect.

Darwin proposed a theory relative to organic development, more specifically concerning higher species development. That's a very small chunk of time, that doesn't take into consideration past or present inorganic development. More specifically, Darwin is not concerned with the concurrent inorganic technological development/evolution associated with Wise Man. It is therein that concerns lie.

So things might change, and we will no doubt adapt as a species whilst the Planet is as the Planet will do, until such times as it is engulfed by the Sun. By which time the purpose and conclusion (if there is one) of The Earth's evolutionary processes will hopefully have been achieved.

And Wise Men/Women/Gender fluid, may or may not have escaped their Earthly prison, though it probably won't matter if they haven't.

Yep, sure.

But.

Media fuelled hype certainly, but government inspired.

Isolation, communities and countries in lockdown, white suited and bemasked people in all the media images.

So, just being a conspiracy theorist for a change and putting the question out there.

Global destabilisation perhaps.

High profile fake news diverting attention from the real issue.

What might we be missing?

Asia

SARS virus

Coronavirus

Italy

Face Masks

White Suits

Disinfectant Spraying

Media Hype

Destabilisation

Mass Migration

Conspiracy.

I'm usually disparaging about conspiracy theories. But there just seems to be something odd about all the attention being given to yet another seasonal respiratory virus, that typically most people will recover from quickly and some older and more vulnerable people may die as a result of.

What's different this time around?

Probably goes without saying.

Probably more than one.

1 & 2.  

Interesting. 

Will have to research before I can comment further.

LOL

#11 #12

I just love your logic.