zedvictor4

Ha Ha.

You were just describing yourself....

Though the content may be different.... the condition is exactly the same.

Good one.

We're obviously peas in a pod you and I....Both loads of fun.

Just talk your own rhetoric through in your head (#5)….Can you not see the obvious flaw in your reasoning (bias)….The problem is always the other sort.

This is not a criticism...I'm just pointing out how the reality of the human condition and human conditioning (in relation to perceivable difference), is clearly emphasised in your post.

If we don't teach our kids that we are all from Planet Earth and therefore all basically the same, then you will never end up with an adult population that is integrated...lighter skin tone or darker skin tone, makes no difference to the shared problem.

If you teach kids nonsense then they will grow up believing in nonsense.

Back to basics violence in the streets is the level playing field.

It's ridiculous to expect that a society is going to be something that you don't condition it to become.

Yep....Sounds like me.

Exactly what I was thinking about you...But don't be mad...Some people are reality challenged.

Works both ways....that's the reality.

True.

Sociologically, crime is it's own problem, irrespective of skin tone.

And as I stated.... Racism is not exclusive.....Though some people prefer to think that it is.

It might require more than one syllable.

As if an omniscient creator would care about all that human B.S.

Mantra for today.....We've created many gods in our minds, but none as yet in reality.

Have a go at stereotyping a Brit then.

Hear Hear.

Whether or not lives matter is a philosophical question, hijacked by a mob as an excuse for violence and rioting in the name of counter-racism.

As you rightly point out...Lives only matter when it suits.

And inherent racism is far from exclusive.

Ha Ha.

We all have our mantra's.

Exactly.

There are estimated to be 2.3 billion Tom, Dick and Harry's worldwide, and given the nature of my upbringing, that's probably me included.

How many other  involuntarily labelled Christians, threw away their bibles long ago, just as I did?

So what actually is a true Christian?

Perhaps only the devout one's that do actually study and read the bible.

I admire your strict one syllable code.

As I suggested, all people hear voices in their head all the time....Basically people talking to themselves, making internal assessments of stored data....God data for instance.

I would further suggest that most people do not even consider this normal function at all.

It's certainly not an activity exclusive to Christians.

Intuition simply defines our ability to retrieve and utilise stored data quickly.....Thinking that we don't think about it is overthink if you think about it. Because thinking is thinking and not thinking isn't.

Implying intuition,  simply underestimates the thinking (data management) capabilities of the human brain.

When you say "known quantum law", what do you mean specifically?

I would suggest that the statement is probably a fact rather than a cliché.

Of course it might depend upon how you choose to define a Christian.

Are you referring to every Tom, Dick or Harriet that has been subjected to the water splashing ritual?...Or just to all the devoutish ones that do read their bible from time to time..

So do you have every page of your bible recorded to memory?...Because unless you have,  then what was the actual purpose of reading it...Other than  as a transitory entertainment experience.

Without looking, what does it say on page 87?

How so Mr one syllable?

I would suggest, only wrong because you have been conditioned to deny it's correctness.

Well.

I think that I understand what you mean by "fuck off".

We perhaps use the phrase somewhat differently, and more abusively here in the U.K.

I believe that I was agreeing with your approach to situations that might be confrontational.

Though if I misunderstood, then we both might as well, just "fuck off".

The inherent hierarchy and disparity of any society is it's fundamental problem irrespective of ethnicity and skin tone. Especially if we teach expectation.

Occasionally, laws and common sense cease to be relevant....Until such times as laws and common sense become relevant again.

Though human social conflicts are now  exacerbated by the immediacy of social media.

Yep.

The ambiguity of definition is sometimes misleading.

Perhaps noise would be better, though even this is not clear cut, as technically certain noise is not detectable by the human auditory system.

Good vibrations as someone once sang.

Ignorance is bliss.

Exactly.

If it is possible that a god does exist, then it is possible that a god does exist.

If it is possible that a god doesn't exist, then it is possible that a god doesn't exist.

With a little imagination anything is possible.

Hey Mr Ascerbic.

You always dodge the biggest question of all....Can you actually prove that a god exists?

And in fairness, that conditioned mental block compels you to dodge.

I do understand.

P.S.

I hope that you were aware of protestations I made against your ban...… And Regards to Mrs Ethan.

Knowledge and information and the accessibility and transfer thereof, and the perceptible difference of skin tone and appearance.

One step into the future, but one step back into the cave.

Not to be confused with a life.....What exactly is life?...Is there even a conceptual answer?...Let alone evidence on which to base an inference.

Nonetheless:

Occam bases his reasoning on a pre-existing assumption. That is to say that the outcome has  already been decided irrespective of evidence.

Occam's razor  just becomes a self-contained justification of itself.

Welcome back to Mr Ascerbic.

Perhaps you made the logical error by believing in a god.

Though, what exactly is a logical error?....One would assume that the very nature of an error would render it illogical....And similarly that something that is logical can not actually be erroneous.

Decisions, decisions.

I would suggest that  we are all constrained by the limits, and more so the content of our conditioned databases.  So had we been taught differently, we probably would have made different decisions......Hence the zealot and the sceptic develop not by choice or decision, but by conditioning.

What is a feeling?

It's an internal physiological response to an internally generated idea.

I can run with the notion of a god principle which is suggestive of a universal purpose.

But all those biblical stories and characters are just so irrelevant to an ultimate purpose or intelligence, especially in the context of our modern technological lives.

Technological evolution is exceeding human evolution, so if answers are to be found, they are more than likely going to to be found in a computer data base somewhere, rather than upon tablets of stone.

The reality is that most people purporting to be Christians have probably never read the bible. Or have read it loosely with little consideration for what they are reading.

If I gave you a book containing 200 pages to read and then asked you to tell me what the first paragraph on page 28 was,  (unless you possessed a photographic memory) you probably wouldn't have the slightest idea.

I couldn't tell you what the first word on the first page was, on any book that I have ever read. 

Unless reading is a specific exercise in memorizing information, then data input becomes only a transitory entertainment experience.

Ta.

Do you talk things through in your head?

Blah de blah de blah....therefore god....Nope, just doesn't work....Might have fooled the gullible a few hundred years ago, but we're not all quite so daft these days.

An original thought is a modification of pre-existing data...Stored data and perhaps newly acquired but nonetheless pre-existing data in a new format.

The evolution of data, hence humanity and it's achievements.

Hearing voices is creating voices, voluntarily or perhaps involuntarily....When I compose data responses such as this one I talk it through in my head.

Do you not do the same?

Deism is simply one of the many utterances we utilise to represent things that we do not understand.

A god principle without all the scriptural nonsense....Therefore a valid hypothesis....Not to say that popular god theories are not valid, but that the scriptural nonsense is  unnecessary.

We are, because we are able to be, maybe that's a god's handy-work....But who's handy-work is a god.

Zed.

None.

Invitation.

In my opinion....None of the above..... A god principle, the motivation of the universe, exceeds the necessity of human definition.

Well.

An idol is a representation of something unknown....So as an assumed god is something unknown.... Ergo the worship of an assumed god is idol worship.

In the context of universal meaning, purpose is merely the alternative to chance and as such has no prerequisite requirements, you make up prerequisite requirements to suit the purposes of your hypothesis....Which in fairness is the nature of hypothesising.

Acceptance, especially without proof is certainly a bias, whereas open mindedness definitely isn't....  Because I am sceptical of the Christian hypothesis and all it's ritualistic machinations doesn't make me biased....Just sceptical.

So, atheist nor agnostic nor theist can make sense of the origins of things sufficiently, hence the ongoing discussion and unresolved issue.

Finally, how about addressing the subject of technological evolution/development, and how the possibilities that lie therein, fit with the Christian god theory.....For me,  material development fits well with a purpose and a god principle, but less so with the importance of humankind....So what do you think?

In other words this is what humanity has been doing for millennia, pre and post Christianity....Not me in particular.

A world view is a world view and we are not discussing a world view.... You are putting forward the idea of a supernatural being that exists in a separate time continuum, this is hardly a world view.

The initial question itself, was only referring to the universe, and my thoughts and suggestions only focus on the likelihood of the known universe being purposeful....That purpose could be anything and also does not necessarily have to imply a creator....The necessity of a specific creator is a supposition that you have acquired through conditioning....I was conditioned differently and so I am questioning and  sceptical, and in my opinion I therefore have a more realistic and open minded approach to the big question. 

Being open minded allows me to consider the possibly lessening importance of humankind (and perhaps even similar kind) in a material universe that is now evolving technologically.....And yes, for the time being we still have a hold of the steering wheel.....but for how long?.....Hence my advice to traditional theists such as yourself, is to perhaps rethink the whole human/god/human-god hypothesis and include the strong possibility of the organic becoming a lessening part  of the purpose equation, and therefore not necessarily the overriding  reason for the instigation, continuation and purpose of everything.

Why anchor yourself resolutely to a 2000year old human centred hypothesis?....Especially when you have no real evidence for it's validity.

Atheist and theist....What you mean is human beings...In general, exactly the same....Both possess the same instinctive programming, but acquire various  conceptual quirks as they develop.... The concept of morality is certainly not exclusive to one particular train of thought....though self righteous theists sometimes like to think that it is.

Nazi Germany and North Korea were/are just examples of alternative social programming and nothing to do with morality per se. Morality is a variable principle that we apply to things relative to our own particular viewpoint or collective view point.

The bible doesn't teach anything..... Some humans condition other humans to accept biblical writings as a factual hypothesis....You would perhaps accuse the North Korean regime of brainwashing/conditioning it's children, but what is the real difference between this and how you were conditioned/brainwashed to accept the biblical hypothesis as fact.

My advice is simply my advice and to me a self evident truth... take it or leave it.

Tolerance, evil, wickedness, wrong, right....All variable concepts relative to the individual or the group...The greater society does not currently share a hive mentality....Maybe one day technology will bring us together as a cohesive whole...Maybe....Though some of us as yet, have not even come to terms with the concept of variable skin tone.

Who has a justified true belief?.....Exactly my point.

@RationalMadman

See what I mean.

Illusion...What about delusion.

Assuming that supernatural concepts are real and not requiring of any thing other than imaginary, supernatural evidence...sort of self perpetuating delusion.

The hypothesis is fine, but substantiate it with real evidence, as your intransigent belief in a supernatural god  that you create in your own image, is currently no more worthy than a god fashioned in wood or stone.

I have never advised anyone to make their own god...I don't know where you got this non-sense from...The same place as all the other non-sense I suppose.

I reiterate....I err on the side of universal purpose and merely suggest that the evolutionary development of matter may also have a related purpose, so I therefore refer to this as a god principle.....Basically, a supposition... A perceptible process...Therefore, assuming a purpose and an outcome.

Not quite the same as advising that there is an uncreated imaginary god, in an uncreated imaginary time continuum. Nonsense exacerbated by the obvious contradiction that you are attempting to prove creation, with imaginary non-created evidence.

Well.

How does this relate to a god creating evil?

Nonetheless an interesting question. Which takes in the whole gamut of sociological issues.

But primarily perhaps questions the concept of society and social responsibility.

Maybe the idea of aiding others that are struggling to survive is actually contrary to our instinctive programming.

Therefore aiding Third World Nations naturally becomes a secondary and unimportant issue, and let's be honest, your average Joe probably never considers the issue at all, as they are  too preoccupied with the day to day necessities and requirements of their own survival.

We think that we are more civilised, and we might try to be more civilised, but at the end of the day when our own success or failure becomes an issue, do we not become the same instinct driven organisms that we ever were?

What do you think?

Q.   When is gunning someone down not terrorism? 

A.    When one assumes righteousness over others.

A virus is simply an evolved organism that perpetuates involuntarily, but in a specific way.

It is unlikely that a virus has any regard of either it's actions or it's temporary host.

I think that what I make of this is, problems only occur within the human brain.

There are basically two choices...Purpose or Chance.

You and I both err on the side of purpose.

All purpose  based ideas are fantastical to a certain degree.....Some so much so that they become pointlessly ritualistic, over elaborate and consequently contradictory.

Contradictory, in so much as the nonsense of ritual and worship totally demean the fundamental qualities of  ultimate knowledge and pure logic.

Nailing people to crosses etc, is complete and utter 2000 year old human naivety, in every sense.

My advice to traditionally conditioned theists, is to throw away those archaic mythological hypotheses and rethink "God" in a modern technological and ongoing evolutionary context.

@RationalMadman.

Re:  EbuccubE.

Genius or not....Make your own mind up.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a while.

But after a while my doubt became overwhelming.

@RationalMadman.

It's unlikely that a true atheist would care about such things.

A true atheist would say that good and evil are simply variable human concepts.

Even some deists might come to the same conclusion.

Various deists might consider good and evil differently...This would largely depend upon where when and how they were formatively conditioned.

Some Christian deists might say that God created us and just left us to get on with things....This would seem pretty logical, as this is what we actually do.....So if I "think about it" and if I was less sceptical of fantastical creation hypotheses,  I would probably concur with this logical Christian approach.

Just be tolerant and respectful of others....There we are, that's my advice....No god required.

You assume god is something/someone and perhaps I do too,  all valid hypotheses but nonetheless absolute supposition and currently factless. The trouble with conditioned deists/theists is that they fail to recognise or refuse to admit to this basic "logic" fact.....So an eternal being existing outside our time continuum  is nothing more than a highly speculative suggestion....In other words gobbledygook unless unequivocally proven to be true....Belief proves nothing, other than itself, so we therefore all speculate, just as the compilers of the biblical hypothesis/tales speculated, just as all  previous deists speculated....And they speculated so, because it  was obvious though naïve to imagine that the reason for everything that we didn't understand was a mysterious being of human like form... In other words, we created gods in our own image... Though we had no clue as to where it was hiding out....Perhaps on top of an unclimbable mountain or perhaps up in the clouds or perhaps on the moon or perhaps on a star...Though as we gained access to our immediate environment and our understanding of the universe increased, god became more and more elusive. So much so, that it now can only be found outside of our time continuum...Where ever that might be.

The big bang is as illogical or as reasonable as a all assumed gods.  Both are just as reliant upon being created out of nothing, irrespective of the particular continuum in which ones preferred god might exist.

Therefore, based upon your logic the universe could just as easily have exploded into existence from nothing.

As far as we are able to know the intent or purpose of the universe is what it is.

Something from nothing....Explain this and we will be getting somewhere....Don't just keep repeating the mantra of God is so therefore.

Yep. A god principle.

Another valid hypothesis.

(Interestingly, popular deism and theism would all be a part of the simulation....Even a hint maybe.)

Nonetheless, like all creation hypotheses though, this ultimately relies upon accepting that the simulator, irrespective of nature, is something from nothing.

Therefore you might as well accept that the universe was always something from nothing and quit worrying about creation hypotheses altogether.

@RationalMadman

I would suggest that both Napolean's and  Hitler's downfall was brought about their disrespect of Northern Climates.

So name names....Who are the illuminati?

Do you mean the inbred European Royalty?

Well. If you think about it

The natural order is and isn't different every day and things tend to last for a while, but not for ever.

Might sound like gobbledygook. But an ordered universe tends to mean a universe that seemingly complies to a regular pattern or set of rules, rather than something that provides  a stable environment in which humanity exists. Life on earth is fragile and tenuous and maybe purposeful or maybe not. Formulating anything lasting is therefore always a gamble, with uncertain odds.