zedvictor4

Opinions are just that and to assume that one is always right is arrogant.

And modelling oneself on a fantasy character is more than a tad childish.

And a debating website serves a purpose, so to ignore is to somewhat miss the point.

Though it does seem quite obvious, that for ethang5 ignorance is not necessarily bliss.

That's a tad arrogant and conceited.

Are you copying your hero Orange Donald.

Too much spare time.

Haha.

I never noticed.

It must be true.

Can gods be scientifically proven to exist?

If not then there is no point in scientifically testing prayer in the way that you describe above.

Because if not, then all that you will be able ascertain is whether mind can beneficially effect body and thus increase the probability of positive outcomes.

Or of course negative outcomes. As effect would be expected to be relative to the nature of the input.

Prayers may be regarded as positive irrespective of the dubious nature of their origins.

Could have been written by ebuc.

What actually is a witch?

A witch is a human being, so nothing actually delusional about calling oneself a witch or being called a witch.

Though If a witch claims to possess magical powers, then that might be regarded as delusional.

Is it delusional to believe in extra terrestrial lifeforms and should such people with such beliefs also seek appropriate professional help?

Because as things stand, it's as much of an assumption to believe in E.T's as it is to believe in Gods.

Approximately 60 million people die each year.

That's a fact of life.

As is belief in hypothetical deities.

As is connecting the two issues.

Deaths become less emotive the older a person becomes.

Another fact of human life.

Spam is a pork based composite.

The popularity of "DART Forums" would suggest that they are neither dead nor tiring.

Trouble is, definitions are often ambiguous.

Idiosyncratic:

More often applies to the individual rather than the collective.

Reality:

Is not just what we are actually able to know. 

Mental acuity allows us to realistically make indeterminate assumptions.

Rational argument:

Must also include the hypothetical (indeterminate assumptions). The ongoing theism/atheism argument and counter-arguments are undoubtedly hypothesis based.  

So a collective belief based upon an indeterminate assumption, that is to say a creation hypothesis, cannot  be regarded as delusional.

Belief:

Belief (the acceptance of a faith and assumed truth) by definition does not require substantiation.

What you say doesn't conform to my rationale. That is to say, how I choose to interpret data.

I think that all that this tells us is, that as things stand, homo-sapiens is pretty much the dominant species here on Earth.

The fable itself is too obviously fraught with unrealism and inaccuracies to be "good advice" or in fact advisory at any level.

Thinking that you are a socialist and actually being a socialist are two completely different things.

Did you ever read Animal Farm by George Orwell?

A stinging satire of the unworkable utopia that is socialism.

Anarchy is chaos. So society demands order and therefore society requires hierarchy and hierarchy negates socialism.

All social structures are inevitably dictatorial to a certain degree and quite clearly experience tells us that attempts at national socialism have always rapidly descend into the harshest and most brutal extremes of dictatorialism.

For most people in westernised democracies, politics is just a peripheral side show. What is important is the ongoing liberal integrity of those that wish to govern and those that we allow to govern, irrespective of how they might brand themselves.

I thank my lucky stars that I have always been afforded the freedom to do and say within reason, just about all that I have ever wished to do and say. The limits of my achievements are only set by my own ability to achieve and not by any constraints imposed by the liberal society in which I live.

How can you ban an abstract concept?

You could ban and eradicate all the physical manifestations of religion.

But a ban would not prevent the ongoing transference of religious data.  

Anyway, religion is fun and good for stimulating discussion. As you well know.

All that atheists need do is continue to point out that theists have never been able to prove the existence of a god.

And a continuous smokescreen of religious mumbo jumbo cannot hide this fact.

Ultimate reality is, but ultimate reality has never been proven to be a god.

Simple.

And the god worriers stumble in their foolishness.

Explain.

One generation thinks the next one is insane. Sounds pretty typical to me.

And viewing and judging the uncertainty of others from the safety of ones own certainty is easy.

And church is idolatry.

I think that what you are also saying is, the Orthodox Church in the east is very backward thinking.

Hasn't it noticed that things have changed a tad since medieval times.

 A very naïve and immature statement.

You must of had a very sheltered upbringing.

Atheist, state education is the only sensible way forward.

In fact atheism is the only sensible way forwards.

Trouble is human beings deludedly think that they have exceeded the need for common sense.

Perhaps China will be the salvation of humanity.

Well yes.

4 possible blood types given todays understanding.

But Bro D's tongue in cheek observation is nonetheless pertinent.

Did you try?

Try explaining

Ba dum tss.

What you are actually discussing above is human nature in all it's varied forms.

And also how human nature has been forced to change due the pressures of evolved social constructs.

That is to say, that as a species we have long since not been allowed to function instinctively. 

Enforced post natal conditioning is always in direct conflict with inherent physiology.

Therefore it is wholly reasonable to expect that aberrations will occur.

Boy Scouts and Boy Scouts leadership is just one of those things that modernised humans do to pass the time of day.

So perhaps given today's expected standards it's best that all such leadership roles should be given to proven heterosexual females.

Remove the temptation to aberrate from those most likely to do so.

That is to say, sexually repressed males. 

Yep.

Two stylised Northern Europeans blondes.

That is to say images created in in the likeness of the artist and their acolytes.

Hence the belly buttons also.

Also interesting how clean and tidy down below was also the preference back in the day.

So, what do you not understand?

A simple question.

To which I will attempt to give you a simple explanation to whatever it is that you find unreasonable.

See if you can respond to this request positively and without the need for sarcasm and abuse.

Thinking of becoming religious?

 

Fine.

So be religious, but cut the crap was my suggestion.

No presumption involved.

Classic dodger.

Sarcasm and abuse is the limit of their intellectual reasoning.

And my comments were wholly pertinent to the ongoing discussion.

Ultimate Reality without all the ritual trappings.

Some might say that relativism and houses built on sand wasn't pertinent.

But fortunately I am not as picky and choosy as some people.

So there are exceptions. Ergo theist nutters.

That particular god is the main talking point, in so much as it is the most widely remembered mythological pseudo-hypothesis.

One of many.

Some being far older of course and also still spoken of. 

So nothing particularly special about the Jesus myth other than it's acquired popularity.

Genesis the myth or genesis the word?

If you claim that something is non-sense, then you claim that something is non-sense.

Now you claim to completely understand. Ergo the concept makes sense. (Even if you might not agree with the concept.)

This is what is known as contradiction.

So let me put things another way.

What, even though you understand the concept, do you still nonetheless regard as non-sense?

Probably, though I must admit that I have never researched this. 

Can you comprehensively say that they don't?..... Evidence required.

Religion, atheism.

Same difference as far as nutters are concerned.

Because this is a debating website.

Because whatever it might be, the ultimate reality is nonetheless what it is. 

So how can singing and praying and pointy buildings make the slightest difference to that fact?

There are theists and there are atheists.

And atheists decided that theism was nonsense and therefore say so.

And theists decided that theism wasn't nonsense and therefore say so.

And trolls are imaginary creatures that were said to live somewhere in Scandinavia .

And give a nutter a gun and they will shoot someone for some reason or another and religion is a good enough reason for some nutters.

And what would be the purpose of a debating website if everyone agreed about everything?

O.K. One perhaps wouldn't want to make ones atheist opinions so well known in certain countries, for obvious reasons.

Though I think that in such situations, troll wouldn't be the favoured pejorative.

No I think not.

Debating and primarily the compositional exercise, is therapeutic and keeps the grey matter active.

But the content of the discussion is somewhat irrelevant. Nonetheless, I do always attempt to give an honest opinion.

I suppose, I am actually quite a nihilist.

As I've always stated.

I do not deny an ultimate reality.

No singing, praying or pointy buildings required though.

That's bordering on the nihilistic.

Perhaps you have too much of a safe and secure life, are getting older and the thought of change bothers you.

Head in the sand sort of thing.

Haven't you noticed that green is big business.

Yes, the extremists may exaggerate and disturb, but they also sow the necessary seeds of doubt and concern.

And the business people and the marketeers will have their eyes well and truly on the ball and will take full advantage of the ensuing situation.

Things will inevitably change for the greener in the future, as things always change.

And we will be dead and forgotten and our opinions will be irrelevant.

I refer my fellow debater to the above comment.

You are an independent mass.

You input, assimilate and output data independently.

That which you output is your own opinion, irrespective of what input you utilise as a basis for it.

Also, the validity of both input and output is a separate issue and not relevant to the point in question.

All opinions are educated.

That's how we are able to have opinions.

This statement cannot be substantiated.

This statement is only your opinion.

Just as Salixes statements are their own opinion.

Extremes are necessary.

Extremes provoke an opposite reaction and stimulate debate.

The concerns may or may not be exaggerated, but are clearly relative to something.

So, I'm not sure that ignoring altogether would be so sensible.

First and foremost, you would find it extremely difficult to anger me.

I simply employed a tactic to stimulate a response.

"Might or might not be the outcome and purposes of material evolution".

So what within this statement do you find so difficult to understand?