Total posts: 13,849
-->
@BrotherDThomas
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Thinking of becoming religious?
Fine.
So be religious, but cut the crap was my suggestion.
No presumption involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Classic dodger.
Sarcasm and abuse is the limit of their intellectual reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So there are exceptions. Ergo theist nutters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do theists park etc.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No chance.Not me etc.
And you will be remembered occasionally for a few years.
And opinions are as opinions do.
And is Jesus the dog?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And why etc.
Because this is a debating website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
As I've always stated.
I do not deny an ultimate reality.
No singing, praying or pointy buildings required though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I refer my fellow debater to the above comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
All opinions are educated.
That's how we are able to have opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Atheism towards the one true God etc.
This statement cannot be substantiated.
This statement is only your opinion.
Just as Salixes statements are their own opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm just referring to burden of proof.
Not burden of proof relative to a specific context or exchange.
So:
I propose that the universe is contained within a solid box, therefore the burden of proof rests upon you to prove that it doesn't.
Is this a logical progression of reasoning?
Or just an easy cop out for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
And such a simple concept.No
Therefore I think that it is very fair to suggest that you might only function at somewhere around 50%.
Or perhaps you just simply cannot be bothered to think outside of your limited little box.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
If you were prepared to be logical you would admit that the logical progression would be GOD - I WILL PROVE GOD EXISTS rather that GOD - YOU PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST.The burden of proof.
The existence of something without proof, would not be questioned unless it had been proposed.
Theists shifting the burden of proof is just a convenient cop out, in other words a way of avoiding the primary burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Exactly.If God does indeed exist.
Though as is regularly pointed out, any imaginary form can be postulated.
Has Kalam ever achieved anything other than postulation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Debateart religious convention is generally based around Christianity with some references to Judaism and Islam and the occasional bit of Hinduism throw in.
Though generally it's Christanity that comes under scrutiny.
My reference to an unconventional interpretation of God is based upon what might or might not be the outcome and purposes of material evolution.
Can you comprehend this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
An ocean of conscious awareness.
Ok.
That's not much different to a cloud of data, especially if you consider what form A.I. might take in the future and what form A.I. might have taken in the past.
Something that naturally evolves rather than something that supernaturally exists without cause.
An ultimate state of matter prior to the collapse and rebirth of a universe.
Perhaps it's just as hard for you to get your head around this concept as it is for me to get my head around your God idea.
Though as I see, both concepts could actually refer to the same thing.
Created:
-->
@Vader
The postage stamp joke was mildly amusing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Smart people will be smart.
And less smart people will be less smart.
And guns are the solution?
And aliens are little green creatures from outer space.
And if Lesbian Dance Theory is marketable, then that's capitalism for you.
And money is the one true God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A sentient blob of organic matter is a sentient blob of organic matter.
And peripheral labelling is something that passes the time of day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why should it be a he and why should it not be Chinese?/
Why should it be the long haired Northern European hippy guy of Bible illustrations.
It was probably originally envisaged as a swarthy black haired Middle Easterner.
It might look just like E.T.
How do we know if no one has ever seen it?
I personally think that it is a formless cloud of data.
I won't be worshipping it though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Lobster Telephone Strawman Haha.
And you will have to explain "Kerrist". Not an expression that I am familiar with and I cannot find a relevant definition anywhere. Many thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Haha.
Salixes one track mind unfortunately blinkers their judgement somewhat. They're missing the wood for the trees as it were.
And everyone and everything is a strawman other than their own blinkered angst.
Good fun nonetheless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
No.
Only if God instructed all peoples all at the same time, would that be true.
Geographical separation might bring about different interpretations of the same thing.
Most religions have a similar format when you clear away all the bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You're still getting bogged down in the same old, god and species debate and therefore missing the bigger creationary/evolutionary picture.
As I have already stated elsewhere, to much negative angst is perhaps clouding your judgement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
As I clearly stated I am an atheist in regard to a supernatural God phenomena.
And probably just like you, I think that conventional religions are pointless nonsense.
But unfortunately or not as the case may be, the argument that you cited is sound.
Something that cannot be proven, therefore cannot be disproven either. Pink elephants and all.
So better to channel all that angst energy, into calm positive reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
We have very little or even no understanding regarding the reality of everything.
All that we are fairly sure of is this universe.
We certainly have no way of knowing if there was or might be a before or an after.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Hmm.
Try the media or admin.
Depends on how well you can market yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
An alternative hypothesis might suggest that people of Chinese origins were or might be instrumental in the creation of the old or new God.
That is to ask, might everything have evolved in exactly the same way previously and might everything evolve in exactly the same way in due course?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Although I am in conventional terms an atheist, I am still patently aware that your above comment cannot be substantiated. It's very much a catch 22 situation regarding the unlikely or likely existence of a supreme creative being.Because the fact is, god does not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Depends upon how broad ranging you care to be with your discussion.
If you are just talking species development then I would perhaps have to agree with you.
But that is only considering a tiny piece of the picture.
At some point there had to be some sort of creation event (something from nothing), from which a developmental process (evolution) began. Organic and consequent species development is very much the latter part of that process.
The God idea obviously evolved when a humanoid species started to derive the ability to ask questions.
And of course a supreme (humanoid) being hypothesis was probably always going to be the likely outcome.
That is to say, that humans would create a God in their own image.
Nonetheless, the cause of primary creation is a separate issue and all possible cards are still firmly on the table.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Litigation and media would probably be the two highest earners from the current wave of trendy P.C. offence related issues.
There's also probably a raft of new administrative jobs being created to police the diversity and equality sector.
Perhaps you could find a niche in one of these industries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Milk and beef.
Assuming that the majority of right wing American Conservative Christians don't go in for all that faffy modern dietary nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
The joke is the joke.
It's the recipient that creates the offence.
One can either choose to be offended or not or simply to ignore.
Though nowadays it is extremely fashionable and P.C. to choose the offended option and I also think that it is fair to say that some people derive a certain enjoyment and satisfaction from that presumption.
And of course if offence is marketed cleverly there is bound to be money to be made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What's new?
All leaders tend to become useless eventually.
Occasionally you have to wait for them to die.
It's more a question of who serves what purpose and for whom.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
The penis evolved/was designed as a penetrative device to facilitate copulation.
The piss thing is a clever bit of multitasking.
And with a worldwide population of over 7.5 billion, NoFap was probably inevitable.
All that time on peoples hands and nothing to do.
Best extricate that stale jiz.
Created: