zedvictor4

Up until about a century or so ago the  average life expectancy of a human being was only 25 years, so Jesus didn't do too badly. All these old geezers mentioned in the bible are probably mostly mythological. Though that is not to say that a few people didn't live beyond their fifties, and back in the day 50+ would have been considered old.

An interesting idea and one that I have instigated on other sites previously.

I often also stipulated no sources at all, as pages and pages of Wikipedia for example, are somewhat contrary to the objective.

And an observer should be more than able to consult MWD,  if they wish to check definition.

So what did he say then?

@Melcharaz.

Your views of a possible god are merely your views of a possible god.

Having an alternative opinion is having an alternative opinion.

Therefore disagreement is not mocking, but merely disagreement.

Refusing to accept that others have alternative opinions, is intolerance.

Preaching is for the pulpit, not for the debate forum.

Maybe so.

But any business undertaking ,small or large requires income and to be able to sell religion successfully  at any level, requires astute marketing of the product.

You seem only to be regarding this issue in the present tense though.

When I was your age, automation of labour was sci-fi and things such as smartphones and digital technology were unheard of.

It's therefore foolish to underestimate the rate and possibilities of techno-development.

@Melcharaz

And religion is the stuff of humans and maybe technology will achieve the god principle....We can only speculate.

Over think.

Ok.... So scholars, what ever scholars might imply, refute suggestions that the character Mary's intent was instinctively human rather than a metaphysical attachment.  I would certainly agree with the suggestion that Mary's devotion to Jesus was probably hormone driven .  Interpretations of the biblical tales and other similar myth based accounts have a tendency to exalt central characters and ignore the realities of the human condition.

Assuming that the said characters were actually based upon real people of course. 

Yep.

Though I would still say that in some circumstances being the target is part of the game for some.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but as I see it, the anonymity one has when participating on such sites somewhat implies that the root of perceived problems often lies with the recipient rather than with the perpetrator.

Ignorance really is a powerful tool in these sort of circumstances, but some people just don't seem to be able to ignore. Or perhaps even, they actually  do not want to ignore.

As I said maybe I'm too old and too thick skinned to understand. There was no internet when I was a teenager so disagreements were always face to face and sometimes ended up with a punch on the nose....So walk away and get over it.

Well in the main moderation only needs to be a quiet word, though if poor behaviour still persists then I suppose one has no choice but to take things further. 

I personally regard offence as the decision of the offended rather than any serious malintent by the perpetrator, certainly there have been no recent incidences on Dart that have exceeded this principle.

Dart really is just a bit too fluffy and nice currently. One misses the edginess that participants such as Ethang and Willows brought to the table. I was often at the end of Ethang's acerbic tongue, but that was all part of the enjoyment of Dart.

My advice to more sensitive souls would simply be to ignore what or who they find offensive...Ignorance is bliss after all.

Though sometimes it's as if the offence game is all a part of some peoples strategy.

Well I'm sure that some people are inspired by religion in this way.

But  out of the approximately 1.25 billion Catholics worldwide how many do you think actually regard their religion in this way?

I would suggest that most just go through the motions of a conditioned way of life,  simply because they think that is what they are supposed to be doing.

I would further suggest that, Inevitably and unavoidably,  money is the bottom line of most peoples day to day lives.

@Melcharaz

You block.

A. Because you are intolerant of alternative ideas

B. Therefore you only wish to preach rather than debate.

Millions believe in your god guy and millions don't....If you're going to participate in a global debate forum then you are going to have to get used to the fact that, alternative points of view abound.

Hopefully your behaviour is only indicative of a conditioned immaturity and not indicative of more an insidious intolerance.

@Melcharaz.

Quite obviously all  archaic religious mythologies have varied over time.

Just as the purposes and aims of popular religions have been forced to change to meet the demands of an evolving society.

Religion after all is big business and therefore the perpetuation of the various derivations of the myths is now essential chiefly for this reason.

In terms of wealth the Catholic Church is reputed to be No.1.....So this would seemingly make it the fullest by todays standards and requirements.

Events have a place and a duration...That is the indeterminate nature of our assumed reality.

Events require a participant and the question is the  participant  rather than the possibility of an event occurring.

So I would suggest that the possibilities are infinite, in so much as they are not subject to either creation or annihilation.

Whatever the participant may be, to account for it, seemingly demands either impossibility of creation (something from nothing), or infinite existence.  Though infinite existence is also seemingly impossible for the same reasons.

The Kalam argument does not address these simple but fundamental dilemmas.

As I stated previously The Kalam argument is one of several similar discourses, the purpose of which is to establish a  politico-religious agenda based upon an intrinsically flawed creation hypothesis.

@Melcharaz

So, I have pointed out the obvious flaws, in the world according to Melcharaz.

So why not respond with mature counter argument, rather than sending me unchallengeable and threatening messages.

You need to grow up.

@Melcharaz

Oh dear oh dear....Where have I seen that immature nonsense before.

@Malcharaz.

A load of nonsense.

Well, you did ask us all to give you our thoughts.

Whosoever  thought up the first god hypothesis did and did so for a reason.

So what were their reasons?

I would suggest that some people deliberately overlook the obvious,  in pursuit of the spiritual.

Also, embellishing the hypothesis is probably just a case one-upmanship.

Our god was born of a virgin...Ah, but our god was born of a virgin and he died and rose again and we also have the biggest pointiest buildings in the world and the best songs and the smelliest incense...so there....Ah, ours is best and yours is rubbish and you do the praying thing all wrong...so we will cut off your f***ing head....Ah, but we sit about all day humming and contemplating....  D'oh!

@Malcharaz

Quite obviously, everything that you want can be achieved without marriage. 

Why do you think that these requirements can only be achieved within a marriage?.......Because that is how you have been conditioned to think.

Pair bonding is not exclusively human, though all the associated performance and expense of the "big day" is.

Marriage is yet another human contrived unnecessity....A bit like religion in fact.

@ Malcharaz

Assumed god assumed religion...no big deal either.

This sort of stuff is maybe loosely fact based information, though  based on tales and supposition it is now rendered to mythology,  you therefore shouldn't expect it to be either consistent or verifiable.

Genuine dialogue on Dart, especially when it comes to religion is a rare thing... That is to say that fixed ideas are what they are and intolerance  therefore abounds. 

Given the hypothetical nature and consequent uncertainties associated with  religion and the god principle, one might expect greater flexibility of thought amongst supposed rational debaters, but that is rarely the case.

I would therefore suggest that a conditioned brain is just that....Primarily a rigid operating system that we become reliant on and reluctant to stray away from despite our ability to understand and manipulate new  or contentious data input.

If this isn't the case, then why are we not all sceptics?

Unfortunately scepticism is somewhat de rigueur here on Dart at the moment.

Be over contentious and you will be  banned and refuse to thump the bible and you will be dismissed.

In other words we adapt but not within a Darwinian context.

The question is, would we adapt quickly enough to keep pace with a potentially increased rate the rate of environmental change. 

And  yes, climate alarmists will probably ignore Darwin, because Darwinian evolution is contextually irrelevant.

I would suggest that space exploration is ongoing.... But if you envisage trekkian type space adventures happening anytime soon then think again....Near Earth orbit is the best we've been able to achieve for some considerable time now...Extending that comfortably and sustainably beyond the limits of the solar system is a whole different ball game, certainly not achievable in the "Near-Term" and maybe never achievable.

The slow creep of labour automation is ongoing and has been for some time. On the one hand it's a utopian dream and on the other it's a dystopian nightmare. It all depends upon where the human is able to find it's niche, and if population continues to grows as it currently is, then niches are going to be harder to come by.

For me It's more about how humanity  fits into the future, bigger picture.

And as Faux suggests, will our overall purpose actually be the facilitation of the machine/technology and it's development, rather than about technology making our lives easier.

That is to ask, what is the real purpose of material development/evolution?

Things have become as things have become, so consequently things are as they are.

Do you think that things could have been done differently?...…. Or is that really just the futile question that it is?

Similarly, things will become as they will become and the duration of events will render what will have occurred, irreversible.

Does this not suggest that things were always going to occur in the way that  they did?

And therefore things will continue to occur in the way that they will?

Maybe everything is inevitable.....The god principle, without all the singing and dancing as it were.

 

Yep.  The change has been good....I've easily adjusted to the "new normal".

Hello.

I think that we have a somewhat circular debate going on here.

I would suggest that answers to all these questions  can be found within previous discourse.

Now, that's nice friendly debating.   LOL

@Malcharaz

A community is a community and getting rid of the people who don't agree with you....well that brings to mind names like Stalin,  Pol Pot etc etc. 

Are the robust of mind having to be the fall guys for the whims of the oversensitive.

Global pandemics are and for as long as we've been aware of the potential of a global pandemic,  global pandemics have therefore always been a foreseeable problem. 

Bill Gates stated an opinion based on something that we were already aware of.

Visions are aberrations suggestive of some type of mental dysfunction....There is no real conformity in visions....Though that is not to say that visions are not linked to strongly suggestive, social influences.

@Malcharaz

Yep you do.

What is a native species?

Homo Sapiens is the only species in question and Homo Sapiens has adapted to live in most regions of the earth.

Though Homo Sapiens doesn't adapt biologically, it uses it's brain to adapt and utilise environment and resources.

No doubt it will continue to do so, for as long as environmental conditions remain tolerable and there are still sufficient resources available for it to adapt and utilise.

That's not evolutionary adaptation. 

Inuit's have adapted to successfully survive within the arctic circle, whereas Bedouin's have successfully adapted to survive within the Arabian Desert.

Yes, technically and therefore biologically they would be able to swap places, but that's not the point.

The rate of adaptation is also obviously relative to the rate of climatic and environmental change....  What you propose is simply, immediate over exposure to hostile conditions.

A pair of snowmen perhaps....Or should I correctly say snow people....

Though, type the above ( include mixed race coupe if you like) into a general search engine (bing) and you get what you  expect....Couples displaying  various  features of ethnicity and religion.

Nonetheless it's interesting that you classify religion and ethnicity together....That is to say, that there is no definitive Muslim ethnicity.

So what's your point?

Some might argue that the human animal has adapted to just about all climatic conditions.

I would change myself back to how I was 40 years ago.

@Malcharaz.

Was always going to happen.

No more scary that a conventional gun that can punch through metal though.

The scary bit is when a weapon is aimed at you.

Notwithstanding what some might refer to as ad hominem.

What do you make of the above diatribe, faux?

Are they a genius or a troll?

I think the latter, but maybe I was nutritionally deficient as a child.

Well, I would suggest that if a god is a perfect, sentient omnipotent being...It's creation was therefore endowed with the ability to create and develop A.I.

Now, that's a god hypothesis I can happily run with.... So we therefore have to consider  to what extent and to what end's was humanity so predisposed.

Your overwhelming regard seems only to be for now though, rather than for the possibilities of the future.....Current A.I.  can only do what A.I. can currently do, just as humankind was only ever able to do what it could do at the time.....Though god always new what everything was for and what everything was capable of.

God....No singing or praying necessary though, because it already knows everything....However, if it helps.

Exactly.

Says you... inadvertently perhaps.

And says me and says everyone else who says it.

I would suggest that time is the same everywhere.

I would further suggest that what you refer to is a human consideration relative to a specific duration at a specific location.

But that's another debate.

And the Chinese Room is relative to 1986 Human Earth time.

My question is how can you be certain that the Chinese Room will still be applicable  1000 years from now.

Firstly I feel obliged  to point out that "The World" in question refers to a global society and not just a U.S. one.

Secondly, the ultimate fate of humanity may currently rest in our own hands... but for how long? 

I think that we should stop and consider the fact that, after such a short period of technological development so much of our day to day lives is now managed by  A.I.

So will this situation stay exactly the same for evermore or even reverse?....I would suggest that this is just not the way that things happen.

A.I...….Artificial Intelligence or Alternative intelligence?....I prefer the latter....After all, human or non-human,  intelligence is still intelligence.

Interestingly in my experience, it would seem that everyone will cherry pick to suit their requirements.

Cherry picking isn't an exclusive activity.

Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.

Time... Excellent song, incisive lyrics and also from Dark Side of the Moon...Perhaps your favourite album then?

The Wall...Comfortably Numb?

Malcharaz is intolerant of alternative opinion, seemingly misogynistic and  has a propensity to block rather than to discuss rationally and in an adult fashion.

As for the thread....Well, man or women it makes no difference...it's still the blind leading the blind irrespective of reproductive system and mammary glands.

Liberal is a Conservative assumption and vice versa.

Assumptions are only variable data output and therefore subject to variability.

How one aligns or votes politically is only indicative of how one chooses to align or vote politically.

Me....I'm a Liberal Conservative or maybe a Conservative Liberal or perhaps a Moderate or perhaps just a human being with variable and changeable points of view.