Total posts: 13,849
-->
@ethang5
When you picture an American conservative in you minds eye, what do you see.
And be honest.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I think that I was agreeing with you in a round about way. That is if I understood you correctly.
A blames B for A's problems.
A has a tendency to wallow in the past and is fearful for the future.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Corollary.
Nonetheless:
By race, I would suggest that what you are actually referring to is the assumed label that we apply to perceived differences, either physiological or cultural.
A result of evolutionary development, with no chance of turning back the clocks.
So why the dogged futility of wallowing in the past?
Perhaps it's just the way that things were meant to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Doesn't "if" negate everything.If God existed etc.
Isn't "if" an abstract proposition.
Is "if" logical or rational?
And therefore, did you construct a logical argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Thank God they were.
So as ever, one lot of shit is better than another.
Though I suppose that this greatly depends on the relative comfort or discomfort of the commentator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Your experience is irrelevant; logic is logic; reason is reason; all arguments are logical; all arguments are rational. The scrutiny is in its relevance and consistency within the context of reason and logic.
I usually admire the veracity of your argument, but I think (in so much as I am, I think) that you have somewhat over egged the custard here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Of course.That depends on who you ask I guess.
It depends upon who you are prepared to listen to, which in turn depends upon if what is being said is what you want to listen to.
Especially if you are not prepared to listen to both sides of a discussion, or in fact are not programmed to do so.
I would suggest looking at God as a metaphor, applying a tad bit more rationale to your thinking and extracting yourself from the biblical murk that you have been conditioned to accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's because it's in the interests of the U.S and it's Israeli puppeteers to have a destabilised Middle East.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Jesus lived an abstinent and chaste life.
This claim also has no legitimate basis.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@ludofl3x
You pick and choose to suit.
Nonetheless you both perfectly describe mythology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@HistoryBuff
Q. Why does the U.S.A. give a toss about the Middle East
A. Israel and oil.
And If you want to get something done then get yourself a dumb President elected.
So who's pulling who's strings?
All good conspiracy stuff eh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Same old biblical shit Eugene.
So Jesus was bi-curious.
And I had always assumed that he was a full on gay character.
And his disciples said, bend over Jesus for we shall enter the kingdom of God.
Clearly a metaphor.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Figuratively speaking.
Therefore isn't the whole biblical mythology (hypothesis) including god, just a figurative representation of the unknown.
The unknown being a creative and subsequent process (material evolution) of development.
After all, the biblical stories including God were all derived from the imaginations of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Is anyone really a Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Choosing a belief.
Just struck me as an interesting turn of phrase.
And I would suggest that what you were actually referring to was an inherent predeterminism that negates our ability to self determine
Though isn't the human condition such that we have evolved, beyond a complete lack of self determination.
Or do I have no control over why and what I type in response to your post?
I'm pretty sure that we are able choose, though I suppose that testing this theory would be a tad difficult, if not impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Isn't consciousness a word that was coined to describe something in particular?
Even if everything is an illusion, are we not aware of the illusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I couldn't actually say.
One takes things at face value.
So, another debate for the conspiracy theorists then.
Nonetheless I stick by the rest of my previous post.
I think that A.I. is more than likely the evolutionary way forwards, in terms of material development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
100 years ago people probably thought that it was not possible to walk on the Moon.
49 years later the impossible was achieved.
Given the exponential rate of technological advancement since 1969, I would suggest that artificial intelligence is probably inevitable.
01/08/2017. Facebook shuts down robots after they invent their own language.
It would be arrogant to assume that human intelligence is the be all and end all of universal progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
How is it possible to disprove a possibility?
Created:
Posted in:
Only within the context of human based certainty. One could probably spout known truths all day long.
One could also be similarly confident of ones own ability to be rational, logical and common sensical.
Unfortunately I am not always able to appreciate all your posts with such assuredness.
My failing or yours?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Exactly.
But the human moralist will usually choose to differentiate, solely on the grounds of the human ability to differentiate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Right and wrong do not necessarily need to be qualified by an external authority.
Social law defines and judges within the context of social legality.
The point was, that right and wrong irrespective of social law, can only be regarded as assumptions in a universal context.
The distinction therefore between an Earthbound social edict and morality (right and wrong) as an assumed universal predetermination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I think that what you are saying is, human society has an inherent system that no longer functions efficiently.
Which is probably correct.
These days, aspiration and expectancy tend to exceed capability and achievability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Quite simply, why would the omni-god not foresee the inequality of it's creation.
Therefore on the basis of your argument, we have to assume that the omni-god actually purposefully designed inequality.
So why then condemn mans inherent inequality?
Is this some sort of perverse test?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Because right and wrong are unqualified assumptions. In so much as there is no known external authority to make such judgements.
And therefore no authority to empower a moral representative or agent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wherein lies the authority of the moral agent?
I would suggest that murder maybe illegal, but is not necessarily wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What you are actually saying is, I appear to live as though your version or understanding of morality exists.
Whereas, although I might be deemed to adhere to a social moral code, I consider that my understanding of said morality is acquired differently.
Albeit perception, but only as an interpretation of acquired and stored data, rather than as some sort of transcendental experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Just a kind of human display of pious platitudes said so, type of deal.
It's interesting how monetarism and religion are seemingly inseparable.
Isn't it fair to say that the rich/poor scenario must have been resultant of God's imprecise creation, rather than of a developed human failing.
Therefore why shouldn't God shoulder the responsibility for the existence of the successful human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I hope what you meant to say, was that you suspect that I wouldn't kill or rape.
Furthermore I would suggest that my propensity for not killing and raping is probably the same as yours is.
And in that particular respect, I think that all we are actually doing is using different words and interpretations of acquired data to say the same thing.
Developed social reasoning and consequent social conditioning, generally dictate that most rational social participants are able to confirm with the developed social rationale.
Though, If I understand you correctly, what you seem to be purporting is the idea that morality is something that is wholly separate and extra-humanly existent, therefore something that perhaps we do or do not download irrespective of social conditioning or inherency.
Maybe, but nonetheless a notion that doesn't fit with my current way of thinking/organising data.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
I agree.
In so much as all living organisms have an inherent system.
And higher species may develop habitual behaviour, whereby recurrent habitual behaviour may also be described as being cultural.
Human cultural systems are just a tad bit more elaborate I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
For me there is an obvious distinction to be made between "actual existence" and "conceptuality".
Are you suggesting that morality is an extra-human set of principles? if so, where, when and how is morality generated.
I fail to see how morality is anything other than a subjective human construct. Something established to a certain degree, but nonetheless something that is stored as sequenced data, rather than something that can actually be described as existent.
Notwithstanding the fact that existent also defines, having reality. Though I think that there is also an obvious distinction to be made between what is assumed to be actual reality, and the reality of thought. Which in essence is the same as the distinction between "actual existence" and "conceptuality".
So I suppose that I am philosophically materialistic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
With regard to a God hypothesis.
I do just that, rather than believe.
God, Creation, Evolution, Finality maybe, God, Creation, Evolution etc. Maybe
Certainly not a Northern European looking hippy type that goes around screwing Middle Eastern virgins, getting them pregnant and then having their only son nailed to a cross so that mere mortals can repent of their sins or some such shit as that..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yep. What's the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Hive mind could possible inform a purpose.
God, or more appropriately what the term God represents, could be the primary enabler of the purpose.
NB. No hymns or prayers required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The Bible is an inanimate book/compilation of texts, that doesn't actually say anything.
It was the Men who made up the biblical stuff that rather preferred that women shouldn't have authority over men.
Did God design female buttocks for spanking? Some one say that it is plainly self evidential. Others would disagree for a variety of self imposed reasons.
Are you torn between biblical morality and social morality on the issue of female submission?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As far as we are aware, morality is confined to one Earthbound organic species which may or may not have any greater universal significance other than that described.
Morality results from the ability of the species to understand, store, recall and utilise data and thereby apply concepts to their existence, both individually and collectively.
The "test" is no more than just another concept of indeterminate significance, In so much as we are not able to actually be aware or unaware of our universal importance or unimportance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Antifa by definition are pissed off.
Pissedoffness is the whole purpose of Antifa.
If Antifa weren't pissed off, what would be the point of Antifa?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What do you think culture is?
Especially in relation to "downstream genetics", what ever that is supposed to mean. So what do you mean by that?
Isn't culture just a conceptually assumed state of superiority and importance promoted by individuals or collective group of culturalists. More often relative to past events and activities and therefore simply the human ability to store, recall and utilise data.
So perhaps in that context, culture might be regarded as being downstream from genetics.
Or conversely as you implied, upstream.
I suppose that it all depends upon the greater or lesser significance one applies to both flow and cultural/genetic differential.
Care to clarify your proposition?
And do you think that animals rely wholly upon instinct?
Or do they sometimes times utilise memory?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
We're unreliably informed that he likes to fuck married virgins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Caitlyn Jenner?
I didn't ask when is a bloke in a frock an expert on female sexuality.
I asked when is a (true) female not an expert on female sexuality.
Do you think that your proclaimed expertism and consequent wantonness, are more a result of something oppressive and slightly more sinister in your life rather than of something modernly liberal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
When is a female not an expert on female sexuality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Yep. I would think that it is fair to say that belief is a wholly individual thing.
As far as I can be aware, a collection of believers who ostensibly share similar beliefs are nonetheless just that.
Though I have noticed that Janesix has recently been proposing a possible "hive mind" principle, which on first consideration is quite a fascinating concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
As far as we are able to know, human reality can only be qualified by humanity.
Yep. Progression/evolution as far as we can be aware.
As far as I am able to know, I am my parents son and genetics is an observable process, though a lot of that speculative awareness is reliant upon data from secondary sources.
Certainty is an assumption is uncertainty I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Ultimately the individual is dependant upon themself. As far as I can be aware.
Belief is a multifarious word that tells us very little, other than it's own possibilities.
Therefore as far as I am currently concerned, (in so much as how data currently amalgamates within my conscious brain relative to the expression of someones assumed belief) the assumed possession of belief, can only be taken with a pinch of salt.
For me belief is no more than a guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I evolved because, in short I am a product of genetic variation, rather than a carbon copy from a masterplan.
One assumes that at a moment of creation, Charles Darwin and computer technology did not instantly spring into existence.
Real is what we think we know. Both instinctive data and sensory acquired and stored data.
As far as I am aware, we can only deduce things from our own, individual human standpoint. Therefore this would probably be the limit of a human beings reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Was there ever a time when things were truly different?
And given the prospects for short term social development, what chance do you honestly think there is, for things to change in the future?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
So what do you find particularly interesting about the Mona Lisa?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In so much as we all agree that there is an ultimate reality of some sort.
But none of us actually have any idea what that ultimate reality is.
Which basically sums up ontology.
Created: