Total posts: 13,876
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:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Yep.
Definitely the car and the latest bit of tech.
Created:
-->
@LordLuke
Year of birth is enough.
It's sometimes useful to know the age of the person that one is in a discussion with, that's all.
Regards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Certainly.
We've long since not had to focus our efforts on hunter gathering and general survival stuff.
So staring at other stuff is a harmless enough way of spending a few hours. (And spending one's hard earned cash).
Freedom to choose and all that hey.
Mind you. One could just as easily stand outside the gallery and stare at something for free.
Take your pick the Worlds full of interesting stuff.
Just saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
As I continue to state. The ultimate reality is what it is and no one can actually do anything other than speculate.
Call it God, if that is what you have been conditioned to do. I certainly do not wish to deny you that right.
For now I will refer to it as G.O.D as this fit's nicely with my current way of thinking.
As you've probably surmised, I was never strictly conditioned with any of the many religious variants, so I am therefore able to retain a very flexible approach towards matters concerning the big question.
Though what this proves to me is, that the reason that we continue to differ and to debate is not because one of us is right and one of us is wrong, it's simply because you and I were brought up differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Only if you don't particularly want transhumanism within the scope of evolution. Your call, though a bit short sighted perhaps.Transhumanism is not in the scope of evolution.
Nonetheless as far as I am concerned technological evolution will most likely exceed both humanism and transhumanism.
As I stated, you are only concerning yourself with one small phase of the process of material evolution and conveniently disregarding everything that went before and everything that will possibly come after.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Athias
In so much as Creation and evolution might be regarded as opposing hypotheses.
Nonetheless creation starts at the beginning of something, whereas the possibility of species evolution comes a long while later, rather towards the current end of a process.
I would suggest that evolution should actually take into account every phase of a developmental process, rather than just the particular bit that is relevant to ourselves.
Though If one does focus on the very latter stages of material development, that is to say the exponential movement from the organic to the technological, then evolution would seem to be patently obvious..
The fact that we are the architects of this movement, is what it is.
And perhaps is also what it was meant to be.
Creation-Evolution-Creation etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Lacks panache.NTURTTGgTS
And NOUMENON's not much better.
You can see why the choose GOD.
G.O.D. could be something like the Genesis Originating Data.
G.O.D. Would look good on the side of the Data Delivery Vehicle. D.D.V.
NTURTTGgTS would just look stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
@Mopac
That's easy to say.
But impossible to prove.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Also TBF.
His predictions concerning recent U.S. Policy and Middle Eastern events have been somewhat correct.
Admittedly some of his earlier conspiracy stuff was just a tad whacky, to say the least.
But if you've got a moment, some of his more recent lectures are well worth a listen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Trump is clueless for sure.
It's the string pullers who have the agenda and the authority.
And British lick arses, who assumed a mandate to leave the E.U. now assume a mandate to keep on licking.
How about asking the people what they think Bosser?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Over-pedanticism concerning subject matter, rather than an actual interest in the subject itself, is to a greater or lesser extent often the reason why some people debate.
And to be honest.
Myself included.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
What does that say about the human species?
Are we no better than sheep?
As David Icke said. Sometimes I think that we "out sheep the sheep".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
As I stated very recently in a separate thread.
Call it God if you wish, that's your prerogative.
I for now will label the possible enabler of a possible ultimate reality as G.O.D. Which is an acronym.
D. probably is data.
But I haven't got my head around the G and the O yet.
Though the only reason I choose G.O.D. is because it is an acronym relative to many popular mythological hypotheses.
Of course the word God could easily be a corruption of something else, that has long since been lost in translation.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Odds on for the Ultimate reality. It's probably delusional to think otherwise.
What one chooses to call the ultimate reality is of no importance.
I sometimes Refer to it as G.O.D. but I haven't decided what the acronym stands for yet.
Though In my hypothesis G.O.D. is the enabler of the ultimate reality.
No worship required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So then what significance does this bear to anyone other than you.
Some or none.
It's wholly dependant upon the recipient.
What is a debate, other than a string of subjective statements?
When is a personal judgement not based upon ones personal opinions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
A. I think therefore I am, as far as I can be certain, which is all there is. So I evolved. As far as I am aware I am not a carbon copy of everything that predates me.
B. I communicate with you electronically.
A. and B. are both relative to the processes of Material evolution, as is Darwinian Theory.
As far as I can be aware A. and B. are real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Reality in so much as we are able to know what reality possibly is, substantiates evolution.
As one assumes that the human one is the only argument. Therefore, human arguments are just that.
The existence of the human and the development of the argument and the possibility of a conclusion.
And the bleeping of the device.
Created:
Posted in:
@ Athias
A. What do you assume is my "proposed metric". Perhaps you could clarify.
B. I'm not really a proponent of assumed objectivity. I think that anything intra-subjective, is just that.
C. It's nice when one experiences a moment of inter-subjectivity.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think that you will actually find that an "angle" is the space between two intersecting lines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Mona Lisa.
Was a good film.
But the painting is boring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What's the fascination with Russian authors?
And where do you think that we would be today without "Progressive Types"?
Isn't it fair to say that stagnant types are often just jealous of progressive types?
Isn't it better be to be ignorant and content, rather than jealous?
Created: