Total posts: 13,849
-->
@3RU7AL
An actual sighting of something lurking in the undergrowth, irrespective of what it might or might not be, is what it is.
The delusion is assuming without proof, that it is bigfoot.
Similarly, continued belief in a god of which there is no real proof is also delusional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
That's your Christmas present sorted.
Jack boots and goose stepping lessons.
Sieg Heil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
@Athias
Children are trained.
Children are programmed.
We all have the same inherent data or a basic operating system.
But postnatally we acquire data relative to a specific national or cultural environment.
So basically how we respond to religious data is primarily dependant upon where we were born and consequently how intensively we were formatively programmed.
Religion is simply about postnatally acquired data.
Created:
-->
@David
Who's really dictates U.S. policy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The Worlds oldest known stone temple perhaps.
But undoubtedly not the Worlds first temple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you have a problem with homosexuals?
Is your conservatism so extreme?
You display both homophobia and Islamophobia.
And your verbal attack on Sadiq Khan was particularly extreme and unnecessary.
You are a hairs breadth away from being exactly the same as what you think you so belligerently condemn.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So are you saying that atheists close on the fact that a god doesn't exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think that Jesus was probably gay.
And paedophilia is only a crime when a law says that it is.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Does it matter which variety of theist the millions are choosing or not choosing to become?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I see that you're concentrating your efforts on intellectual debates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well, there must have been something worth responding to, because you took the time to respond to something.
Or perhaps you're just very polite.
Regards to you and Mrs Ethan.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So that's basically it then.
One can neither prove nor disprove something that is unprovable.
So it's been confirmed that there will never be closure on whether a god exists or not.
Though I think we already new that before we started.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@ebuc
Heck.
That's one sugging mad way of looking at it.
I wonder what ebuc will have to say about that.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Unfortunately the deterrent force is nuclear weapons.
Presently, any other conventional force is rendered impotent.
Though I expect scientists are beavering away in their secret research facilities, developing the next generation of environmentally friendly weapons of mass destruction.
As a species we've never really come to terms with the idea that peace is the better option. I think maybe, that we are hardwired not to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's easy to create spirituality and also very easy to explain.
And regarding the soul:
If something is made up, then certainly the process can be evidenced, but that does not automatically make the concept itself valid.
And similarly:
Waxing lyrically about theism does not automatically validate that concept. Waxing lyrically simply evidences your ability to string words together effectively.
Created:
-->
@Christen
@DynamicSquid
Eg. What today is generally regarded as Paedophilia, probably used to be accepted as the norm at one time.
Though what is the point of judging history anyway. Even if a judgement is made, history can't be changed.
Unless we are talking about re-judging those still living of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
As I stated.
Matthew, Luke and Mark all say a similar thing as do the Women.....Chinese whispers.
As is the ensuing development of biblical tales and thus religious ritual.
Like wearing your best hat to church on a Sunday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If you can find it, you can have it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Of course there is no evidence for the existence of a soul.
It's just an internal data programme.
Changing minds is reprogramming the human computer. Which is almost impossible under normal conditions.
Simply trying to overwrite with alternative data will not erase the established operating system.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman.
Probably raised by parents, who were raised by parents, who were raised by parents. Who were all formatively conditioned with the same old tosh.
Throw in a handful of good old inherent racism, and bobs your uncle, you've got yourself yet another religious nut job.
Such is humanity.
As it ever will be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We still attempt to answer the same question.....What's up there?
Albeit with a more scientific approach these days.
Ascent, descent or stay put.
Which one would have undoubtedly been the more attractive basis for a fanciful story?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I think that the preceding nineteen pages of waffle, suggest that morality is probably subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Any initial creation hypothesis is still wholly reliant on magic, so It doesn't matter where you place your God.
Sequential universes possibly, involving some sort of evolved influence maybe.
But that's unlikely to be some ethereal, berobed, fair skinned, beardy guy..... God's made in our own image.
More likely to be some form of data influence, that we will assist in the development of....God's made but not in our image.
An influence which some form of life force may well have assisted in the development of, in a previous universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Of course, it begs the question.
Was Jesus gay?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I will say one thing for you.
You would make a great politician.
You never quite answer the question that gets asked.
You subtly skew meaning and phrasing, thus avoiding the tricky bits.
Do you have political aspirations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Ok. so the above rhetoric was a tad sardonic, but nonetheless contained a valid observation and question.
If you believe that you have a solid hypothesis, then why are you still trying to sell it here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Discussions shouldn't be problematic.
Just transfers of data.
Regards.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Even a conventional atheist can run with the above non-specific interpretation of God.
Though I would suggest that the words observe and observable are multi-faceted and not as easy to pin down as you are suggesting.
I would make the simple suggestion that.
That which can observe is therefore observable.
Whether that be extra-sensory, ergo sensory observability, or internal data processing/thoughtful observance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
If you know you know.
So get out there and receive the global acclaim that you so rightly deserve.
What's the point of hanging around on a relatively insignificant debating website (no offence to debateart intended) arguing the toss with numpties like me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I am against any type of taking innocent lives.
At what point does a live cease to be innocent?
At what point did the life of an Afghan or Syrian or Iraqi child cease to be innocent.
All life is inherent and matters the same.
Well, super-contradiction, given the content of your previous posts. But did you not just also precede this statement with one that differentiated life on the grounds of presumed or assumed innocence?
Nonetheless and disregarding other non-human life forms for the sake of this particular discussion. As a true human Pro-lifer, will you now put your hand on your heart and condemn all U.S. military intervention in overseas sovereign territories, that is unavoidable resultant in extensive collateral damage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Quite.
Though it was the simplicity of the journey that amused me.
But does it now transpire that EV was the one who was mocking?
Or are they back peddling?
I'm not certain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Firstly. I am not the one making the assertion. That's your baby!
Secondly. If you're going to attempt to take the moral high ground, then you have to be prepared to be fully open to scrutiny.
And cherry picking only the life that you want to be bothered about, certainly isn't morally high.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@EtrnlVw
@Paul
P...….. I've decided that I want to be spiritual.
E...…...Good luck pal. Bon voyage.
E.V...…Ok P here's what you do.
P...…... Thanks E.V. I'm getting the hang of it.
E.V...….That's great P, you'll be fully spiritual in no time.
Seriously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Well at the moment, the U.S.A's response to terror, is terror.
In the end It doesn't matter whether you call it terror, or war on terror, the end result is typically the same....Pro-choice.
You choose to take lives when it serves your best interests.
And yet you would pontificate to your fellow citizens who would wish to be able to make the same choice.
Which is undoubtedly selective morality and also a somewhat whimsical approach to being Pro-life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Trouble is:
No one as yet as been confronted with the truth.
We are all, still only guessing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
I'm open to suggestions on how we should combat terror.
Changing the focus and avoiding the tricky questions is something of a politicians response.
How we should combat assumed terror is a separate discussion.
You are clearly only Pro the lives that you selectively choose to consider and discuss within your own little safe and self righteous bubble.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
The onus is always on the one making the positive claim.
Which is the one that attempts to promote the primary concept as reality.
He certainly would be expected to back it up.
You'd Better ask 3RU7AL to back it up then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You've let me down.
Thought so.
Same old selective morality and hypocrisy.
"These organizations kill many innocent people".
Therefore it's also perfectly ok for the U.S to kill many innocent people.
Including non-combatant children and women and (given the high numbers involved) inevitably pregnant women and their associated foetuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Come on it's just entertainment Jim but not as we know it.
It's Cowboys and Injuns in outer space.
Phasers locked and ready.
Any warty headed bad guy is gonna get it.
F**K the directive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
"Spirituality" is internal brain function.
Either, a reaction to external sensory stimulation, or a reaction to an internally generated flow of data.
Nonetheless, spirituality is self generated and self contained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
And so furthermore.
You can also put your hand on your heart and say.
That even as a declared U.S. Conservative, you nonetheless are totally against the U.S. led war on terror, and all it's associated civilian and combatant deaths.
Sorry but I just need to be certain of your complete dedication to pacifism and "Pro-Life".
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
If the Earth is flat.
Then how thick is the discoid?
And what does the underside look like?....Do you have any photo's?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
Can you explain the mechanics of life?
And particularly, how it differs between species.
If you can explain that, without just simply saying that a god sorted it, then perhaps we can move on.
It's just to easy and convenient to say that a god did it.
You cannot claim to be "Pro-Life" if you cannot differentiate between lives that you do not have the same regard for.
I would suggest that it would be far more productive if gods rather than animals were removed from the discussion.
And furthermore, can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that you regard all human lives with equal measure?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Men being the operative word.Holy men of God.
And once again you just quote the words of the man, Peter.
Peter the fallible man and all his fallible friends.
And it might have been a holy spirit that moved them. But it was just as likely to have been some other mind altering plant derivative.
Highly popular stuff amongst shamanic types, wishing to transcend to that higher plain.
No apples or oranges required!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right
You've just sort of brought religion into politics.I don't bring religion into politics
Nonetheless:
I personally regard the mechanics of all life to be the same in all living things. No God required.
And the top predator is not necessarily always going to be the human.
If a god did design life, it also designed animals that eat humans. So the god certainly didn't regard it to be necessary to separate animal rights and human rights.
I think that humans probably made that rule up for themselves.
Created: