zedvictor4

If data exists, then belief as a concept is somewhat irrelevant anyway.

knowledge is, irrespective of conceptual belief.

The beauty is that data does not necessarily have to correspond with a reality, other than it's own within it's own context.

Multiverses collide. Conjecture only.

"Our" universal event will be limited by it's own limited potential. 

Whereas space and time might offer unlimited potential.

Life choices is life choices. No one is denying you that.

But unalterable facts are unalterable facts.

And to get back to the point.  A woman that "identifies" as a man, who then goes on to conceive and give birth is undeniably a hypocrite.

And such hypocrisy proves two things:

1. Assumed post-natal "gender dysfunction" is nothing more than a current socio-psychological trend.

2. No amount of cosmetic padding can alter the base reality of gender.

Have a nice day.

Ok. I Will look later.

 People sometimes find it difficult to argue against common sense.

All well and good.

But better if you were to clarify this extra "spatial dimension" thing.

Nonetheless. I think that the universe is oscillatory and contained within the limits of it's own potential to expand and contract between three non-infinite points. 

An oscillating sequence which therefore also has the potential to reinitiate from 0.

So "Big Bangs" could have occurred an almost infinite number of times.

The sequence of events that we regard as material evolution may or may not be crucial to the process. I digress.

You got what you expected then.

Result!

Perhaps "tongue"  and God are  binary data.

One and the same thing.

That were once created and are yet to be recreated.

No hymns required.

Money.

The God.

And the Devil.

Excuses, excuses.

One can bander such modernisms about all day long. But they are mere justifications.

And scientists can be found who will say one thing and their are scientists who will say the opposite.

But let's be honest this is not really a science issue. This is a simple common sense matter.

Common sense dictates that man and woman are the basis of procreation and the continuation of the species.

And prenatal developmental anomalies are what they are.

And postnatal contrivances that pander to our need for coital gratification are also what they are.

Outside in, inside out.

Non-inherent data obviously has to come in before it can be stored and perhaps be reworked and adapted before it can go out again. 

Nonetheless the process and decision making is always internal.

No matter how exceptional it may seem, it is still only an internal physiological process.

Though it is fair to suggest that the process could have a purpose other than chance physiology.

A greater purpose though, could mean a hundred and one different things.

Nonetheless, if there is a greater purpose I'm pretty certain that it will be based of some sort of yet to be developed pragmatic technology, rather than such archaic nonsense as cross nailing, hymn singing and incense wafting etc.

Most well established religions have a faith of supposed "sacred mysteries".

But that that doesn't negate the need for belief.

If you didn't believe the Christian message then you wouldn't believe the Christian message, it's as simple as that.

Hence why approximately 5 billion people don't believe the Christian message.

Quite frankly.

If highly fertile young women didn't want  good old fertile heterosexual males (or predatory lesbians) to admire their bodies, then why do they wear such tight and revealing clothing.

The current anti-male argument is so counter intuitive.

The inherent nature of these age old fertility rites is simply pheromones with out the sniffing.

Basic physiology determines gender, and the uncorrupted definition of gender is simply "either of the two sexes, male or female".

And yes, very rarely physiological abnormalities can occur during foetal development. 

Though, the current social preponderance regarding gender issues, is not about developmental abnormalities but rather about postnatal               socio-psychological issues.

Nonetheless, all of this is a secondary discussion which has developed from a simple premise. Whereby the oftentimes hypocritical and nonsensical nature of ultra right wing liberal, so called "transgender" justification, becomes patently obvious.

And just for the record, I have no interest or concern whatsoever regarding who of what sex does what with someone else of whatever sex, and similarly I have no concern or interest in what any individual chooses to with their own body.

I would suggest though, that it would be far better if such people quit bombarding the rest with hypocritical and nonsensical justifications and got on with their sexual and bodily preoccupations in private.

And furthermore, the actual person that was referred to in the first place was unequivocally a woman, gender female. As proven by their obvious physiological ability to conceive and give birth.

The stuff that you and I and most other living people have stored inside our heads.

And all the stuff that is readily available in a narrative format.

As all data is internally stored.

Then gnosis is epignosis.

And religious belief and assumed knowledge are the same also.

Input, store, think and sometimes output.

So, how far have you guys got with the wall?

It doesn't make the headlines over hear anymore. 

I imagine that it would be a handy little job for all those potential Mexican migrants.

Are you saying that:

We think we believe but we probably should know that we don't.

Which is correct, but doesn't take into account the effects of formative conditioning, which has a tendency to become a sort of secondary operating system.

Even some of the brightest sparks retain illogical information within their databases. Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin, to name but two.

It was either the Ukrainians or Vladimir Putin what did it.

Or maybe even a Chinese cyber attack.

If only you could put things into a non-egocentric format.

Perhaps you could apply some super-ego from time to time.

What do you actually mean when your refer to a higher dimensional shape?

What do you think is higher than the known dimensions of possibility?

It's all a metaphor for the hypocrisy of veganism.

What is belief?

Belief is the internal assessment of internally stored data, whereby the assessor establishes a conclusion of sorts.

Sometimes, through discussion or debate we take on board a new set of data that causes us to modify our previously held conclusion.

How resolutely we adhere to set patterns of internally stored data is largely due to when where and how we were formatively conditioned.

In extreme cases this is often referred to as brainwashing. Though it's fair to say that we all grow up with a certain amount of well established data and thought patterns on board.

If we're being picky about definition.

It could be argued that as immoral and racist are being regarded as separate words with separate meanings, then the phrase "immoral racist" could therefore be regarded as a double negative. Therefore a racist who is immoral is not necessarily a racist.

But we know what is actually being implied by the phrase "immoral racist" so why bother to be picky about definition?

Christianity in the 21st century. Why??

Because the data is out there.

The basis of any argument is personally held data and a difference of opinion.

Therefore space and time as intangibles, were always possible.

Therefore we are here because it was possible.

Though this obviously doesn't take into account the real stumbling block, which is the existence of matter.

And we are still hopelessly reliant on magic for this one.

Of course.

Philosophically though I prefer to refer to the correlation of the separate possibilities of space and time rather than to the one idea of "space time".

I agree entirely.

That was what I was trying to express.

Take the science out of time and space and just accept them for what they are.

Something obviously did occur. So there was obviously time available.

As I stated. In the purest sense time was simply the opportunity.

I think that we often attempt to unnecessarily apply tangibility to time.

1) If God or Gods did it, then what did Gods.

2) You say happenstance I say coincidence and one could say exactly the same thing about Gods.

Oh! Coincidentally there was a Big Bang.

Oh! Coincidentally there was a God.

In fact neither starting point is particularly reasonable, as both are reliant on something somehow appearing out of nothing. Which is completely unreasonable.

And so what is the third option? Please tell.

If there was nothing, then an event requiring duration would obviously not occur. Therefore time would be rendered somewhat irrelevant.

Time in the purest sense is simply the opportunity.

And based on our own witness something must have taken advantage of the opportunity. 

We can therefore extrapolate from this, that the opportunity must have always been available.

Defecation and urination are fairly standard mammalian functions. So I don't quite understand why you have singled out Pigs for criticism.

Well I do understand actually.

It's simply a personally acquired and stored set of data. Exactly the same as your own particular existence hypothesis.

Yep. Where does the power actually lie?

Perhaps the one good thing about Donald is his obvious dislike of the current climate of extreme liberalism. But just like me, that's probably just an age thing.

And there's a whole lot of sand in Northern Syria. So that's that then!

As the person sitting behind looks up in astonishment.

Rational is as rational does.

And judgement is arrogance.

And there are upwards of 7.7 billion different world views. Most of which can be considered to be rational in their own individual context. In fact all are probably seemingly rational from an individual perspective.

I would suggest that the butterflies thing was more of an analogy than a metaphor.

Yep. The Chinese and Russians must be laughing their socks off at the moment.

Do you think that there is any chance of re-election. What would that say about the American people if that were to happen?

Though is the U.S. electoral system, less about the majority and more about those who are able to manipulate the system?

Yep. So the biblical mythology might be more reasonable than the previous Greek mythology

But the bible had the advantage of improved human knowledge.

But let's be honest.

He hasn't got a clue has he?

Donald even makes G Dubya look clever.

If the raw material is available and you happen to be omniscient, then you don't need to bother about science.

They appear to think differently in Alabama, maybe.

And I did say mildly misogynistic, more in reference to the general make up of debaters who regularly debate this topic.

Discerning a distinction is one thing

Discerning a difference is something altogether different?

This has inevitably become just another Pro/Con abortion debate with a slightly different introductory slant.

Am I correct in assuming that it is usually men who instigate this sort of debate.

Some might even say that they detect a mildly misogynistic air about proceedings.! 

Then goes on to conceive and give birth, whilst still vehemently claiming their right to male identity.

Hypocrisy, stupidity, comedy or what?

We are slowly starting to realise that marriage is nonsense anyway.

Do you think that we will ever be able to fully separate reality from acquired nonsense?

And whilst the masses continue to thrash around in their conceptual mire, the curiosity of few that matter, continues to drive material evolution on apace.

And the nonsense of the past and the tokens of evolution are enough to satisfy the limited curiosity of the rest.

And a foetus is just another blob of stuff, to be flushed away or cast aside on a desecrated tissue.

We are here because we are. (We think)

And what we might achieve, might or might not be significant.

Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism et al.

All essentially the same.

Naïve hypotheses. 

Internal data processing, but with some slight cosmetic variations in output.

The U.S. is a Nation founded on immigration.

Back in the day, neither legality or illegality came into it.

God Bless America hey.