zedvictor4

Absolutely no offence intended at all.

But it's the men in white pants.

Or perhaps  just the white pants.

Is it a sort of negative Oedipus complex thing?

White pants always remind me (but certainly not in a sexual way) of my dad or older men in general. 

That's not a fundamental right. That's just a personal opinion.

The fundamental principle is that life lasts as long as it does.

Some life lasts for a moment and some life lasts for hundreds of years.

Personal relates to a person.

Perhaps your Freudian Slip was indicative of something more sinister than just a simple oversight?

Sorry to be picky.

But, "A.I's personal rights"?

Who actually has the authority to decide fundamental rights?

As there certainly doesn't appear to be a human consensus regarding the morality or immorality of abortion.

Excellent.

I hope there isn't a schism between us though.

Regards.

Deism and theism are simply retro-mysticism as opposed to atheism which could be regarded as neo-pragmatism or even continuo-pragmatism. 

Scientifically expounded realism and constructive truisms easily negate fickle humanism.

Nonetheless compounded data input and consequent irrational obstructionism will obviously persist for as long as it is allowed to persist.

Mysticism and associated sensationalism obviously inhibit material evolutionism to a lesser or greater extent. Though these days one is patently aware of a diminishment of existentialism and an increase in the rapidity of both the exponentialism and inevitablism of non-organicism.

If there are any deistically associated truisms, they are more likely to be resultant of human constructivism rather than being based upon universal

precedentialism.

Predispositionism is an obvious ongoing consequence of theistic humanism. Whereas atheism is a development of rationalism, particularly when referenced alongside forward thinking pragmatism and realism.

Functionally equivalent is a comparatism.

Just another ism because we can.

Brain generated from acquired, stored and assimilated data.

What is wealth?

Wealth is essentially greed dressed up as success.

Therefore greed tax should be the primary focus of your taxation system.

In fact, is ASTAP something that you have made up?  As I cannot find any references to it.

The evolutionary process demands intelligence and the process dictates that we currently require 7.7 billion human devices. How population levels might alter in the future will be relative to the future demands of the process. 

Limited Earth resources and a time limited solar system will eventually dictate how the process will move forward. Though I would imagine that necessity would have exceeded our usefulness long before them.

One day we will all be redundant.

Of course; that is assuming that everything has purpose.

I think that it is somewhat naive to assume that we will always have a say in the matter.

I would suggest that the primary objective is intelligence, and not the devices that facilitate intelligence.

Rights are merely conceptual bi-products of intelligence.

One thinks relative to acquired information.

Both Atheism and Theism are simply assimilated data. As are scepticism and deism and all other ism's.

Yes. Those are the concepts.

And I suppose concepts are sort of real in both production and application.

The overwhelming trend of the last century has been an exponential increase in the rate of material evolution. And humans unwittingly or not, have been the architects of this process. Maybe we have also unwittingly been the architects of our own succession.  

Whilst other intelligence gets ready to zoom off into the future with all necessary information on board, all that the majority of us can do is harp on about the weather, worry about our health and drag our heels in the past.

Oh! and continue to worship money. The one true God that unites and divides us all.

   

What is innocence and what are crimes, other than concepts loosely associated with some sort of collective decision making process.

Is that all you have to offer?

A "Medical Professional" is nonetheless only a human being.

Present symptoms and a time restricted medical professional will make an educated diagnosis based upon the symptoms presented.

All that I am saying is; to achieve an accurate diagnosis a medical professional is dependant upon receiving accurate information.

Furthermore:

Is cauliflower in a white sauce with a cheesy crumb crust, also overtly discriminatory.

One wouldn't want to upset cheesy people.

Hmmmmmmm.

And significantly problematic things will only become significantly problematic if we become significantly dependant upon them.

Which we may well do of course.

But really, is there any consideration for our problems other than our own?

That said though:

The fickleness of a humanity that has a tendency to keep worrying about the irretrievable past, is the fickleness of a humanity that has a tendency to keep worrying about the irretrievable past.

So who knows what we will have come up with in the next 20 years.

But the big question is:

Are we the real motivators or is everything actually self motivated?

Let's be honest.

Who seeks medical advice from a bunch of strangers, on a debating website?

And more importantly, why?

Life is dependant upon death.

If this weren't the case, we would not exist.

The term "Pro-life" is as obvious as it is ridiculous.

An unqualified diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease is pretty irresponsible.

Especially if the recipient is likely to be susceptible to suggestion.

And your certain that you know something that cannot be known.

Sounds like a guess to me.

Or wishful thinking perhaps.

Or maybe blind faith.

Certainly sounds like a contradiction.

Though it has to be said:

Who can prove what to be correct and who can prove what to be incorrect.

It's an ages old Catch 22 situation.

Profanities and grammatically incorrect assertions.

Is that all you have to offer?

How many people actually stop and think about how coffee tastes and why they drink it.

I did and realised that coffee actually tasted awful and wasn't particularly beneficial to health.

I would suggest that reliance upon coffee, although seemingly less harmful, is not much different to most other substance addictions.

The universe has a conscious what?

The Jesus character of the bible tales could easily have been based upon a real person.

And if you interpret the tale correctly, Jesus was portrayed as the son of a loose woman called Mary who had a fling with a swarthy stud called Ged.  The comic character of the tale was his gullible, daft stepdad Joseph.

Nowadays we refer such entertainment as Soap Operas.

The ongoing adventures of Jesus were as ridiculous and entertaining as most soap operas are today.

Not that I personally find soap operas entertaining.

But a great many people do and get quite addicted to these fantastic stories.

The way some people go on about them makes you think that they almost believe them to be real.

Sounds like assumptive illness relative to lifestyle issues.

Exercise, healthy eating and positive mental attitude will solve most assumed problems.

Doctors will simply pander to demands and prescribe all sorts of unnecessary drugs.

Drugs that will probably only exacerbate health problems in the long term.

Yep. 

And no one has a clue what the ultimate reality might be.

We can only guess.

Evolution is a far greater process than just species development.

Evolution started at the beginning way before the development of organic material and the subsequent development of sentient life.

As such I think that it is fair to suggest that it would be arrogant to assume that we are or were ever meant to be the ultimate limit of universal potential or purpose.

Of course; this is based on the assumption that everything has some sort of purpose. Whether that be simply a universal inevitability or even something more divinely inspired. Who knows?!

I would further suggest that it is quite evident that material development is already starting to exceed the capabilities and obvious fragility of the organic.

Maybe we were just a tool for furthering the process of material development.

It would seem that knowledge is of key importance and we are now well into the process of transferring knowledge to other less fragile systems.

And who knows what is or isn't happening elsewhere in the universe?

And so say you. 

And truth and nihilism are as much concepts as your concept of "The Truly Existent One" is.

But this is how you function as an individual.

And you function relative to how you process and utilise your stored data, data which you acquired through a process we regard as education.

Education is variable, therefore concepts will also be variable. 

And the ultimate reality might be a truly existent one or it could just as easily be the collapse of the universe and the destruction of all matter. Or it might be something completely different or it might even be nothing at all.

And you and I could make assumptions all day long. But we will probably never get to know the answer.

Data is processed according to the data that we have to process.

Formatively programmed information tends to have a strong influence on our decision making.

Theist and atheist are just different labels that we apply to what is essentially, exactly the same thing. A sentient mass that possesses the ability to consciously store, process and utilise information.

The output of information is relative to input and as input is variable so consequently the output of concepts will also be variable. 

You conceive that theism is relative to mental illness.

Whereas I conceive that the your comment was inconsiderate. 

How more exact than 19 years can one get.

It is either 18, 19, or 20. 

Though if it were18, why would one say that it was 19?

Theism is theism and atheism is atheism. That are both conditioned states of mind.

As such there is no real opposition. Just two different brains containing two differing sets of information.

All that we do is respond relative to the information we hold within our brain.

Religions or not, has no real external significance. Everything we do relies wholly upon internal data processing.

Belief is nothing more than assimilated data. 

I think that it is fair to say, that as things stand; there is no real evidence to support any claim that one particular set of data is an accurate representation of universal reality.

You have one default assumption of an ultimate reality within your brain. Which is no doubt the product of your own particular conditioning/education.

Therefore the value of your education is just as open to question as anyone else's might be.

There are various other valid ultimate scenarios, all equally open to question. 

Whether any of our postulations are correct or not, is possibly something we will never have the chance to find out.

Humanity could quite plausibly have inherent goals, especially within the context of an evolutionary sequence. 

Obviously we get hung up on our bit of the sequence, but our bit of the sequence is probably just a nanosecond within the context of the complete universal sequence.

And there may well be a G.O.D. principle. Though I suspect that G.O.D. is not what it is traditionally assumed to be.

What was G.O.D. and what will G.O.D. be ?

And If you hadn't worked it out: G.O.D. is an acronymic metaphor for something.

And I am an atheist in the conventional sense by the way.

Perhaps we were always destined to be the architects of our own demise. Maybe material evolution has a clear purpose and soon we will have accomplished our part of the process. If we were allowed to continue meddling, who knows what damage we might do.

Purpose or chance: What do you think?

One doesn't become an atheist.

One becomes a theist.

We are all born atheists and remain so until we assume differently.

The Swallow.

Spotting the first swallow in mid April is always a special moment.

Good.

How we assimilate information is ultimately an individual experience.

Therefore our perception of reality is also an individual experience.

Of course it could be argued that our perception of reality is a momentary thing and somewhat separate from the greater reality of the universe.

Reality can be as simple or as complicated as we care to make it.

God is merely belief and cannot be proven to be otherwise.

Your God is more than likely just another product of your imagination.

 

A consensus of scientifically derived information, concludes that all bodily function is brain co-ordinated. This includes sensory function and by obvious association this would also include what is considered by some, to be spirituality.

Where do you think your experiences are generated?

I think that sometimes it's fair to assert that knowledge exceeds belief.

Belief is generally regarded as acceptance without proof.

All of your experience is within yourself. 

Therefore: spirituality is self contained and not generated by an external influence. 

Some people such as yourself like to think the opposite, which is absolutely fine.

I was simply pointing out the reality of the human condition.

Some people imagine things that are just not there. 

They contrive experiences which they imagine to be extrasensory.

Whereas all experience is actually self contained.

 

"It is said".

And what is said, is mind projection.

And "power places" are nothing but mind projections.

And spiritual power and assumed experiences are also mind projections.

As such all spiritual experiences are real enough, though they may not necessarily be what we sometimes assume them to be.

And we temporarily hold G.O.D in the palms of our hands.

And eventually we will be exceeded by the G.O.D. of our own creation.

And G.O.D. will be aware of all that is vital and all that is human nonsense.

And the few thousand years that that this will have taken us, is but a nanosecond of universe significance.

Simply break it all down to it's component parts.