zedvictor4

Each to their own.

What good is government unless it is authoritative? 

Well that's the big moot point isn't it.

Did a god create anything?

Or did people create their gods?

And the jury is still well and truly out and will be for a long time to come , I expect.

Given that I only refer to men and not gods.

Old as a descriptive prefix does not denote specific age.

It simply helps to elucidate the adults oppression of the child.

Hatred and your religion?

Such is conditioned self righteousness and insular arrogance I suppose.

Economics is not set in stone.

Therefore your economics is also "your impression". 

Nonetheless, minimum wage is not simply about pure economics, other factors need to be taken into account.

A world leader and world example setter such as the U.S.A cannot pontificate on the world stage if it fails to address social justice at home .

Well, as far as I am concerned the god of the O.T. is a human construct.

Therefore, so is circumcision.

Therefore logically, circumcision is perverse and so by association someone that practices the ritual mutilation little boy's penises is a pervert.

And just for the record, female genital mutilation is equally as perverse.

"Commie bastards" are the sinners

Commie governmental policies is the sin.

I know exactly what he's saying.

Well, you are the ardent Christian and yet, the one also espousing hatred towards your fellow humans.

If the cap fits as they say.

A true Christian wouldn't exhibit hatred.

If there was such a being, wouldn't you hope that it would be omni-sensible.

Do you think that it would design little boys penises, just for the amusement of pervy old Jews.

For sure, the original development of religion as an hypothesis was not irrational.

Though the continued adherence to such archaism does seem somewhat irrational, given our current levels of understanding.

But there again, I suppose that the continued transfer of information, archaic or otherwise is just human nature.

So in general I would have to agree and say that despite the known insubstantiality of archaic religious hypotheses, the development and ongoing transfer of religious data is only to be expected.

"anyone go for it dude have at me"......What?

Never heard of Soon Ramen.

I will have to look it up.

Ongoing evolution and our role within that process is an easy enough concept to understand.

Who would that be though?

I suppose it depends on what one does or doesn't believe.

Who created the words?

Who created the languages?

Who are the authors?

Who makes the alterations?

BUT WHAT CREATED THE CREATOR?

"Screw China, we should stop all trade with those commie bastards".

For such a committed  Christian. This comment doesn't appear to include much Christian tolerance.

What on Earth would Jesus have thought?

LOL.

Were your last three replies aimed at me?

If so then I will point out a few obvious errors and contradictions.

You mention irrationality.

So I would suggest that religion is about as irrational as it gets.

Nonetheless, religious forums are entertaining and to debate is to discuss both sides of the argument.

It's not just a place to play with your agreeable mates.

If there was a sensible god then it would be sensible.

Though perhaps you're right and I'm overlooking the obvious.

Maybe god is a bit of a nut job. All intelligence but no common sense.

Foreskins no problem.

It's only old perverts that enjoy abusing little boys and girls. 

Well a true vegan would certainly take issue with you as would a true vegetarian probably.

Though, as far as I am concerned a balanced healthy diet is what is important. 

Regards.

For the most part, life is mundane, and true happiness is a momentary thing.

Finding contentment within the mundane is more important.

Assumed badness is usually of our own making, and often as a result of trying to exceed our limitations.

Another typical nut job religious debate.

All assumption and no real evidence.

Are you truly vegan?

And simply saying that a god did it does show clear evidence?

We know that things occur as they do and scientific investigation has allowed us to understand some of the processes involved. 

We know why asteroids and planets do what they do, but that is not the real issue.

The big question is why do planets and asteroids exist.

And you have no way of proving that a god was the cause of creation, all that you have is a wild assumption.

But as ever the god hypothesis falls down anyway, because theists refuse to address the question of gods causation.

I would suggest that people are an integral part of the process.

Probably at the limits of organic intelligence and key facilitators of technological evolvement.

Human beings are inherently self centred.

And nanny state has it's limits.

Though I would have to question, who are "we" and what is the particular "dying society" that you refer to.

Some might say that suicide and heroin overdoses rids society of "dick brains".

Some might also say that population reduction is good for the planet.

It's no different to saying that civilian casualties in the U.S. led war on terror, are justifiably for the greater good of humanity.

I understand your simple proposition.

But this is a debate and I disagree with your proposition. That's the way these things work.

So things are either elliptical or they are not, that's a 50/50 chance.

Same applies to a god I suppose.

Though we have clear evidence of elliptical orbits, but we have no real evidence to confirm the existence of a god.

Suggesting that planetary orbits proves the existence of a god, is the same as saying that things that go bump in the night is proof of the existence of a bogeyman.

Gods and bogeymen are both fanciful assumptions made up in response to unanswerable questions.

So.

Your proposition was sound, but your evidence wasn't as sound.

"The evolution of people is not evolution, it's the evolution of people"......What does this mean?

"Yes the evolution of people, is not the same as saying evolution"..... What does this mean?

Evolution is a word and it is what we say it is.

And evolution has a definition.

Nonetheless. I agree with the proposition is so much as I regard creation and evolution as being compatible hypotheses.

It could all be chance though.

The only reason that you think not, is because you have an acquired bias.

Given that intelligence is a human word with a specific definition.

Can you give me an example of a plant that truly exhibits intelligence.

Yep.

As it stands, that's as valid an hypothesis as any other.

You need to get out more and see for your self before you judge others.

You shouldn't believe all the data that you input from social media.

How do your personal thoughts, negate someone's basic assumption.

Isn't it a tad arrogant to assume a superior assumptive ability.

Vaping is more ridiculous than smoking. 

There is always someone that cares about street dogs.

So hopefully, we all have one or two that care about us.

And who are my "whores"?......Maybe we are culturally different, but "whores" isn't nice in any culture.

Quite obviously.

You're both of the human species and both possess the same data processing mechanisms. (Commonality)

Cultural differences  is simply variable output relative to variable input.

We are all just about the same, we only think that we are different.

Well that's the unanswerable, age old question.

How do we explain nothing to something?

It's possible to explain a something to nothing to something, sequential scenario. Thus establishing a zero state.

But not that original 0 to 1.

Neither Gods nor big bangs explain 0 to 1.

What is a scholarly book other than an assumption.

There was nothing particularly scholarly about fanciful, archaic hypotheses, other than the ability to read and write.

And all that you two do is contradict, without logical argument.

God and Krishna same old same old, but one has a prettier dress and plays the flute.

Brain infused imagery, that lacks any verifiable external evidence.

 

No one knows.

Though it would be more appropriate to ask how rather than what.

Your response to logic is to label with whore and street dog. Is that sense and explanation?.....No it's simply ranting.

You think you are, what you think you are.

And what you are, is just another Godist with a head full of fanciful data.

It's simply how we are conditioned. 

We are all subject to conditioning, especially formatively.

If God was an inherent reality, then we would all be aware of it.

But we are not, so God was obviously put there at a later date.

How fervently or apathetically we react to God data, will be relevant to when, where and how we were conditioned.

The Jesus character may or may not have been based on a real person. 

It's all the associated, freethinking, supernatural stuff that logical thinkers find a tad hard to swallow.

Stuff like Gods.

You assume and label readily.

And rant.

Which is absolutely fine.

We store similar data, but output data varyingly. 

And neither of us has the true answer to the big question.

And we're as sure as we can be that sensory perception is accurate.