zedvictor4

Yep. 

Undemocratic.

"The founders were all Christian men".

How does this notion fit into a modern all inclusive America.

Yep.

But as I stated, the President is representative of all people in all States. So the size and population of individual States is irrelevant.

A nationwide, one person one vote system would give the fairest and truest democratic decision.

Do you live in the United States of America or the Ununited Sates of America?

Nope. 

I'm saying that "Scout" is gender specific in relation to the topic under discussion.

That is to say, the "Boy Scouts" was the original organisation set up by Baden Powell in 1908, followed by the "Boy Scouts of America" in 1910.

Doh!

Reliable is what you want reliable to be.

Reliability and accuracy are worthless if they do not agree with a conditioned mindset.

Bucky biggest ego.

Yep. 

The U.S. Presidential Election system, is somewhat undemocratic.

What's wrong with one person one vote?

How else can you truly know the majority will of the people.

After all, a President is supposed to represent the whole Nation.

The last question should be, do you believe in a God.

If you answer yes. Then your I.Q. score should default to 0.

LOL.

"It's all about the hero's journey and it's a religious concept."

Just like a lot of other religions and fantasy tales.

There's no saying if any of them represent the truth.

None of them probably.

You only think that your one does, because it's your one that you think about.

"In relation to the topic under discussion."

The dictionary has nothing to do with it.

Not being able to provide "proof" is where your argument comes tumbling down.

And asking for "proof" is reasonable and certainly not immature.

Belief in supernatural myths and tales is immature.

Most of us were told fairy tales when we were infants

I bet that you still believe in Santa Claus. LOL.

The human species is very slowly homogenizing. 

You seem to find it hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Now just think, why would the word "scout" in relation to the topic under discussion, be inherently gender specific.

Depends on the type of  bird.

And it's flight ability.

And the point of initiation.

And if it didn't have inherent conditioning, what would it's chances be?

God data is God data.

We all have God data.

Though output is variable.

Normal is as normal does.

"Scouts" has inherent gender specific association. Something for the liberal P.C. mob to get orgasmic about.

Evolution.

You cannot separate humankind and it's actions from nature. No matter how hard you think about it.

Pre-conditioning - conditioning - agency.

Do you really think that the word "Jewish" relates to an external reality?

Equal opportunities for bi-curious paedophiles.

I remember back in the day we had an old scout leader named Ron who was grabbing your dick at every opportunity.

Back in the day, such behaviour was regarded as the norm.

Funny how things change. 

Though I'm sure that latterly we've become more neurotic as a species, due to our preoccupation with sexuality and political correctness.

Anyway; Boy Scouts and Girl Guides will no longer do, so the current names need to be replaced.

Gender Neutral what?

I would suggest that the primary factor is conditioning.

Though it is fair to say that physiological attributes related to skill, talent and inheritance are probably pre-conditioned.

Nonetheless, how or if we decide to utilise inherent traits, will be dependant upon how we are conditioned.

If man is natural, then man made machines must also be natural. Ergo, climate change is natural. 

Any resolutions and actions implemented in order to address a perceived human problem are natural too. 

Choosing to ignore is also natural.

If the Earth becomes uninhabitable as a result of our actions, then that is what will happen. It won't be a problem if there is no one is here to think about it. The Earth will simply keep spinning and orbiting until such time's, when it will be consumed by the Sun.

In fact everything is natural.

Unnatural is just a human concept. Which is only natural.

Egomania!

Truth is reality 

Finite = Limited

Infinite = Unlimited.

We are all preconditioned.

We are all, also subsequently conditioned.

Communism and Capitalism both rely on hierarchy and subjugation.

Though one system tends to function with more subtlety than the other.

The Net is evolution in progress.

Whereas, Net neutrality is just about money.

One is unstoppable.

The other is an ongoing human quirk.

Q. Who created most of the major world problems that exist today.

A. Whites. (Predominantly though not exclusively, people of European origin)

Litter is not the issue. Litter is a cosmetic problem. 

Climatic conditions have changed, because of gaseous emissions into the Earth's atmosphere which have altered how the atmosphere interacts with solar radiation. An increase in overall atmospheric temperature is bound to have a certain effect on climate.

Tidying up your backyard is not going to have any effect on climate. It will just look a bit nicer perhaps.

Nope I'm perfectly happy with my response.

You have a reliance on spirituality. Which is something that you create within yourself and not something that is created for you by an external influence. 

There is no real difference between us, other than a slight variation in output.

Yep. But your still starting at 1.

Awareness requires 1. So the hypothesis hasn't yet got of the ground.

Explain 0 to 1.

Your little list of errors is a little list of errors. In so much as every argument generally has a counter argument.

1. If a religion is false, then it's simply false. A god still might or might not exist.

2. If you can't prove that a God exists, it's a good starting point for non-belief.

3. Atheism is but one way of interpreting certain data.

4. A worldview  interprets a greater amount data.

5. There is no real evidence of a God. Only human constructs.

6. Atheism and theism are but two ways of interpreting the same data. Implications are resultant assumptions.

7. a) Misuse of the prefix.

    b) Theism is belief, atheism is non-belief. (Belief generally defined as acceptance without proof.)

8. Science is what it is, and therefore provides us with more rigorously scrutinized data. Allowing us a greater level of certainty and less reliance on

    assumption.

9. Negative is multi-definitional and so it is difficult to discern what is being driven at here. Though if something can be proved it can, and if it can't         it can't. As things stand neither the existence or non-existence of a god can be proved. 

Dogs and Balls eh. 

Is that the Dogs Bollocks.

Or a load of bollocks.

Either way, I appreciate your sense of humour. LOL.

Humanity induced or otherwise, climate change is nonetheless a natural phenomenon, and any actions that might be taken to address the issue, are likewise.

A reduction in the human population by a few billion, would be a good solution the Earth's problems. So maybe that will be the natural answer to the natural problem.

God requires magic. That's the widest gap in the hypothesis.

As I always state, all hypotheses start at 1 and ignore 0. 

So explain 0 to God and I will start to take you seriously.

That's exactly the what I said.

The simple point I was trying to get across was that a healthy economy and ultimately a healthy society are reliant on the mass ability to spend. 

Therefore the masses have to be given the ability to reinvest in all the unnecessary stuff that keeps capitalism afloat.

You can't separate economy and society. Which is what you seem to be doing.

So atheists find religious ideas amusing and theists can't handle atheist humour. Therefore, wherein lies the most pervasive emotion.

It takes far less effort to smile than it does to brood. 

And if we all agreed about everything, who would you have to debate with at 8.25 BST.

Profit V Society.

If a profit is going to be made from selling stuff and services that are essentially unnecessary, then you've got give the masses  the ability to invest in all that unnecessary stuff. 

Otherwise how's the greater system going to work if all that the masses can afford is a basic living.

And if the masses can't afford a basic living, then it's tax hikes for the rich to support the masses.

Unsustainable capitalism leads to austerity and State Control of everything etc. 

And you don't want that.

Far better to have a healthy economy full of happy people. So give the masses enough money to spend.

That's a long winded way of saying that people have varying opinions, but my opinion is far better than theirs is.

And far to much angst to boot. 

Who's the highly emotional one?

Positive Negative Mental Attitude. If you get my drift.

Genius is the ability to store and utilise data more effectively.

Whereas perspiration is a means of thermoregulation.

Thomas Edison wasn't thinking effectively when he came up with that one liner.

That seems to be a contradiction to me.

You've involved yourself in a discussion concerning the nature of gods, therefore you have shown interest not apathy.

If you were truly apathetic towards theism, you would have yawned and clicked on some other topic.

Nonetheless, I agree with the notion that Gods exists, but only in the mind.

Discussing yes.

But call me old fashioned, you actually need to get out to socialize.

And you can only assume that others have similar interests.

And debating is all about discussing with people who have an opposing opinion.

And why would you waste your time debating if you didn't find it entertaining?

Perhaps you're an intellectual masochist?

We loose sight of the innate reason for male promiscuity. 

It doesn't matter how you get your kicks, the reason always stays the same.

Thirty years later and straight men are more relaxed, so are they less fearful of anal penetration now?

Come on. He needed 600 million to become a candidate. That's rather a lot of dosh.

If it's so inexpensive to become President these days why don't you have a go.

I'm sure you're just as clever as Mr Trump.

You only assume that you exist.

You're never actually looking at yourself.

You think, therefore you think you are.

Plus. Either his forehead is getting bigger or his hair is getting smaller.

Congrats Pewdiepie!

No. But it takes someone with rather a lot of money. And they do have to win the U.S. pseudo-election.

Don't get me wrong. There's something about Trump that I admire. 

He's so out of his depth, yet he has the ability to remain so positive and so confident.

And he makes me smile.

A bit like George Dubya, but no where near as incompetent and much less of a global liability.

Don't go and prove me wrong Donald!

It's a toss up between chance and purpose I suppose. But do I actually sense almost nervous laughter out loud.

Plastics is certainly material evolution in evidence, though my thoughts are that fully organic species have maybe got as good as they are going to get. They are far too fragile and require a very specific eco-bubble in which to survive. 

And of course we have to ask ourselves, why the sludge, why the plastic, why the intelligence?

Trump wanted to be President, so he bought himself a Presidency. That seems to be how U.S. Politics works.

Choice doesn't really seem to come into it. 

All that said, he's an entertaining guy and has brought a smile to a lot of peoples faces.

Let's hope for another 4 years of hilarious entertainment on the World Stage.