zedvictor4

Time isn't a measurement of anything. 

Events seemingly have the ability to occur.

And likewise they also seemingly have the space in which to do so.

Time and space are just intangible references that we make, relative to events that we either perceive or assume.

Arguing with "religious people" is extremely entertaining. That's why we do it.

And we're fully aware that all religious hypotheses are based on magical assumptions.

But to be honest, something from nothing does seem to be undeniably magical.

I think that the biggest problem that non-religious people have, is all that biblical nonsense and all it's associated ritualistic nonsense.

If a God did create everything, then so be it.

Why all the singing and dancing of a Sunday morning.

Why would an omni-sensible God be interested in all that singing and dancing tosh.?

Firstly, as I tried to indicate I am far from hung up on global warming and once again you seem to have missed the point of my initial contention. 

However. I have a much broader philosophical and hypothetical outlook and consequently regard " human influenced global warming" as an evolutionary event, perhaps even an inevitable evolutionary event.

And just to make it clear I refer to evolution in a universal and material sense, in so much as I regard human influence as a small but nonetheless significant stage in a much greater universal process.

Therefore I regard human influenced global warming simply as what it is and any resolutions or actions that may or may not transpire as a result, will be what they will be.

Furthermore: Did you mean increase or decrease?

Yep I'm not wholly in disagreement with a lot of that. But you've changed the goalposts somewhat.

My contention was with the notion that perceived problems were not U.S. problems, but solely the problems of Asia and "Shithole Africa".

I was therefore, simply pointing out that it would be naïve to bury your heads in the American sand.

Superficial anatomical, physiological and cosmetic variations do not alter the fact that we are one species.

But if you read your dictionary carefully you will see that "Race" is not the same as species.

The term Human Race is simply a generalisation and something of a misnomer.

Race, is specifically defined by the nuances of anatomical, physiological, cosmetic and cultural variations, generally in relation to formative geographical locations.

Even though The Human Species may be very slowly homogenizing, racial type is still very obvious and will be for many generations to come.

So race is therefore an observable difference between individuals of the same species.  As such "Race" exists.

I was simply pointing out that assumed U.S. insularity is no protection against the effects of a changing climate.

Asia, Africa, Europe, The Americas, One World, One Ecosystem, One People. The Earth is a rare and precariously balanced speck of cosmic dust and we've got nowhere else to go to.

The effects that we are experiencing now were largely caused by the past actions of the developed World, so trying to lay the blame at the door of developing nations is extremely hypocritical and arrogant.

 

Remembering and the subsequent utilisation of data is what sets us apart as a species. 

Though sometimes our tendency to wallow in the past often seems a tad counter-productive and pointless.

But wallowing in the past is what a lot of people like to do. So maybe it's inherent and unavoidable.

Perhaps inherent overuse of memory is an evolutionary regulator.

You naively seem to be suggesting that the world is lots of separate unconnected and unrelated bits.

It's funny how Godists readily dismiss the something from nothing principle.

And yet totally rely on it.

Something of a whopping, pre-conditioned, falsely educated, contradiction.

What say you bucky with the biggest ego?

But, was the sex good?

Isn't a certain level of brusqueness and physicality only to be expected from the dominant partner?

isn't that the big turn on for the submissive?

Maybe a genius, but perhaps totally deluded.

What is God?

What do you think Stronn's right is?

Has Trump actually done anything useful during his Term in Office. Or is everything simply sorted out by others, when he is not paying attention?

This is a genuine question from a Brit to an American.

Rationalising is how we utilise and output data, relative to a given situation. 

Perception is the sensory acquisition of data.

Rationalised output is extremely variable.

As an individual Adolph Hitler made a lot of rational decisions. Not that I would agree with his decisions, but that's just me making my own rational decision.

Of course the opposite would be irrationality, and it would be fair to say that eventually Adolph Hitler's output became more irrational.

So maybe therefore:

Rational = the effective and sensible use of data in order to reach a positive outcome.

Irrational = the ineffective and foolish use of data resulting in a negative outcome.

At least you know how to spell three letter words.

What does unfunyy mean?

What's a Christina warrior?

Is it a big butch girl?

Matter is the difference between something and nothing.

If we actually understood matter fully, we would probably know everything that there is to be known.

You create your own spiritual experiences inside your own head. Just as you create the notion God and the notion of enlightenment.

A state of enlightenment would therefore, only be an assumption, probably more relative to physical and psychological wellbeing rather than assumed spirituality.

After all, you probably only feel spiritual when you feel physically well and mentally positive.

So assumed enlightenment is unlikely to be a permanent state anyway.

The exodus is an arisen myth, as are most of the bible tales.

Something happened and was subsequently elaborated, for the purposes of a good meaty storyline.

As far as we can be sure, the concept of self is wholly contained within the mass.

As the mass and consequently the self are only assumptions.

Assumed dysfunction/imbalance is no more than what it is. No matter how it might seem to impact on internal data processing.

 

Yep. 

A perfect example of how modified conditioning, can results in a slightly different output..

You have been conditioned to assume that god data is externally meaningful and so relate sin to it.

Whereas I do not assume that god data has an external meaning. Therefore god and sin are just held as internal data.

What are you looking closely at?  Other than religious mumbo jumbo.

A comfortable death.

The biggest mystery would be. Where did God come from.

Or in real terms, something from nothing. 

Sin is only an assumption.

Which varies, depending on how we were conditioned.

Any incredible Mumbo Jumbo can be regarded as religion. Christianity for example.

We created God in our image. 

It's pretty obvious if you care to think about it.

Do you have anything else to offer, other than an unsupportable hypothesis?

1) I found 133 GP abbreviations, but non really fit. Please explain.

2) The Source of the Nile is where it is. Degrees of latitude are human constructs.

3) The Moon and Sun are as they are. Nonetheless; the Moon does not actually cover the Sun, but temporarily obscures the light emitted by the Sun. Which is only to be expected, given the nature of the solar system.

4) Ancient slaves moved stone blocks with ropes and levers, poor buggers. (Archimedes. "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world).

5) "Most animal body plans evolved". Yep, you said it.

The more you dig the more you loose sight of reality.

Because it is. If it wasn't it wouldn't be. Accepting the fact is all that you can do. Making up an unsupportable hypothesis would be pointless.

Isn't Huawei a Chinese Technology Company.

This world is as it is, because this world is as it is.

It's the human beings that think and do the strange things.

1) The soul may well be the answer, but there is absolutely not proof to substantiate the claim. However there doesn't really need to be an answer, especially if we're prepared to face up to the probable truth.

2) As you would not be alive if you were killed.

It's interesting how you regard chickens primarily as food rather than as living creatures.

Sure thing.

But why bother to debate, if you not prepared to fully commit to a free flow of data ?

Where does your she-god come from?

This is neither, relevant to nor does not answer my question. 

A chunk of personal data output is no more than just that.

If you didn't know how many children you had, how would you know that they had different names?

The fact is, you would have an appreciation of number irrespective of math.

With what level of certainty do you think that the above statement actually has an external meaning?

Data creation is data processing.

Does anything actually have meaning? We can only assume that it does. Therefore a level of certainty as a state of mind, is the best that we have.

When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.

I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.

Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.

What do you think?

1)  A soul is one explanation of a possible afterlife. It is nonetheless an assumption, or at best a hypothesis, albeit a rather fanciful one.

2) Chickens and potatoes and humans are all living organisms and also all food possibilities. You would be food if something ate you.

3) Yep as far as we actually know, kaput!

4) I and millions of other atheists respect other peoples rights to freedom of choice and freedom of expression, freedom to think and do anything you wish within the remit of social law, such as religious activities.

"Atheists couldn't respect a faith ever" is a pretty obvious statement, unless they change their mind of course. Exactly the same statement could be made about a theists inability to respect non-faith. Hopefully though, most atheists and theists are similarly tolerant of each other. 

No.

As I see it data processing is data processing. Therefore Gnosticism, Theism, commands and distinction are all part of the same internal process.

Things are almost certainly out there, but the actual information is all contained within. So we can only be certain of our knowledge, but not 100% certain of the external reality.

1. Souls are merely brain derived assumptions.

2. Chickens and Potatoes are alive before you kill and eat them.

3. Nothing happens.

4. Your assessment of consistency was ill-thought, as religions and atheism are obviously concurrent states of mind..

It would be more accurate to say;  that as religions are many and varied, they are therefore inconsistent, whereas atheism is always consistently atheism. In this context atheism is clearly more consistent than most religions.

It would be appropriate, to suggest that theism and atheism are equally consistent. 

Yep. That sort of lifestyle has become the norm. Maybe we just need to rethink how we do things.

I think that travel and personal transport have become a notional necessity rather that an actual necessity.

"My prana is all whacked out right now. It's all messed up in my abdomin". (Abdomen)

Whacked out in your head more like. 

You sound like the type of person who for some reason, prefers to accept invalid, mumbo-jumbo, in preference to logic. 

You just need to get real. Think positive, not bullshit.

You're lucky that you can afford to lie around in bed all day. Billions of people have to strive everyday, to make a living.

Why is non-existence a mystery? Non-existence is what it is.

Let's say that you ate a meal of chicken and fries. Would there be a mystery surrounding the non-existence of the chicken and the potato? 

And what do you mean by sleeping forever?  Sleep is a living state, if you're dead then you cannot be asleep. Do you think that atheists would assume that the chicken and the potato would be sleeping forever?  So why would a rational atheist suggest that human non-existence was sleeping forever?

And you might as well say that non-existence is solved by the Loch Ness Monster. Because fundamentally religion and the Loch Ness Monster are the same thing;  unvalidated data. 

You got your past and present tenses mixed up.

The past and the future do not exist other than as brain derived reference points. Essentially you are only you, now.

Pol Pot was also a total hypocrite. 

A product of the Cambodian privileged elite, with a head full of ideological nonsense.

.

Where does what go?

That's it, kaput. The end of Dr Franklin, hopefully you will hang around as a memory in someone's brain for a while.

Internal operating systems will have ceased to function and so the mass will decay.

A Cemetery or Crematorium is probably where you will end up. We don't want you hanging around, stinking the place out. Yuk

Heaven or similar constructs are just places that were made up, in a vain attempt at assuaging peoples fear of non-existence.

I suppose that hatred is best described as negative data output in response to perceived negative data input.

Though, as a response always requires a stimulus and as internal data processing is always a response to something.

Hate is likely to be a part of a sequence of data processing events.

All thought processes are internal data processing or "deciding for yourself". 

Even if you are responding to a narrative input such as biblical text or preaching, you either choose to believe or disbelieve.

There is nothing that can actually command you to make a decision, other than yourself. 

Though formative data input might have a strong influence on how we formulate ideas later on in life.

Formative programming has a tendency to behave like an operating or controlling system.  The older you get, the more difficult it becomes to assimilate new data. That's why conditioned, older theists and atheists are unlikely to want to change their point of view.