zedvictor4

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.

You have just contradicted your previous reply.

And you also appear to be experiencing colon problems.

People do what they do because people enjoy doing what the do or they wouldn't do it would they?

Ignore and move on.

Woe!

Me thinks the Brother is something of a Troll.

There's far is too much satire in his comments.

To explain death you must first explain life.

And why is this only relative to atheists?

And after life is decay and eventual reduction to component parts.

Why should it be any more than that?  Perhaps you just need to assuage your fear of non-existence.

Do we actually need personal transport? 

Aren't cars just an unnecessary luxury?

If you lived where you worked and dispensed with the notion that you always want to be somewhere else. Then you're feet or even a bicycle would be adequate.

This would also force/encourage fat lazy people to get up of their arses and move .

LOL.

Mind is data processing, consciousness enables thoughtful data processing, and though really just an elaborating descriptive, illumination could be regarded as enhanced data processing, whereby previous information is clarified or expounded. Nonetheless all is internal brain function, as are spiritual assumptions. 

And if the brain does not function, then the mass will not function. One exists for as long as systems function. It's down right stupid to suggest the opposite.

Yes, we can observe sub-conscious or unconscious management, but this state is still wholly reliant on a level of brain function.

And observation is sensory function, which is also wholly reliant on the brain, to instigate function and manage data.

Get a grip dude. LOL

I'm certain that Pol Pot would have wanted a smartphone, had they been available at the time.

The speech may well be intended to offend or invoke a particular response, or might just be an a honest personal opinion. But it still remains the choice of the recipient to either take offence or not.

I personally find, that in such situations ignorance is a far more potent response, especially if one is confident in their own knowledge.