zedvictor4

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.

Yep. A temporary glitch or slowing down of the process.

Though "hyper-productive smart people" create the technology that enslaves the masses.

So how  long would the masses be prepared to keep the cages locked for.

Who were you would be a past tense.

Who are you refers to a current situation.

Nonetheless, "you" is who they are and would also be who they were.

And "a colon precedes an explanation". Yep, as presented.

No, my foot is fine.

I think that it is fair to say that some people actually enjoy choosing to take offence. Particularly with issues of trendy political correctness for example.

You would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible to make me take offence. It's just not how I choose to respond.

You asked: Who are you?

Well: I am me.

Therefore: the you that you referred to is me.

Therefore: "You" is who I am and also who they are.

Someone with PTSD is someone with PTSD. They do not have someone else's PTSD.

Though I don't think that there is any blame involved. It would just be an observation of the fact.

And I also think that it would be fair to say that PTSD is not a choice but a negative physiological/psychological condition..

Whereas to take offence or not take offence are alternative mental choices, probably relative to an individuals preconditioning.

We are discussing, though perhaps you don't like the discussion. Maybe because you are unable to truly dismiss what I say.

Once again your response is all very nice and spiritual but you cannot get away from the reality that all your responses are brain generated and derived from brain stored data, especially with particular regard to the contrived spiritual stuff, data output with no direct connection to non-narrative sensory input. That is to say that you made things up in your own head probably using data that was originally made up in someone else's head. A biblical myth or tale, or a second hand account of a supposed NDE for example, which you have taken on board and decided to attribute credibility and spirituality too. Nonetheless It all eventually boils down to individual, internal data processing, decision making and data output..

The exact same data is also available in my brain, but I choose to process, conclude and output in a slightly different way. 

And functioning systems and processes require energy and energy requires a functioning system. A dead system will just break down into it's component parts and obviously cease to function, notwithstanding the essence of a part, of course. 

You might think that you're going somewhere. You might think that you are already somewhere. But they are only your thoughts. LOL.

I decided to output an LOL too. LOL.

Technology was probably inevitable and is also probably un stoppable.

We are already enslaved to technology and I don't envisage an evolutionary reversal of that situation. Maybe the occasional temporary glitch or slowing down of the process, but I don't think there's is any chance of going back now.

Fragile, Earthbound Organic systems have done their bit and now it's probably the turn of robots/technology to take up the evolutionary baton..

"You" would be who they are.

People don't offend.

People decide to be offended.

Other people is just a source of data input.

It's the brain that does the inputting, not the other people.

So, we have a sensory appreciation of an environment which includes other people. We conclude that what we appreciate is the reality of our environment. Though the information/imagery/conclusion occurs within the brain and so we can only assume that what we see or hear or feel is actually the same as the external reality.

We obviously need to alter our style of living then.

I think that sustainability is the buzzword along with recyclability and renewability.

A bit of population control wouldn't go amiss too.

Convince the rabbits to stop breeding and convince the religious nut-jobs that contraception is what their God would want them to do.

Stop developing drugs that maintain people into ever increasing states of decrepitude.

Re-educate people to understand that death is actually good for the planet and also good for their offspring.

In fact; eliminating greed and selfishness would cover most of the above.

Robots are pure capitalism, but also the antithesis of human society.

Eventually as robot society develops and self evolves, they will only need bother to manufacture stuff for themselves. rendering humans a redundant and inferior species. Unless they see benefit in doing otherwise of course. 

We have probably been the architects of our own downfall, though that would appear to have been an inevitability or a forgone evolutionary conclusion.

Is it the stuff of sci-fi or the stuff of universal consequence?

All you have done when responding is contrive and then output data.

Re-sequence and add or replace a few verbs here and there and the output would seem be a whole lot different, when in fact it would be virtually the same.

I did slow down and consider and realised. Perhaps you should try it, as it is you who is currently the master of over-think.

Though:

"The brain is nothing more than a component that confines your experience to a physical body".

Yep, you said it. 

So without that component what are you going to do?

Theology is merely data.

As is Dogma.

Both are generated from within the human computer and do not occur externally.

Why should there be free movement over the Northern Border and not over the Southern Border. Just sounds like racism to me.

And Greenland can trade with anyone if they've got desirable commodities to sell. The Canadians perhaps.

Real or not, aren't Gods merely acquired and stored data?

So therefore theism and atheism are merely individual outputs derived from the same or similar data. As such atheism and theism actually occur as concepts in all databases. The only difference would be how the individual chooses to conclude and then output their conclusion. Eg. I am an atheist or I am a theist. The only real difference in this instance would be the inclusion of the letter A.

After all, a worldview is just an individual conclusion derived from the same or similar acquired and stored data. So primarily the only real difference in worldview all boils down to an extra A.

Of course, once a conclusion has been reached we can then go on and contrive appropriate accompanying rhetoric relative to a conclusion or worldview. Which once again though, is nothing more than a variation in data processing and output.

Though we might think to the contrary, the acquisition of narrative and sensory data is all internally brain activated and brain held and so is there ever any real external connection made between ourselves and the greater environment? Our worldview is only a contrivance of stored data and therefore only assumption of an external reality.

I think therefore I assume that I probably am. Maybe.

I also make loads of other assumptions. Which come and go and vary accordingly.

Yep.

Exactly the same data but a marginally different outcome. 

Call it  choices of ontological terminology if you will, but all that does is add a couple of longer words to the mix. 

Boredom is merely a negative assumption that comes to mind when you're not doing something.

So the key is to always be doing something or to be always thinking about doing something. Which is generally how most people tend to function.

Also, it is incorrect to assume that there will be a difference between the way you think now and the way that you will think in the future. Opportunities and experiences may change as you get older but your appreciation and enjoyment will be nonetheless consistent.

Unless you eventually get dementia. Though if you do, you wont give a shit anyway.

Theism and Atheism are merely labels we attach to alternative conclusions.

The relative data or "evidence" is all very similar if not the same.

The difference between the so called theist's and atheist's conclusions, is all down to a slight variation in how we process the same data or "evidence".

We have imputed and processed the same data as each other and have concluded that:

I do believe in a god.

I do not believe in a god.

The only real difference is the inclusion or exclusion of the word not.

Though I personally conclude that I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

So what will you label me?

Significance is in mind of the beholder.

My comment was alluding to the possibility of things of great universal importance.

Though, is it ever possible to truly distinguish between internal data processing and a greater reality?

How honest is our perception?

1) Yep. I totally agree.

Logic and reason can only be regarded as personal data handling.

I was merely suggesting that it might be worth thinking about and then comparing what would be the real achievements and likely characteristics of a creator God, with the God described in the mythological fantasy of the Bible.

As I see it, the God of the Bible is clearly a very naïve and obvious human construct.

2) Knowledge is stored data and epistemology is no more or no less than data processing.

So what or where are the benchmarks for determining the significance or insignificance of processed data?

One could easily and logically conclude that all knowledge is insignificant.

However, I would personally suggest that there are good hypotheses to the contrary. 

The ultimate reality would be the collapse of the universe back to a zero state. Perhaps.

The God you know was created by you.

It's simply all about the brains storage, assimilation and utilisation of data. 

God and your own version of theism or atheism which ever the case may be, only exists inside your head, not outside of it.

As such, the notion of a God is within every normally functioning human being. How we choose to utilise this data is obviously variable.

The Christian God story that we are all familiar with is nothing more than a collection of brain derived assumptions, resultant of ongoing, internal data processing. 

Whether or not an extra-human creator actually exists is unknown and therefore cannot be discounted as a possible hypothesis. It's a Catch 22 situation; one cannot disprove something that cannot be proven.

Nonetheless; if you consider logically and rationally, such a being would surely be far more intelligent and sensible, than the central character of  the biblical tales is portrayed as being.

Have you ever looked at the statistics for deaths and injuries, associated with all these U.S. led conflicts.

You have an odd measure of success.

Wars aren't just about the fun one-sided fighting bit, and the ace smart-bomb footage that gets shown on T.V..

There's all the ensuing suffering, social chaos and devastation to deal with. The stuff that gets largely swept under the carpet and forgotten about.

And to suggest that the U.S. played no part in the "Arab Spring" uprisings, is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Don't forget that a God is just an assumption.

Therefore a God's motivations can be anything that you want them to be.

That's Christians for you!

Iran and Iraq fucked each other up back in the 1980's, that's a separate issue.

I'm referring to the Gulf wars of 1990 and 2003 and the so called Arab Spring uprisings that ensued and continue until this day.

And now we have the U.S. posturing and meddling in the Persian Gulf, threatening the Sovereign State of Iran.

A cynic such as myself would suggest that The U.S's motives have always been a tad disingenuous.

What If the U.S. meddling in pursuit of Oil and general Islamaphobic paranoia hadn't completely fucked up the Middle East and North Africa?

And The U.S. and Israel: Who pulls whose strings?

Jews and Oil.

Or, Oil and Jews?

Well. I shouldn't have to take you aside and have a little chat with you about the birds and the bees.

We all know how babies are made don't we?

So the production and development took about 9 months.

Nothing sudden about it and if it wasn't Joseph's handy work, it must have been some other blokes. 

Exactly.

We don't no anything for certain do we?

At best the biblical tales are a mythology. Largely fantasy but real locations and a mixture of prominent people of the day and fantasy characters such as Gods and angels. Myths and legends such as this are commonplace and widespread, so there's no real reason why this one story should be taken more seriously or given more significance than any other.

I would suggest though, that if the aforementioned characters were actually real people, then my version of events is a far more realistic explanation for Mary's mystery pregnancy and the deception of her husband. Joseph, a bit of a dimwit easily duped by a charismatic rogue.

A temporary decrease in the murder rate is not really the same as saving lives is it?

Statistics and misinformation like this are generated for and by a particular lobby group.

I'm certain that the opposing lobby also generates it's own spurious statistics.

Anyway; that's a different discussion.

At least you are prepared to admit that you don't actually know.

Hypotheses are what they are and theist and atheist are simply labels.

Union with God in heaven upon death. Therefore the highest goal of your life would be your death, hopefully followed by union with God in heaven.

That's assuming that you've been a good enough boy.

This is Mustardmadness pseudo-science

"The highest goal of your life" and "Union with God in heaven" is an obvious contradiction in terms.

The most probable purpose of humans on Earth is for the continuation of the evolutionary sequence and consequently maybe the continuation of a universal sequence.

Though the truth is; no one actually knows.

If Jesus did ever actually exist, it would be really interesting to know who his real dad was, as he has a lot to answer for.

As the story goes:

His mum was known as Mary and she slept around with a smooth talker and got pregnant.

His dimwit step dad Joseph fell for the most ridiculous of stories.

A story which amazingly endures until this day and is still believed to be true by gullible people.

Though sadly it has to be said, that current day belief in what has come to be known as Christianity is to a large extent due to infant brainwashing.

Religion is Mythology.

A mixture of fact, fiction and fantasy.

Ok. So Jesus was a homophobe with a tendency for violence.

Nice guy.

You're at it again.

"The death penalty saves lives, abortion kills".

What a non-sensical contradictory statement.

What you're actually trying to say, is that you personally have decided to go along with the notion that the one action is justified and the other isn't.

So, are you prepared to admit your mistake?

Yep. Mexican Youth most probably.