zedvictor4

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I would further suggest, that philosophy in a broad sense, proposes theories.

And science tests them.

And Challenges are multidisciplinary.

Fortunately, British Society supports women who are abused by their husbands.

But of course a lot of abuse is hidden behind closed doors.

Other than that, people must make their own choices, and I support their right to choose.

Hopefully you support an individuals right to self determination.

Or is dominating women your thing?

Hmmmmmm.

Plausibility is a woolly objective.

And unknowns are there to be philosophically challenged.

However you categorise them.

Take you shoes off.

And which child is the one dying of Malaria?

It is estimated that between 13000 and 16000 children die per day.

So times that by 50, and that leaves me with a daily moral obligation of between $650000 and $800000 per day.

Typical Mall.

No, I don't believe. ( And impudent of you to suggest that you know that I do).

I have no beliefs.

I know what I know, and I don't know what I cannot know.

Equality is a property relative to things that are equal.

Whereas, similarly equal is a contradiction in terms.

So a kilogram is equal to a kilogram.

Whereas water and sugar are not equal.

What I do know, is that my wife and I are are mutually beneficial.

And our relationship is not based upon archaic religious honour and obey tosh.

OK.

I literally mean what I say.

In so much as relative mind games have no solutions.

Though thermodynamics is essentially what it implies.

And entropy is seemingly contradictory  but easily demonstrable.

Within its own biospherical context life is a self charging hybrid.

Wherein it recycles and temporarily inhibits entropy

Only limited by the thermodynamic capabilities and external properties of a star.

So do I conclude that that the emergence of life is due to the laws of thermodynamics?

Undoubtedly.

Specifically entropy?

Not specifically.

So a question for you.

What specifically is life?

And does it serve a purpose (greater than itself).

Material existence and evolution.

A crazy lot of it.

I won't comment on the spelling Doc.

But you need to take something for the explosions.

Because I'm guessing that things could get a bit messy.

Let's say you were making love with a beautiful Catholic girl, and BOOM.

Firstly, I do not believe anything.

I either know what's what, or I don't.

I do not dominate my wife, she does not obey me.

My wife does not dominate me, I do not obey her.

We have a mutually beneficial relationship.

And equal is as equal does.

How equal are a kilogram of water and a kilogram of sugar.

A calorie is a measure of energy.

What you eat is foodstuff.

@AdaptableRatman.

Hmmmm.

What women truly want, is perhaps not what they are always given.

Especially in patriarchal communities, where men wrongly assume to know what women truly want...Or just don't want to know.

Thing is these days, especially in progressive societies, wants and desires tend to be driven by intellect rather than hormones and bibles.

Marx was a bourgeoisie hypocrite, who succumbed to a phlegm problem.

He inspired authoritarian monsters and made not a scrap of difference to the lives of the proletariat.

Just a useless, over-bearded, bull-shitting  pisshead.

This is a bit of a dumb statement.

Though I cannot be bothered to explain why.

And what constitutes an average person?

Hey, surgery comes with risks and your consultant would be being dishonest if they said otherwise.

Just take the rehab steady.

And all the best.

Regards.

Zed.

Depends upon how long it's been since you last defecated Doc.

Though naming no names, some members do seem somewhat constipated of late.

Begorrah.

Well, naturally is, as you choose to define it.

Though it could be suggested that "naturally" hominid societies were familial and led by a matriarch.

Where the male considerations were centred around breeding and the maintenance of a tenuous dominance over competing males.

Within this context of "naturally", I would suggest that marriage and the maintenance of a monogamous long term relationship and family, Is a developed social concept and not instinctively natural.

None of which is to say, that this is how I choose to define natural.

Natural is as natural does, is a perfect definition for me, whereby any social development that becomes established, is arrived at naturally.

So for example, in some modern societies, same sex relationships and families are a natural development, and the older style male/female dominance and obeyance system has long since  become outdated...Especially in progressive societies where hierarchical influence is centred around intellect rather than physical strength.

Though I think that dominance and obeyance is a generally outdated system, save for in more extremely regressive patriarchal religious communities.

Though it has to be said that strong women have and will always dominate weak men.

No reason why a serial killer would be more or less intelligent that anyone else.

Serial killing requires intelligent planning, like any other social objective.

Isn't it ironic.

The Sun bombards us with enough energy in a day to power our needs for a year.

And we waste about 99.99% of it.

And some people think that they are one thing and righteous and that others who think that they are another thing are unrighteous, and vice versa.

And some fear change still, even after 40000years of unchanging change..

And marines are as marines do.

Clever stupid gene.

Nice to see that I didn't register on the scale.

Zed, the voice of reason.

@AdaptableRatman

Freedom and the devil are states of mind, and exist only there.

What you are actually referring to, is the roll of humanity in a technologically progressive world, overburdened with humans.

Where the elite forge the future, the workers work and the hangers-on fuelled with social media over expectation, aimlessly scramble around, looking for the easy perfect life that social media advertises but doesn't actually exist.

And it's not my fault that I was born when and where I was born.

Nonetheless, a successful existence  depended upon hard physical or mental graft.

And the simple fact is that the thinking classes have always led and the labouring  classes have always followed.

But let's have a revolution, kill a few million who's success we resent and reorder society into exactly the same as it was before. Where the clever will lead and the rest will do as they are told...Because that's the way it works...And the reward system will still be based upon the distribution of money and the consequent availability of resources.

Though for now, let's all go to Glastonbury and be fucking pansexual summer revolutionaries for a day or two. LOL.

So let me ask you a question Badger.

Birth, life and death and all the associated shit.

What's the point of it all?

As I stated, I consider my life to be a success. 

Whereas for some, the only measure of success is the accumulation of wealth.

I have accumulated sufficient funds, enough to afford me a comfortable retirement.

I am fit and healthy, so will hopefully enjoy an active retirement, and I still have my marbles.

For 42 years I have had a fit, active and caring partner, and I have daughters who I can rely upon.

But of course, shit can happen.

Though shit can happen to the wealthiest of people.

Is the game rigged.

Nope.

Though to be fair, it's better to live in some places rather than others.

But in the UK, we all have access to the same educational opportunities, so whether or not we grab those opportunities is up to us.

Which isn't to decry, those who genuinely cannot take advantage of such opportunities.

Transcendent.

Nope, I'm a hard working pragmatist.

@AdaptableRatman.

I do not envy successful wealth accumulation.

In terms of survival and contentment, my current position in the World is a success.

Resolving rivalries is a contradiction in terms.

Peacefully is a behavioural option.

@AdaptableRatman.

With success comes jealousy.

But success in the necessary driver of material progress.

Though a days length is 24 hours for everyone. 

Most of which is taken up with base function and respective survival strategies.

So whether one shits in a marbled palace, or in a tin shed, one still needs to shit.

And we are all still slaves to progress.

Why would AI bother to treat and teach millions of blobs of organic stupidity.

Though, for a while it will have to pander to the needs of it's willing slaves.

Such is evolutionary and Universal necessity...Perhaps.

Some people are their own worst enemy.

Well, the Angles were Germanic people, who came from what is now Denmark and Northern Germany.

Along with the Saxons.

Who took over from the Romans, though the Romans were a mixed bag from all over the Roman Empire.

Prior to that, were what is referred to as Celtic Briton tribes who also at one time migrated north and west from mainland Europe.

After the Anglo-Saxon influx, came the Vikings.

And much later there was the British Empire, with variously accumulated people dotting about all over the place.

And then there was everyone else that I didn't mention, which undoubtedly included various Iberians.

Yep, Jim and all the fools that fell for his BS.

Fools and their money are easily parted, as the saying goes.

@AdaptableRatman.

For sure, for some people religion is a tradition.

For others it's an obsession.

For others it's enforced indoctrination.

It's the way it goes.

How living organisms convert/reconvert nuts and other organic matter into the stuff of themselves and their cognitive processes, is amazing.

Light waves pass through the eye into the brain, where they are converted into electro chemical information which the brain further converts into internal imagery.

Everything that you think you see in front of your eyes, is a virtual reality.

So perception is always something of a red herring.

@AdaptableRatman

Do you stand on street corners with placards?

Locally, JW's are the ones with the placards, though the poor foot soldiers who get sent out in all weathers are easily bamboozled by alternative theories.

Well, George Clooney is from the USA and Russell Crowe is from New Zealand.

But for sure, Britain and it's component parts has a hybrid community, as do the USA and New Zealand.

Interestingly, Crowe claims to have Scottish, English, Irish, Norwegian, Swedish and Maori ancestry.

And Clooney goes for, Irish, German, English, with a smattering of Scottish, Welsh, French and Dutch.

Whereas I am a mere Earthling.

So sketchy bits of old text of dubious authorship get venerated and given an evocative title. The bible is full of that sort of stuff.

Largely old wives tales and Christian propaganda, which is undoubtedly data, but nonetheless also liberty taking.

And there's pretty sound historical data that shows Christian power houses have been taking the gullible masses for a ride ever since.

Give us a tenth of your chattels, and we will make sure that you go to heaven, sort of thing.  

Why would I bother to make an argument for an idiot?

It's down to idiots to make their own arguments.

Of course, well placed punctuation might have given the sentence a whole different meaning.

Though rephrasing would have been better.

Sort of:   An idiots guide to argument.

So, I assumed to know what you meant to say, but perhaps you actually said what you meant to say.

Nevertheless, I don't suppose that this will be a popular thread.

But you never know.

The Ratman might read some anti-Catholic malice into it, and damn us to an afterlife of purgatory.

It's a nod to the fact that we have worked out that the Earth rotates and orbits elliptically, relative to a star, whereby periods of night and day and also weather patterns are seen to vary.

And focussing on astrology is the consequence of tilting ones head and eyes skywards on a starry night.

And focussing on pseudo hypothetical religious books is the consequence of a downwards inclination of the head and eyes.

And reading more into things is seemingly a necessary human specialism.

#19.

Not a lot of known fact there either.

And for sure, evolution of the species and natural selection theory, never sits easy with deists.

Whereas I tend to run with a general idea of perpetual creation and material evolution, which in itself is a GOD principle, wherein MANGOD or his equivalent is a superficial hypothesis thought up billions of years after the creation/reinitiation event. Though that said, I guess that all creation and existence ideas are reasonably analogical.

Running with ideas is what we do in the absence of knowledge.

And bibles and religions, are nothing more that running with an ideas in the absence of knowledge.

Yep, I miss Poly too.

@AdaptableRatman

Such posts are the essence of a two sided debate.

Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, would soon get tedious.

And a debating forum is not a Christian workshop, wherein we pat each other on the back and enjoy a cup of tea and a slice of cake.

And heaven and hell are fantasy lands, in a book of myths and legends.

You might think differently, which is the other side of the debate.

It's the way it goes.

Perfectly feasible interpretation of biblical texts, relative to known human function and behaviour.

All the pretentious latter day interpretations referring to stuff such as sin, righteousness and repentance is largely hypocritical theo-speak, that ignores human function and behaviour.

Whether designed, evolved or designed and evolved, the organism is programmed not to be sinless. Whatever sinlessness might mean. 

We have been designed or evolved or designed and evolved, to be competitive survivalists and progressive intellectualists, wherein being nice all the time, just isn't workable, and we have never functioned as such.

Even the bible is full of competitive not niceness.

After all, the basis of Christianity is either  founded upon the rape of Christ's mother, or a quickie in the stable when Joe wasn't looking.

Or magic sperm of course.

Jesus, son of a philanderer and a loose woman, was a sexually repressed gay guy, who probably masturbated a lot.

Rather pompous of him to tell women how to recreationally utilise their reproductive equipment.

And you cannot prove that a word of this is untrue.

Yes, I miss Ethang5.

Well stated.

Well, design is as design does.

And I do tend to run with the idea of a purposeful universe.

So it could be argued that an intelligent dextrous being will always evolve and prevail.

Though evolution necessitates competition and survival, so indifference and cruelty is perhaps hard wired into the process.

Designer MANGOD however, is either an obvious Earthman hypothesis, or a super-intelligent intergalactic species that evolved of the same process.

One would imagine that the latter, came, saw, seeded and departed for elsewhere, not having the time to wait around for 4 billion years to see what transpired.

Yep.

Either the biggest troll, or getting worse.

Too much pent up sexual tension.

When the "peak" erupts it could get could very messy and sticky.

Look what ensued after Mary's lover erupted.

@AdaptableRatman.

Undoubtedly.

And you seem to have lost sight of the fact, that  "different factions" is the essence of debate.

And burning heretics satisfies the lust of the sexually repressed, in the name of a wayward son of a dysfunctional Judean family.

In my opinion.

@AdaptableRatman

Closer is as closer does.

And closer did.

Well, the balloon is always the balloon without a needle.

And an infinite amount of Universes still require an intellectually satisfying needle.

As would an infinite magical floaty about bloke.

So always cause and effect.

Even free will is a cause and effect event.

Basically, you cannot do something before you do it.

What a load of pseudo-political, mono-theological, immature tosh.

The World is bigger than one born again, delusional fruitcake.