Would Religion still continue if....

[Guest]

What is "dibs"?

Pie,

You know what I like about Bigamy or Polygamy?. I like that every woman has a role on the group, so I can let you the housekeeping and cooking... and I'll do the rest .

Q-S

LMAO Q-S I don't cook and I don't clean but I have an army of male slaves who do so you rest while I take care of the serpent

dibs means you claimed him Q-S as yours.

 

[Penrich]

I thought the TLOP were human constructs, and even in ideal form (i.e., no more theorretical physics, we know it all) only an expression of how things work.

So about as far from God as a computer simulation of a garden is from a gardener.

Not according to Franko...

 

[Franko]

Well - to my thinking, this must mean then that Solipsism is thus wrong. I know that I can get two bacteria that are clones of each other.

Yes, but isn't a Solipsist who imagines an exact duplicate of himself still a Solipsist?

 

[Franko]

No - thats biological variation. While each atom in each cell is governed by the laws of physics, the totallity of our brain is not something that I see can be completely predetermined. Too many chance encounters need to go on for it to be 100% predictable. Thus TLOP is no more a god(dess) than, well, the laws of physics...

Define “chance encounter”? Are you suggesting that these “chance encounters” occur magically? Because if they do not, then aren’t the “chance encounters” also Deterministic events?

 

[Penrich]

Yes, but isn't a Solipsist who imagines an exact duplicate of himself still a Solipsist?

Can a bacteria imagine...?

 

[Franko]

I thought the TLOP were human constructs, and even in ideal form (i.e., no more theorretical physics, we know it all) only an expression of how things work.

So about as far from God as a computer simulation of a garden is from a gardener.

Yes, but the world was still round and moved even when men believed it was flat and motionless.

In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.

 

[Akots]

Strictly speaking, Franko, we don't know the earth is round and mobile. We merely percieve it that way with our current array of knowledge and perception.

 

[Franko]

Q-Source: (Fabulous)
Pie,

You know what I like abourt Bigamy or Poligamy?. I like that every woman has a role on the group, so I can let you the housekeeping and cooking... and I'll do the rest

Pie: (Gorgeous)
LMAO Q-S I don't cook and I don't clean but I have an army of male slaves who do so you rest while I take care of the serpent

Hehehe!! Ohhh, my Goddess … You two are making it hard to concentrate on religion and Philosophy! Hehehe …

“army of male slaves”? … Ohhh, Pie, me-o-my!

So how come, you rarely see “reverse-bigamy” – One women with multiple husbands? Now, I can understand from a procreation standpoint, but in modern times procreation is a secondary concern to economic pursuits, and a household with multiple males would seem to be better capable of generating revenue (not that I am commenting on the issue of gender wage discrepancy).

I wonder if it isn’t something more fundamental about the nature of Men and Women?

Do you two believe that Polygamy is a relic from the past, or do you think it may make a resurgence again at some point in the future? In other words, in evolutionary terms is polygamy in the process of going extinct?

(slightly off topic, I know, but marriage is definitely associated with “Religion”)

 

[Penrich]

Define “chance encounter”? Are you suggesting that these “chance encounters” occur magically? Because if they do not, then aren’t the “chance encounters” also Deterministic events?

Molecules are moving around inside a cell. Proteins are moving around inside a cell. Now - while there may be some order to it (the proteins may be moving along an actin filament, or near a membrane) much of this is happening in three dimensional space. If the molecule interacts with protein A, a certain recation may occur. If the same molecule interacts with protein B before it encounters protein A, a different reaction will occur. Alternatively, protein A maight encounter molecule 2 before molecule 1, and again a different set of events will unwind.

Imagine two people, who don't know each other, but have a rough description of each other, trying to meet in a large, crowded airport. What are the chances that they will meet before they ask a couple of strangers who look like the person they are looking for if they are the one? They may end up going home with the "wrong" person, if that person also has a similar description of someone they are looking for. Now - you might be able to set up an algorithm that predicts the probablilty, or defines how many people they will ask before they find the right one, but that will not determine the sequence of events and predict with 100% accuracy the outcome.

 

[Franko]

neutrino_cannon:
I thought the TLOP were human constructs, and even in ideal form (i.e., no more theorretical physics, we know it all) only an expression of how things work.

Franko:
Yes, but the world was still round and moved even when men believed it was flat and motionless.

In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.

Akots:
Strictly speaking, Franko, we don't know the earth is round and mobile. We merely percieve it that way with our current array of knowledge and perception.

In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.

If you want to claim that your “current perception” is evidence that the universe is forever magical, then please make your case.

 

[Franko]

Penrich:
Molecules are moving around inside a cell. Proteins are moving around inside a cell. Now - while there may be some order to it (the proteins may be moving along an actin filament, or near a membrane) much of this is happening in three dimensional space. If the molecule interacts with protein A, a certain recation may occur. If the same molecule interacts with protein B before it encounters protein A, a different reaction will occur. Alternatively, protein A maight encounter molecule 2 before molecule 1, and again a different set of events will unwind.

That is all True; however, it is also True that ALL of these events are being governed COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, and UTTERLY by the laws of Physics (TLOP).

If you are saying that there is some non-TLOP element to the mix, then what is that “Extra” element” (Magic?)?

Penrich:
Imagine two people, who don't know each other, but have a rough description of each other, trying to meet in a large, crowded airport. What are the chances that they will meet before they ask a couple of strangers who look like the person they are looking for if they are the one? They may end up going home with the "wrong" person, if that person also has a similar description of someone they are looking for. Now - you might be able to set up an algorithm that predicts the probablilty, or defines how many people they will ask before they find the right one, but that will not determine the sequence of events and predict with 100% accuracy the outcome.

Yes, but never-the-less even though you cannot track the individual events yourself, the Laws of Physics can, and that is how the whole Shebang is occurring – entirely governed by the Laws of Physics.

Do you seriously believe it was a “coincidence” that You encountered me Here and Now?

… In Logic (or Fatalism) there are no “coincidences” everything happens for a Logical Reason.

 

[Unas]

In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.

By the same token, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do exist. You are claiming that even though you do not know the deterministic rules that govern the entire Universe, they must nevertheless exist. That's simply not a scientific or logical position to take, Franko. Your claim is an article of faith, a superstition -- and nothing more.

If you want to claim that your “current perception” is evidence that the universe is forever magical, then please make your case.

If you want to be regarded as something other than a lying kook, stop insisting that others must defend propositions that you invent and then dishonestly attribute to them.

 

[Akots]

One thing Franko does not do, as a rule, is Prove His Point.

 

[Franko]

So why the sock-puppet? That you must hide your identity demonstrates that you are insincere and ashamed of your beliefs …

Unas:
By the same token, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do exist.

Knowing the rules does not mean that the rules exist?

Does knowing YOU exist mean that YOU don’t exist?

You are claiming that even though you do not know the deterministic rules that govern the entire Universe, they must nevertheless exist.

I am saying that ALL (EVERY) observation that “Science” has made, as well as my own lifetime of experiences (and beyond) tells me that reality is objective and obeys logical rules. I have no reason what-so-ever for believing that things happen magically.

Unless you would care to give me a reason to believe things can happen magically?

That's simply not a scientific or logical position to take, Franko. Your claim is an article of faith, a superstition -- and nothing more.

If the assumption that nothing is magical based on the observation that everything is objective and logical is an illogical observation, then how would I know it?

Can you explain how you acquired your magical powers for us mystical A-Theist?

I wonder if so many A-Theists would be letting you make a fools of them if they knew who and what you really are?

If you want to be regarded as something other than a lying kook, stop insisting that others must defend propositions that you invent and then dishonestly attribute to them.

Listen to me you lying kook, I don’t believe in Magic. I believe that all things are logical. Since you reject logic utterly I don’t expect you to comprehend any of this, but fortunately others who are capable of understanding are reading along.

You may be an evil-motherf*cker, but I’ll still use your worthless ass to save those that can be saved.

 

[Guest]

Hehehe!! Ohhh, my Goddess … You two are making it hard to concentrate on religion and Philosophy! Hehehe …

“army of male slaves”? … Ohhh, Pie, me-o-my!

So how come, you rarely see “reverse-bigamy” – One women with multiple husbands? Now, I can understand from a procreation standpoint, but in modern times procreation is a secondary concern to economic pursuits, and a household with multiple males would seem to be better capable of generating revenue (not that I am commenting on the issue of gender wage discrepancy).

I wonder if it isn't’t something more fundamental about the nature of Men and Women?

Do you two believe that Polygamy is a relic from the past, or do you think it may make a resurgence again at some point in the future? In other words, in evolutionary terms is polygamy in the process of going extinct?

(slightly off topic, I know, but marriage is definitely associated with “Religion”)

Speaking for myself my little love serpent that's what I am here for to distract and entrap my with are feminine wiles.


Franko why wouldn't I have an army of male slaves to cater for my every whim.


Naturally a house full of men would provide me a lot of satisfaction and you are right a larger income. Even in the so called equality age men do still seem to warm more.

Now why from a procreation standpoint?

I have no idea really why, but I would say it is stereotypical male attitude one man with several woman is admired one woman with several men is a whore with no morals.

Of course there is Males think there strong dominant and should provide, but some of us women aren't destined to be subservient, they are just as strong dominant and predatory.

Polygamy tough, I need to collate my thoughts on that. Say it at this moment on a whim its had it's day too many Pc'ers and dictating religions put paid to that. I need more thought on this to answer correctly

My view on marriage in general is a bad idea, having already been there and had a bad one it has tainted my view on it. Would I marry just one man and live with several women depends on the man and the women, would I live with several men oh yes I would enjoy that.

Why are you planning on marrying me and Q_s lol

It's my topic and I allow you to wander off when it involves me and you and Q-s

 

[Unas]

Franko continues his incessant barrage of lies...

Knowing the rules does not mean that the rules exist?

That's right, Franko: Lie about what I said. It's the only tactic you have left.

Not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do exist. You are claiming that even though you do not know the deterministic rules that govern the entire Universe, they must nevertheless exist. That's simply not a scientific or logical position to take, Franko. Your claim is an article of faith, a superstition -- and nothing more.

I am saying that ALL (EVERY) observation that “Science” has made, as well as my own lifetime of experiences (and beyond) tells me that reality is objective and obeys logical rules. I have no reason what-so-ever for believing that things happen magically.

I have not asked you to believe in magic. At the moment, all I ask of you is that you stop lying about my words and the words of others.

Unless you would care to give me a reason to believe things can happen magically?

First, tell me why you persist in lying about claims I have not made.

Can you explain how you acquired your magical powers for us mystical A-Theist?

Can you explain why you are still lying, after your lies have been exposed for what they are?

You may be an evil-motherf*cker, but I’ll still use your worthless ass to save those that can be saved.

You are unable to counter my arguments rationally. You therefore descend to lies and ad hominem attacks. It is clear that you are incapable of anything more.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Unas

Unas can I ask what do you believe in then?

One little thing you say not knowing the rules does not mean that they do exist, ok, but science it self uses rules it doesn't know are real applicable or are correct, that is why they are called theories isn't it? People accept them readily do they not?

 

[Franko]

Now why from a procreation standpoint?

Ohh, isn’t that rather obvious?

Lets say that You and I are both Polygamist …

You have 10 husbands, and I have 10 Wives.

Now in one year how many children can your family produce from within the marriage, and how many children can my family produce from within my marriage?

I have no idea really why, but I would say it is stereotypical male attitude one man with several woman is admired one woman with several men is a whore with no morals.

That is a “Christian” way of thinking, but what about people who don’t think in the “Christian” way on this point? Why do you suppose that this sort of arrangement seems rare to the point of non-existence? Even in Ancient times and Societies with quite different morals and sexual standards the One Female many male scenario is virtually unheard of?

Like I said, I wonder if there isn’t some more fundamental reason?

some of us women aren't destined to be subservient, they are just as strong dominant and predatory.

Ohh, I agree completely Soldata.

My view on marriage in general is a bad idea, having already been there and had a bad one it has tainted my view on it. Would I marry just one man and live with several women depends on the man and the women, would I live with several men oh yes I would enjoy that.

What’s good for the Goose is Good for the Gander? Hehehe … I agree completely Chicky.

Why are you planning on marrying me and Q_s lol

I allow you to wander off when it involves me and you and Q-s

(these comments have been added to the users “sexual fantasies” file for future research/reference …)

 

[Guest]

Ohh, isn’t that rather obvious?

Lets say that You and I are both Polygamist …

You have 10 husbands, and I have 10 Wives.

Now in one year how many children can your family produce from within the marriage, and how many children can my family produce from within my marriage?

You mean I have to breed. Can't I just have lots and lots and lots and lots of lots of sex

That is a “Christian” way of thinking, but what about people who don’t think in the “Christian” way on this point? Why do you suppose that this sort of arrangement seems rare to the point of non-existence? Even in Ancient times and Societies with quite different morals and sexual standards the One Female many male scenario is virtually unheard of?

Like I said, I wonder if there isn’t some more fundamental reason?

good point, I need to rectify that

Ohh, I agree completely Soldata.

I love it when man agrees with me saves so much trouble

What’s good for the Goose is Good for the Gander? Hehehe … I agree completely Chicky.

Ohh twice in one day Franko easy tiger people will gossip xx lol

(these comments have been added to the users “sexual fantasies” file for future research/reference …)

A man after my own dark psyche I am blessed

I wonder location change to Franko's harem?

 

[Franko]

Pie:
You mean I have to breed. Can't I just have lots and lots and lots and lots of lots of sex

Listen Darling, this is R&P, if we are going to have a thinly veiled innuendo laced conversation about group sex, then the least we can do is puppet the veneer of a philosophical discourse regarding the pro’s and con’s of Male Bigamy verses Female Bigamy. (hehe)

Pie:
I love it when man agrees with me saves so much trouble

… and it’s so convenient for me, when you are correct in advance.

Pie:
Ohh twice in one day Franko easy tiger people will gossip xx lol

Ohhh Pie … when I’m chatting with You, who can think of the world?

Pie:
A man after my own dark psyche I am blessed

I wonder location change to Franko's harem?

Pleasse Goddess! Please Goddess … Please Goddess … please Goddess

I really don’t comprehend why the A-Theists are so down on this prayer “thing”.

Ahhh, where was I … ?

… change to Franko's harem?

Ohhh Yeah!

Pleasse Goddess! Please Goddess … Please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess …

Alright Pie, so you said that some of the things I believed confused You. … Like, for example?