[Discussion] Your views on religion.

[CoinKillerL]

That's exactly what a bot would say. I didn't ask for you to prove the complexity of your posts, I asked for you to prove the objective existence of your consciousness. I think this may be a bit much for you though.

ahhhhh,i exists,but it's not possible to prove that i exist in a forum. And let's stop flame and forget all of this shit that happned here

 

[MaverickWellington]

There is this wonderful thing called a Neural Network system that is used in AI that learns from example.

There is no way to objectively prove you exist without showing yourself to us in person, shaking hands with us, and having a discussion. Try all you want.

Even then, that doesn't prove you exist to me, it only proves that I am shaking hands with something that I observe to be a human being. That does not mean that it is definitively a conscious being like myself. The world could just as easily be a simulation where I am the only one to exist.

Rene Descartes really threw a massive wrench into the whole "can't see it don't real" meme that idiots like to use.

 

[Deleted User]

ahhhhh,i exists,but it's not possible to prove that i exist in a forum. And let's stop flame and forget all of this shit that happned here

Thanks. But your post still remains in the OP.

 

[MaverickWellington]

ahhhhh,i exists,but it's not possible to prove that i exist in a forum. And let's stop flame and forget all of this shit that happned here

No, you evidently don't exist. I can't see your consciousness. You can't prove it exists relative to my own, as I cannot exist through your body and see through your consciousness, only my own. Thus, for all intents and purposes, you do not exist relative to me. Since you cannot be proven to exist, I have no reason to believe you do.

 

[CoinKillerL]

Thanks. But your post still remains in the OP.

k it's fine i perfectly understand that i am a fucking idiot

 

[x65943]

There is this wonderful thing called a Neural Network system that is used in AI that learns from example.

There is no way to objectively prove you exist without showing yourself to us in person, shaking hands with us, and having a discussion. Try all you want.

And if you want to take this to the extreme there is no way to prove he exists even if he does all of this - i.e. he meets you in person etc

 

[Raylight]

No, you evidently don't exist. I can't see your consciousness. You can't prove it exists relative to my own, as I cannot exist through your body and see through your consciousness, only my own. Thus, for all intents and purposes, you do not exist relative to me. Since you cannot be proven to exist, I have no reason to believe you do.

we could all be simulations. what is real and is not real is up for debate to be honest.

 

[MaverickWellington]

And if you want to take this to the extreme there is no way to prove he exists even if he does all of this - i.e. he meets you in person etc

You can go even further, he can't even prove that he is as you observe him to be. Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" philosophy is incredibly interesting and I encourage everyone -- even the "DON'T SEE IT DON'T REAL" fedora tippers to read into this. The world could just as easily be a fake simulation fooling our senses (which only exist to take in the information they are given, whether it's real or not, hence the existence of hallucinations) and we'd have no way of proving it because our senses are generally so consistent with what's observed.

 

[x65943]

we could all be simulations. what is real and is not real is up for debate to be honest.

And even what it means to be real is not clear

 

[Tigran]

Well if you go string theory, then every for of you that didn't shake hands with you does.. and does not exist.

Sorry.. Just wanted to be good there.

I will say this.. having holy water splashed in my face was probably one of the wirdiest moments in my life. Then the inability to even laugh, just standing there dumbfound as I was asked why I wasn't burning or melting.

 

[linuxares]

Why does everyone call god a "he"?

 

[MaverickWellington]

we could all be simulations. what is real and is not real is up for debate to be honest.

Your avatar could really just be an inverted color version of my own, but my eyes may simply wrongly perceive it to be from king of the hill.
Reality is not as set-in-stone as people like to think it is, or rather, as people take it for granted as being.

 

[x65943]

Why does everyone call god a "he"?

By convention. Male is the default in English.

 

[Deleted User]

Why does everyone call god a "he"?

In the hebrew bible God was given a masculine pronoun ("Elohim")

 

[linuxares]

In the hebrew bible God was given a masculine pronoun ("Elohim")

Ah I see. I just think god would probably more of a women. Would make sense in my head for some reason.

 

[Raylight]

Reality is not as set-in-stone as people like to think it is, or rather, as people take it for granted as being.

Reality (Our Reality) can be manipulated so who knows

 

[FAST6191]

*pushes up glasses, adjusts bowler hat [WHICH IS NOT A FEDORA STOP OWNING ME CHRISTIANUTUBER2003]*
heh, dum religion people....didnt u no? bad things happen, so relgion r false!!!

This has been like the primary go-to argument of clowns and I've never understood it. Do any religious texts for the major religions say that their deity is supposed to be a super hero who saved literally everyone and prevents nothing bad from happening? I don't think I've read that anywhere but people seem to keep arguing points against such a non-existent line.

You are risking a strawman, and chucking insults around does not help your cause, though the quoted post is not without flaw either.
Taking that first.
" The lack of hiding behind the claws of "It's gods will" etc. is such a bad excuse for a despicable behaviour from a lot of people."
The will of the gods thing is usually taken more for happenstance and bad things that happen to people (30 year old getting cancer sort of thing), not personal action which is what your phrase could be interpreted as. Though historically there are a few examples I guess of people using it for personal ends (it is a god's will that I survive in my nice plate armour to slay a few heathen infidels for you) I will have to assume we have free will as part of this, though mechanically that gets troubling a bit later.

I agree entirely that it is an incredibly dangerous mindset both on a practical level (how much science gets done now we stopped accepting/treating diseases like those in 1600 might have) and a philosophical level. If your religion encourages such thinking then I consider it flawed. by similar token an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful being creating creatures like those we see and are, and then doing nothing about it said being is not a nice being.

 

[MaverickWellington]

You are risking a strawman, and chucking insults around does not help your cause, though the quoted post is not without flaw either.
Taking that first.
" The lack of hiding behind the claws of "It's gods will" etc. is such a bad excuse for a despicable behaviour from a lot of people."
The will of the gods thing is usually taken more for happenstance and bad things that happen to people (30 year old getting cancer sort of thing), not personal action which is what your phrase could be interpreted as. Though historically there are a few examples I guess of people using it for personal ends (it is a god's will that I survive in my nice plate armour to slay a few heathen infidels for you) I will have to assume we have free will as part of this, though mechanically that gets troubling a bit later.

I agree entirely that it is an incredibly dangerous mindset both on a practical level (how much science gets done now we stopped accepting/treating diseases like those in 1600 might have) and a philosophical level. If your religion encourages such thinking then I consider it flawed. by similar token an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful being creating creatures like those we see and are, and then doing nothing about it said being is not a nice being.

The religion doesn't though, idiots just think it does. A lot of pseudo intellectual atheists get really, really surface level when it comes to the iceberg that is religious philosophy. There's infinitely more at play than just what happens to mortals.

 

[x65943]

You are risking a strawman, and chucking insults around does not help your cause, though the quoted post is not without flaw either.
Taking that first.
" The lack of hiding behind the claws of "It's gods will" etc. is such a bad excuse for a despicable behaviour from a lot of people."
The will of the gods thing is usually taken more for happenstance and bad things that happen to people (30 year old getting cancer sort of thing), not personal action which is what your phrase could be interpreted as. Though historically there are a few examples I guess of people using it for personal ends (it is a god's will that I survive in my nice plate armour to slay a few heathen infidels for you) I will have to assume we have free will as part of this, though mechanically that gets troubling a bit later.

I agree entirely that it is an incredibly dangerous mindset both on a practical level (how much science gets done now we stopped accepting/treating diseases like those in 1600 might have) and a philosophical level. If your religion encourages such thinking then I consider it flawed. by similar token an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful being creating creatures like those we see and are, and then doing nothing about it said being is not a nice being.

The best argument for lack of a compassionate Christian god is the holocaust.

The religion doesn't though, idiots just think it does. A lot of pseudo intellectual atheists get really, really surface level when it comes to the iceberg that is religious philosophy. There's infinitely more at play than just what happens to mortals.

>There's infinitely more at play than just what happens to mortals.
Source?

 

[linuxares]

But does Religion still belong in the 21st century? Isn't it passé now when we got a lot of social coverage and other means to care for our fellow man than hopes of a scripture?