Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:42:23 UTC No. 16479722

>>16479674
And how does "religion is legit?" make you feel? Can you expand on that?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:22:57 UTC No. 16479748

>>16479722
I dont give a god damned fucked but maybe you pussies do

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:24:54 UTC No. 16479754

>>16479674
I think you're giving far too much meaning to the output of AI slop. Funnily though, this attachment of meaning to arbitrary things is, imo, the heart of religion.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:25:38 UTC No. 16479755

>>16479748
What is the connection, do you suppose?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:28:10 UTC No. 16479759

>>16479755
Say that in a different way you tucking idiot
>>16479754
.t bot

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:32:59 UTC No. 16479765

>>16479759
>Asks question
>Gets given answer
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Typical NPC behavior.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:35:39 UTC No. 16479773

>>16479759
Is in a different way important to you?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:38:12 UTC No. 16479776

>>16479773
Well because my brain is running on more cylinders than yours I can imagine a fuckton of things you could consider a "connection" for

So be more specific

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:41:44 UTC No. 16479788

>>16479674
>humans have an innate desire to lie to themselves
>therefore, lying to oneself is legit
Is this a legit argument?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:48:09 UTC No. 16479800

>>16479776
Can you think of a specific example?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:48:26 UTC No. 16479802

>>16479754
Literally this

Religions are lies

Raphael at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:52:48 UTC No. 16479807

>>16479802
Agreed

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:09:31 UTC No. 16479823

>>16479674
In my observation, religion, and specifically dogmatic beliefs are inherent to the human condition. Men can try to reason, but reason can only take you so far. Belief begins where reason ends. That's why at some in everyone's life, there's what Kierkegaard calls the "leap of faith." A way for humans to take a step in a direction that they can't completely take with reason.
>>16479802
Not really.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:11:07 UTC No. 16479824

>>16479823
>Kierkegaard
Gaaaaaaaay

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:13:11 UTC No. 16479825

>>16479824
Niggerfaggot.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:15:55 UTC No. 16479828

why are atheists triggered so easily?
do they have some sort of psychological problems which causes them to be so emotionally unstable?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:31:19 UTC No. 16479847

>>16479828
>why are atheists triggered so easily?
Because they constantly practice the things they claim to reject, and that stirs up a contradiction in their minds. The atheist binds himself to a creed as surely as any priest, his denial a kind of worship, his rejection a private liturgy. He clings to absence, calls it a liberation, yet clings all the same. In his need to flee from gods, he makes one of his own unfaith, a shadow cast by the very beliefs he spurns, a prayer he chants in the dark that he does not believe in. The atheist still bows, still swears, to the notion that there is no god, and he would think himself freed by such a thing. But belief is a snare, no matter its shape. It cages him even as he proclaims his freedom, binds him to the very notion he would banish from his soul.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:45:45 UTC No. 16479886

>>16479800
>How does religion make you feel
>I dont care
>Muh connection
>muh example

You wrent coherent and are seemingly having a conversation with yourself about whether or not im a bot but really youre just a NIGGER FAGGOT

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:00:18 UTC No. 16479911

>>16479886
We were discussing you, not me.
Is having a conversation with yourself important to you?

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:05:32 UTC No. 16479920

>>16479674
Christcucks unironically think that paragraph is strong evidence that a supernatural god is real

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:08:43 UTC No. 16479925

Well, boil it down to a "higher purpose" or social evolution to sacrifice self for group. Tribalism select self sacrifice so that's how we evolved as.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:22:33 UTC No. 16479941

>>16479674
I'm not quite sure how to exactly describe it, but imo "religion" in a broad sense is a sort of psychological feature of humanity - that is to say, I think it's more or less unavoidable. It's not a specific belief in sky fairies or somesuch, it's more like the "context" in which we process information in a world where we're curious enough and intelligent enough to wonder about the world around us and attempt to explain it, despite not having enough information available to completely, precisely, and accurately do so.

Ancient cultures may not have known why fruit turns to alcohol when you leave it out, so you may end up blaming it on "spirits", but this gives you a context and a language to attempt to characterize the process and explain why certain actions by the brewer leads to success and why others lead to failure. They may be inaccurate in understanding exactly why the process occurs (microbial action), but they can begin to talk and reason about the process itself. Any given "religion" is a culture's specific lexicon and mental context for processing information.

So on that note, I believe there are secular "religions", like science with a capital S, because it's more about the cult mindset of information processing than it is about any specific belief in some charismatic leader or spiritual entity

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:23:38 UTC No. 16479944

>>16479941
that is to say, I think the AI is on to something.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:34:05 UTC No. 16479953

>>16479941
but that isn't to say that the thought-leaders of any given society haven't used religion as a vehicle to inject justifications for their own desires, ex to encourage some behaviors and discourage others, but I think this is the general source of the cult/religious mindset which seems to affect intelligent, reasonable people just as much as it does their opposites. It's just instinct designed to prevent curious creatures from going mad at the unexplainable

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:26:18 UTC No. 16480020

>>16479674
So because of Goedels incompleteness theorem, if you have some system (including maths) it is a belief based system. The scientific method is belief based. A belief in truth is still a belief. Specific ways of approaching truth are also beliefs.

Having some such belief is the natural human state. It is necessary to simplify the world and have one consistent lens to look at trough on it. The religious proposition is a meaning making proposition. Scientism is also a kind of religion. The real motivations behind choosing lets say science over christianity are cultural and personally (mostly) unconscious. There were bascially no scientists when science wasnt a thing yet. And further there is the possibility of future "things" that arent invented yet.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:33:13 UTC No. 16480031

>>16480020
All of this means that there is always a space for philosophy (or something like it) to explore the very base assumptions. Each past culture considered itself the pinnacle of knowledge and wisdom, but then something new and unexpected came along.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:21:40 UTC No. 16480265

>>16479674
>our deepest
So you told it to larp as a religious human and it larped as a religious human to give you the answer?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:37:35 UTC No. 16480276

>>16479847
I still don't see you cooking meat with the name of god like the holy book says you should be able to do, seething coper.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:47:07 UTC No. 16480340

>>16480276
>the holy book says you should be able to
What are you on about? What holy book?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:50:45 UTC No. 16480342

>>16480276
>seething coper
I said it how it is. How am I coping? I wrapped your entire way of thinking in a neat little box, and I've got you talking some shit about cooking meat, holy books and whatnot.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:56:01 UTC No. 16480349

>>16480340
The holy book for the faith that is the base of 90% of religious people in the world and the source of the thing you call god.

>>16480342
No you said a bunch of stupid bullshit that stretched the definitions of the words you are using past their breaking point since if nonreligious people are practicing a religion by avoid religion, then the word religion has no meaning.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:46:47 UTC No. 16480375

>>16480349
>The holy book for the faith that is the base of 90% of religious people in the world and the source of the thing you call god.
Well, that sure as hell is not where I draw my faith from. Doing so from books on their own is pretty stupid. My beliefs and convictions are mostly drawn of things that are so right they leave no room for debate.
>>16480349
They don't practice "religion" in the contemporary sense, but they have dogmatic predispositions that are essentially no different than religions. By the same token, everyone has a certain type of faith in something at the very least. It is not possible to have convictions alone, beliefs and dogma will always exist.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:50:34 UTC No. 16480376

>>16480375
>Well, that sure as hell is not where I draw my faith from.
It certainly is since you plagiarized their terminology instead of giving a novel name to the thing you are trying to describe.

> but they have dogmatic predispositions that are essentially no different than religions
No, the dogma is in your definition, defining a whole group of people who aren't superstitious like you in order to besmirch them instead of accepting that there are a wide variety of people who don't need to worship demons to avoid doing bad things.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:59:24 UTC No. 16480392

>>16480376
>superstitious
I am not. You have no basis for using this adjective.
>to besmirch them instead of accepting that there are a wide variety of people who don't need to worship demons to avoid doing bad things.
Everyone worships. They just worship different things. Even you.
>It certainly is since you plagiarized their terminology instead of giving a novel name to the thing you are trying to describe.
Using a lexicon of my choice is not plagiarism. Who was it that said something about contorting, and stretching definitions?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:09:52 UTC No. 16480399

>>16480392
>You have no basis for using this adjective.
Other than the fact that you are trying to deny reality in favor of some imaginary deity.
>Everyone worships
Sure, everyone does everything if you nonsensically stretch the definition of the word to encompass everyone.
>Using a lexicon of my choice is not plagiarism.
Choosing to pull words from other religions specifically means you drew your faith from the other religions whose words you appropriated.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:16:27 UTC No. 16480401

>>16479823
>In my observation, religion, and specifically dogmatic beliefs are inherent to the human condition.
People are mostly irrational and self-destructive, religion is just another manifestation of idiocy

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:19:03 UTC No. 16480404

>>16480399
>Other than the fact that you are trying to deny reality in favor of some imaginary deity.
Not really. In my case, they both coincide.
>Sure, everyone does everything if you nonsensically stretch the definition of the word to encompass everyone.
Tell me what is wrong with what I explained. I am convinced that everything I said is correct.
>Choosing to pull words from other religions specifically means you drew your faith from the other religions whose words you appropriated.
Nonsense. Those words were simply optimal for describing things the way they are. Your comparison is not only flawed, it's completely ridiculous. It would be like saying that if a writer has read the books of another prior to writing his own, then any of the prose or lexicon that is utilized by the former has been plagiarized from the latter.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:29:10 UTC No. 16480410

>>16480404
>Not really. In my case, they both coincide.
They can't, you can't have an all-powerful deity who regularly performs miracles while interfering with natural reality based on its divine subjectivity and a consistent logical objective reality, the two things are mutually exclusive.
>Tell me what is wrong with what I explained.
You are the one that has the dogma that if someone isn't superstitious like you, believing in miraculous invisible pervasive deities, they are part of some religion called atheism that you have cast this wide net around, you are only projecting the terse dogmatism of your own beliefs while ignoring what others actually believe and the wide spectrum of possibilities that exist outside of worshiping a magical super-magician.
>Those words were simply optimal for describing things the way they are.
Which means that you drew upon their optimized faith to define your own derivative bastardized version of their jargon.

>then any of the prose or lexicon that is utilized by the former has been plagiarized from the latter.
Yea if you write a book about the Great Gatsby just because that name draws a lot of attention and has a large built in audience, you are definitely plagiarizing and leeching off of the words of others, no matter how much you try to change the character and traits of The Great Gatsby, you have still stolen the idea and tried to bastardize it to make it your own.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:42:30 UTC No. 16480431

>>16480410
>They can't, you can't have an all-powerful deity who regularly performs miracles while interfering with natural reality based on its divine subjectivity and a consistent logical objective reality, the two things are mutually exclusive.
My deity doesn't perform miracles. It objectively reigns over every aspect of your reality, and I could convince you into it were I dedicated enough to do so.
>You are the one that has the dogma that if someone isn't superstitious like you, believing in miraculous invisible pervasive deities, they are part of some religion called atheism that you have cast this wide net around, you are only projecting the terse dogmatism of your own beliefs while ignoring what others actually believe and the wide spectrum of possibilities that exist outside of worshiping a magical super-magician.
What a strawman. My deity isn't an invisible fairy in the sky, it's something that even established scientists would most likely agree with, were it not for pervasive academia politics, ethics, moralistic blather and whatnot.
>Which means that you drew upon their optimized faith to define your own derivative bastardized version of their jargon.
Do you think that their own conclusions were original in their own right? Answer me this: If I read the books of several authors, draw expressions, ideas, and lexicons from their writings, then concatenate them into a conclusion of my own, is that plagiarism? Because if it is, then every author ever was a plagiarist, as he had to study the works of his predecessors in order to hone his own.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:48:59 UTC No. 16480437

>>16479674
>Asking AI what it thinks of religion and expecting anything other than a religious response
With literal billions of religious retards in the world today, you should expect the dataset used to train the AI to have a heavy religious bias, one that likely won't be fixed because the aforementioned religious retards would complain about it.

There's nothing there, anon, you shouldn't trust the output of a biased AI too much.
Besides, religion is just a comforting lie to keep people from freaking about about their own death.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:55:00 UTC No. 16480439

>>16480431
>My deity doesn't perform miracles.
Then it isn't a god, it is not powerful, it couldn't have created a universe from scratch if it was subject to the laws of the void instead of its own divine will, its just some impotent universal observer at best.
> It objectively reigns over every aspect of your reality
No, because that would be miraculous.
> My deity isn't an invisible fairy in the sky,
Then it isn't god, you are appropriating words with vast grandiosity just to nonsensically subvert them and frame them around yourself.
> it's something that even established scientists would most likely agree with,
In other words, you are just trying to nonsensically call the universe god despite the two things having completely different properties and traits.

>Do you think that their own conclusions were original in their own right?
No, I think all superstitions are just bastardization of bastardizations of bastardization from stupid bastards all the way down.

>If I read the books of several authors, draw expressions, ideas, and lexicons from their writings, then concatenate them into a conclusion of my own, is that plagiarism?
Yes, it is the type of plagiarism called fan fiction, Mary Sue.
>then every author ever was a plagiarist,
Yea, mediocre authors borrow, great authors steal, you are just borrowing because you don't even understand the original texts very well, so your paraphrasing comes off as sophomoric.

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:57:31 UTC No. 16480444

>>16479674
a normal brain is "religious". yes. the question is why one should favor your flavor of god(s) over some more philosophical god(s)

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:59:23 UTC No. 16480445

Religion is belief in prophecy(in the case where the following is false) and trying to force certain ideology.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:13:32 UTC No. 16480462

>>16480439
>fan fiction
Then all articles within academia are plagiarized, I suppose.
>No, because that would be miraculous.
War is God. Everything you have has been forged in the crucible of conflict. All morals have started out as practical rules, that is why traditions are commonly referred to as experiments that worked, that found favor with the conditions of their time. They were useful to the survival of our ancestors, and most importantly, against an adversary of their own. Ultimately, men cooperate to compete. And nothing survives beyond the test of struggle.

>Example:

In the realm of nature, in the bones of creatures long dead, we find the fossils of what once were anomalies, species whose forms seemed bent against the logic of their time. Yet it is by their very extinction that the current order stands justified, their absence a testament to the fitness of those who remain. Abnormality is not an error but a necessity, for without it, the regular would lack contrast, would cease to be perceived as such. The two are bound together, not as opposites but as complements, two sides of the same coin spinning through eternity.

In the physical sciences, one encounters this principle time and again. The errant particle, the rogue wave, the mutation within the gene -they do not undermine the laws that govern their movement; they confirm them. For in each irregularity lies the proof of the regular. The mutation that fails strengthens the code of life itself, for in its death, it enforces the template of what is fit to survive. The normal is but a fence, and it is the abnormal that defines where that fence lies.

War shaped us and our genetics. It is the closest to what can be "divine." It is the trial of one’s resolve against that of another, within the broader force that unites them and, by that very connection, compels a choice.

War reigns over every aspect of your reality, yet it performs no miracles. It abides by clear, scientific rules.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:20:30 UTC No. 16480468

The hell you choose to put me in is quite costly. I'm tired of your games. As soon as this ends, and as you chose to max out with your hell - will be quite soon. You will pay for all the crimes you committed. And I will trick you for 10'000s of years. You'll do 400 years in the severest conditions FOR THE CRIME. Much worse. Trust me, some time next year you will all pay a high price.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:22:22 UTC No. 16480472

>>16480468
Think about it. You don't even give me the chance to do. Do you know how much that costs? You got 3000 years to play with --750 for fear -750 for pain. With your max causation, you chose maximum retardation. You'll be lucky to get 1 year out of it. This is your last year, and then you will pay.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:25:26 UTC No. 16480475

>>16479674
Are you stupid? In either case, religious people are deluded because their beliefs are wrong

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:27:42 UTC No. 16480479

Soon.jpg

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:29:24 UTC No. 16480481

Yeah? You think that's funny do you? Wait til you see you.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:34:42 UTC No. 16480487

>>16480481
It could be any day now.

Crimes amplify hell.

You will do a straight 400 years in the severest conditions for all the crimes you committed here combined. You can't even get away. Trust me. Things don't look good for you.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:37:38 UTC No. 16480489

>>16480462
>Then all articles within academia are plagiarized, I suppose.
Its called peer review, its built into the scientific process to help build on someone else's discoveries.

>War is God
Yes I know you god is just a fictitious evil fire demon of war, its what I have been trying to tell you.
>And nothing survives beyond the test of struggle.
Which is why all the gods are long dead and gone replaced by actual functional technology.
> It is the closest to what can be "divine."
I accept your concession, there are no gods, only things that are maybe close to some retarded derivative definition of god that you come up with because the original definitions are obviously retarded and long since debunked.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:42:23 UTC No. 16480496

>>16480489
I am objectively right in everything I say and everything I do. Everything you said proved me right. It's alright, it is inevitable that people like you somehow show up. It's all inevitable.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:46:51 UTC No. 16480504

>>16480496
Yes, you are right that you only worship a violent fictional demon of death instead of acknowledging anything that is real, alive, or genuinely loving.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:47:05 UTC No. 16480505

>>16480489
Ironically, even those who execrate me seem to carry portions of my thought, in spite of themselves, in their own souls.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:53:15 UTC No. 16480513

>>16480505
Oh, so you also think you are a retarded piece of shit, you should have so so from the beginning, Fecanon?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:54:49 UTC No. 16480514

>>16480504
Case in point.
>real, alive
That is part of War.
>genuinely loving
Love as you know it ( which is a very disingenous idea ) was shaped by War as well.

The anthropologist, Helen Fisher suggests that there are three distinct emotional systems which regulate mating behavior in humans. Lust, attraction, and attachment. Each one evolved to mediate a different stage of the reproductive process. Lust is a basic instinct, necessary for copulation with any member of the opposite sex. Attraction facilitates mate choice by focusing attention on specific individuals. And attachment to one partner is a prerequisite for pair bonding which allow for greater parental investment in offspring.

One of the reasons why the idea of love is so contentious is that these three emotional systems are often conflated. People describe themselves as being in love when they're actually in a state of limerance. In reality, each system is underpinned by specific neural correlates. The sex drive is so strong because it is mediated by testosterone. Infatuation resembles an addiction because it is sustained by dopamine and adrenaline. And the warm fuzzy feeling from secure attachment is produced by Oxytocin. As a corollary, the demands of each system are often mutually exclusive, and there is a discrepancy between how they influence male and female behavior.

These biological interactions within an organism, or between them, have all been shaped by war. It all serves an evolutionary purpose, which rounds back to my original point; nothing survives beyond the test of struggle. I could take the time to elaborate, but you wouldn't care.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:55:56 UTC No. 16480516

It might be today

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:00:39 UTC No. 16480523

>>16480513
>can't read
I will formulate that in a way your simian brain can comprehend. Even though you might abhor me, you partly think the way I do, nonetheless.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:06:58 UTC No. 16480534

>>16480523
Yes we both know english and our thoughts are dictated in part by its linguistic structure, but your thoughts about gods are completely retarded in any language, sorry you have a hard time coping with your own limitations and are desperate to be a demigod, better luck next life.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:08:41 UTC No. 16480540

>>16480514
I accept your concession, there is no need for real living physical god beings if you can explain things everything with semantic abstractions like war instead.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:12:02 UTC No. 16480544

>>16480534
>Only rebuttal to anything I say being "retarded," or "you have le God complex"
It's alright anon. It's alright. If coping is your prerogative, so be it.
>>16480540
>I accept your concession
Lmao. I apologize for breaking your mind so hard you have to repeat the same phrase like a broken record instead of making an actual point. I'm out.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:18:34 UTC No. 16480554

>>16480544
I had enough space in both of those posts to make a point and call a retard retarded, though, you just chose to focus on being retarded because you are retarded, I wouldn't need to keep repeating acceptance of your concessions if you didn't keep making concessions and changing your definitions to suit your new argument.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:25:11 UTC No. 16480661

>>16479674
I would agree but AI said so is no basis for argument especially given that you could continue to prompt it and it would change its mind.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:19:10 UTC No. 16480716

>milk and massage ai until it gives the answer you want
>"WOAAHH! sci has to see this!!!!"
Average religious thinker.