Just to piggy back on the on-going discussion happening in that other topic:
The flaw with religious discussions is partially in fault due to the empirical system (in which substantial improvements to our understanding of medicine, technology, and the global understanding in which human necessities are derived from) employed which was essentially created to be the direct anti-thesis of religion. In other words, if you thought the religious were bad, wait until you have a strictly empirical formulation of morals.
In this way, I can see the benefit of religious thinking. AI is going to stay, and furthermore, its exactly as described: the ultimate arbiter of information. Humans will play less of a role until we get to either the bare necessity of consulting the capacities of the roles of people or a flat out revolution against such a machine. I dont think thats far fetched. The only reason we dont murder for fun is because there are fairy-tale morals propping that idea up.
Just look at whats happening at the border and within the U.S. I think anyone alluding to the fact that the religious have no merit (which is really a knee jerk reaction to the absurd cases of Christiandom presenting itself) would likely agree to whats happening here. Logically, the cost of immigration (
insert all right wing points here
). I dont think I could say that the people not for religion are right wingers Im simply saying that the empirical truth sensibly leads here. I dont find myself agreeing to that notion, and so I do find forms of religious thought to be the only thing holding the water here against what ICE is doing.
the way ICE is handling things is absolutely wrong and we can all agree to that
Okay, but the oppositional argument in this case is (by the order of the empirical and scientific method) is equally as valid? What
is
the kind of argument that were trying to make here, then? A moral one suspended by the agreed upon social strata? The other half of the strata apparently disagree with it, and not only that, its the current majority. So who is right here?
Like Im not going to argue that we cant present a good case as
people
but I guess I just dont want that to be enough. Id like for unalienable truths to exist that arent subject to change like the ones written in paper. I guess that seems odd, considering what we have in the religious sector
are
pieces of paper, but it seems like every
good
doctrine throughout time sought to seek the machinations of truths so universal that theyd wind up being exactly what any good gospel would try to preach anyway.
Consider that humans interpreted the Bible wrong to begin with lol. What actual good comes out of that sort of religious text? I see many virtues worth consulting there. I see things wrong within the text itself that dont speak to what I try to live by when I think of that text.
I am for sure trying to make the case for the text here.. moving the goal post, but moving the goal post here is largely a result of scientific thought anyway.. its useless for what I want to achieve out of something like the Bible. Serves me no purpose to try and argue the point with others who subscribe to that system because were just at opposite ends of it.
which probably means religious thinkers should be concerned with the amount of hold were trying to attain.. its not necessary for us to do so, I think. Weve done enough to harm the world that I think we should just focus on trying to understand the pages of the good book here instead of slamming it over someones head.
NP: Lufia 2, FFIV "100 Years of Solitude", "Absalom, Absalom!"
Posting Strike, I hate lab grown meat!