If people associated their arguments with their identity, they would never be able to engage in civilized discourse. Of course your arguments are separate from you as a person. Because someone challenges your logic does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Come on, you should know better.
There are few scientific developments that haven’t been weaponzied. AI will just be the next, potentially worst. This mindset that if an innovation is not weaponized by us, the enemy will do it has never been addressed by religion, and if so, to little effect. Ultimately it will likely lead to our demise.
Why do you hate logic so much? I am asking you question and you are mocking my question. Why do you do that? Why do you hate Laminin?
Where are your arguments? Why do you hate Laminin? Why do you hate America which came out of religion? Why do believe in history but doubt that the future would follow the same principles that history did? Why do you mock and attack the arguments of other people and why do you hate questions so much? You seem to be against science and logic and you seem to hate Stefan Molyneux.
Didn’t Alex Jones steal that idea from the Bible, which you hate?
Quiet, soyboy, the adults are speaking.
I’m agnostic, I like to keep my options open. It would be nice to see evil people get theirs in the afterlife because there sure as heck not a lot of justice in the world today. Yet I can’t give myself over to a nihilistic view that we’re ultimately inconsequential, that’s just a fast track road to apathy and defeatism. Still I respect both sides of this argument and for the reasons why people like them. The war of idealism vs materialism will continue to wage on until the end of time for the most part and aside from governments, only you can allow yourself to be freed or imprisoned mentally. Some need the bible and some need Nietzsche, it’s all how you deal with evil on your own terms in my opinion. Either way I love you all and want the best for the world and the sensible ones in it.
I have a question, What exactly needs to happen for Humanity to receive the same message, What would it take to Present the REAL option of Global unity globally, and OPEN society when concerning information and technologies available freely, exposing of the hidden acknowledgments.
Consider that at our current state of technology we could theoretically provide every individual anything they could wish, We can also consider that if we did, a phenomenon, that once we can have any thing and everything, we tend to want little, Consider also this would eliminate the majority of all crimes, including Murder.
Consider that at our current state of technology we can theoretically eliminate all forums of Government with a simple globally accessible website that tally’s the vote on all local, or globally purposed projects and or developments that must be publicly submitted for review and that concerns all humanity, and Nature both locally and globally, a global consensuses.
Of course there are MANY solutions, but these can not come until we can unite as one, Humanity, Until then there can be no solving of anything, there will be no salvation.
So again, I ask, what must be done for all to Unite for the sake of Humanity, to disregard all irrationality!
“no matter our beliefs, When the Blade Cuts deep in the the Flesh, No God will stop the Head from being dispatched from its Body, Disregard all artificiality and we are left with only you and I, Honesty”
Should we merge with the Brain Net and download thoughts into our brains?
Globalists agree that religion must be discarded, that is what they say.
Who oversees it? I don’t think technology is necessarily the answer. The problem is the imbalance between intellect and intelligence. I’m suggesting bringing intelligence into balance by doing away with the opiate that is religion. Intellect deals with the reality of the sciences. Intelligence has to be in line with the reality of life itself, specifically its uncertainty and complete lack of security. We have to do away with the assumptions underlying religion, specifically that we possess the capacity to know the ultimate truth that all religions proclaim to offer.
I’m agnostic also, although I would say that I’m comfortable with there being no options but to experience life directly as it is, without the screen of religion distorting it. “Options” may imply a choice of belief systems. I’m advocating doing away with the whole idea of belief systems altogether.
True, that emotionalism, not religion, specifically, has derailed evolution.
Do you truly believe in doing away with belief, totally?
Is that true? What do we know? What can we know?
Are you mentally impaired? Why do you insist on trying to speak when I clearly want to ignore you? Fuck off soyboy.
@Paladin is actually against obsessive emotionalism which he falsely labels to be “Religion.”