I now see why she was stupid enough to get with elmo.
Stop being pious atheists
There are plenty examples of religious leaders raping and killing children and other offenses. But I guess they are above it all then?
I think zealot answered that. It seems that people who can’t manage themselves and their worst impulse want to manage others.
Grimes and musk believe the AI is God. So there’s a good chance context is missing here on purpose because she’s aware enough to not go full crazy.
Bring back God = build the AI.
they don’t believe in god, so there’s no belief in AI.
let me sum it up for you in a few words imagine they are the thoughts of our oppressors.
I am a god.
The archetypes, best, worst and middling, are those parts of ourselves, so I can kind of see that. I’m fairly sure that’s not what they mean by it, but I could be wrong. People can agree on basic premise and have wildly varying ideas of the implications, such as regular people who hi to church, temple and mosque and basically try to be decent to everyone, and those who wield religion like a cudgel.
Eta, just saying I’m fairly sure i don’t agree their implications, maybe not the actual premise. I realize it was murky.
If we can kill God, then it wasn’t God that we killed…
This is the fact that is so often overlooked because its too goddamn inconvenient for them to acknowledge.
manic nazi dream girl
I think her argument was that religion offered an easy way to make moral choices.
There was just a case where a woman gave birth to a baby in the woods, left it there and left for a vacation. If it weren’t for the family dog desperately trying to save the baby and getting noticed by a stranger, nobody would have ever known as even the rest of the family was defensive of the woman.
This shows morality is not only not an exclusively trait but not even an exclusively human trait.
I am not sure that I agree that the dog’s behavior necessarily demonstrates “morality.” You might be anthropomorphizing a bit. I am not a biologist or anything, so I could be way off base… But is it not possible that the dog was acting on instincts to protect newborn offspring? Similar to when animals “adopt” babies from other species as their own?
Morality implies that the dog did a thing because it’s “the right thing to do,” when in reality, it might have just been a self-preservation instinct kicking in. Dog sees newborn that’s clearly the offspring of the being that takes care of it, dog tries to preserve that newborn’s life in order to keep the gravy train going.
Just my (again, non-expert) thoughts.
Zealots judging by the news coming out of america do not care about such trivial details as “facts”, “medical science” and “behavioral science”. It is unnecessary for them to take that into consideration.
You can remove the argument from morality safely from your answer just by stating the dog acted upon instinct, based off the notion dogs are pack animals, that have a closely knit symbiotic relatioship with human, which can be used to in favour of the dog finding a newborn activated the instinct of preserving their pack.
The way you approached the subject can be easily side tracked through arguing you are atributting self interest to the animals actions, as in, it keeps the newborn alive, thus, their own preservation is assured.
If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.
Side note: who discards a newborn in such calous way? How unbalanced is the person?
If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.
That’s not necessarily true. No more human offspring means no more symbiotic relationship.
No offspring, closer symbiotic relationship, with more resources available.
Maybe… We’re probably overthinking it and it’s just a “protect baby” instinct.
And that is a very possible scenario.
deleted by creator
Do you have source?
fuck that elon breeder
If fear of divine retribution is your only reason for being a good person, then you are not a good person.
deleted by creator
Welcome to the rise and celebration of immortality. Pornstars, OF, open drug markets\junkies, and general San Fransisco culture.
All of those things are only problematic in excess, and are mostly excessive because of capitalism. Theres nothing immoral about sex or drugs.
There is definitely something immoral about open air drug markets, junkies lying in the streets, glorification of sex workers and prostitution, and blaming it on “capitalism” is an easy way to not accept responsibility for your societal shortcomings.
Shame and peer pressure are outsourcing ethics and never independently developing character.
Religion provided people with a sense of community. Without it, they’ve been finding community on the internet which has resulted in people believing in all kinds of strange things. Significantly stranger than there being a metaphysical consciousness in the universe.
Religion, while not perfect, often tries to encourage people to be better. Of course religion can be corrupted by politics at times, and we’re certainly in one of those times. But the general concept of people coming together and encouraging each other to be better isn’t a bad thing.
Internet groups are worse than religion, many of them are devoted towards hating an enemy and unlike religion, make no effort to encourage people to better themselves. Religion can often fail at this goal, but most internet groups make no attempt to be better than a failed religion. Case in point: [email protected]
Grace for one, not the other. I see.
Switch religion for internet groups in your comment and you’ll be baffled at your hypocrisy.
