[removed]

The way I see it, I am not writing for people who are religious. Many of my future articles are based off the idea of not believing in a God, because it is rooted in existentialism. So even though I can play it safe, the people that turn away from the article are going to be people who aren't likely to stick around anyways.

Some of my arguments are simply not going to make sense if you are religious.

That being said, I am always open for a discussion on religion. I am not an atheist and I used to be a strict follower of religion for several decades of my life.

I will still be more tactful in my wording however in the future. Thanks for the input.

[removed]

[removed]

"That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?"

It is not "unfortunate", it was clearly foreseeable circumstance given the both the goals and means which were taken to achieve the goal. This is my contention. I am not contending that climate change is not verifiably true, I am skeptical of the value-judgements made by those who claim to be making decisions with these things in mind.

Let the sewage flow!

>We will no longer have to force ourselves to long for death to get to a mystical make-believe afterworld where suffering does not exist

I'm not personally offended, rather, I'm dissapointed because this statement negated the civil nature of discourse. Aren't there plenty of other ways to be tactful that you disagree with a person's belief system?

Falsifying and censoring data is NOT science, it's lies!

The lies about "vaccines causing autism" is NOT SCIENCE!

It was debunked by science!

It was debunked BY the peer review process!

Welcome to the human race.

The idea that ethics used to exist and only now have stopped existing has and will always be bullshit.

[removed]

Man, not only i am sceptic of everyone i am sceptic of myself most of the times.

[removed]

Well I'm gonna go ahead and be skeptical of skepticism, don't mind me

I appreciate the feedback. It is good get some other perspectives on the matter.

>The best way to dissuade readers from hearing you out is by closing your article bashing their spiritual or religious beliefs. Recommend you stay close to trying to answer the substance of the question presented in the title of your article.

I am very much Nietzschean when it comes to that. I don't see religious beliefs to be a thing of the future, and if anything, the advancement of technology and science are going to be final nails to that coffin, as those beliefs are simply going to be unnecessary. I can only speak from an existentialist perspective, because my discussions are based off that.

My article is about finding your purpose, which is a spiritual/religious discussion. So I don't get why you think my closing paragraphs talking about religion aren't warranted.

>For example, Virtual Reality provides an illusory satisfaction to people's wants and needs. How does that actually contribute to a person's reason d'etre?

That's exactly what the last few paragraphs are about. You found it offensive, but that's what it is about. It is about how virtual reality replaces the need for an afterlife.

>Happiness does not come from from a lavish or convenient lifestyle, albeit comfort is nice to have.

I don't think happiness is the ultimate goal of life. AI simply improves on our lives so we can advance further. Kind of like how the industrial age and the advancements in technology has improved on our lives. We can aim for higher goals as a result - the continuous overcoming is the goal.

[removed]

Well, you can't know it's not possible.

It also doesn't mean everything is incomplete. You can still get lucky and have a complete theory, without knowing everything.

You are presenting such an absolutist argument against absolutism lol

Did you watch the video? This is exactly the point brought up by the Socratic dialog about physicians. As the video mentions, Cicero's criteria are a good starting place.

Anthropogenic climate change is true means that human production of CO2 is leading to overall sea level rise, temperature rise, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and ocean acidification. Those are all testable statements, which is an important part those criteria. It's a broad view which a wide range of evidence supports, and those are a couple other elements of the criteria.

Germany had two goals with its power production strategy. To reduce carbon output and to phase out nuclear power. In the wake of Russia's invasion they've had to compromise both goals. They've extended the life of nuclear power plants and increased the amount of carbon they have produced. That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?

[removed]

[removed]

The best way to dissuade readers from hearing you out is by closing your article bashing their spiritual or religious beliefs. Recommend you stay close to trying to answer the substance of the question presented in the title of your article. I'll admit I skimmed but from parts I focused on I didn't feel very much anything in the article approached this. For example, Virtual Reality provides an illusory satisfaction to people's wants and needs. How does that actually contribute to a person's reason d'etre? At least belief in something after drives a religious person to better themselves now, even if that itself is self-promotion in the guise of compassion. For the arguement in favor of AI, Information is good to have but it's useless without applicable use. Knowledge, information with purpose, we could suppose an AI can translate such information but how can AI help a person be happy. Happiness does not come from from a lavish or convenient lifestyle, albeit comfort is nice to have. What about the fundamentals of our human existence can such things reveal to us.

I want to live long enough (read way longer than we do now) to master multiple subjects in math and science, like neuroscience/neurology, computer science, physics, quantum physics/mechanics, but also including some of the social sciences like linguistics, economics, anthropology, and sociology.

There's something to learn between them all. It feels like people, societies, and neurons in the brain all look like they coalesce in ways similar to what we see with matter in physics.

[removed]

What definition of vaccine do you have that the antivax take is not bs?

If you take any scientific vaccine, this is the answer to the antivax take. It is reasonable to be antivax for example, when the vaccine proposed is the piss vaccine used by crazy cults, but the scientific ones don't have the flaws attacked by the antivax crazies.

This doesn't mean that our scientific methods, or that the process that we used to develop vaccines, or that there isn't corruption in our institutions that we need to fix, but the problems aren't related to what the antivax cults cry.

Absolutely, noticed a line they always incorporate, "I do my own research" and then make the most mind-numbing statement.

But also extra funny because my comment is downvoted.

Which definition of vaccine are you using for your 0/1 antivax take?