Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ArisThotHole t1_j6sglc3 wrote

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.

7

derstarkerwille OP t1_j6skbbl wrote

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.

−2

ArisThotHole t1_j6smyay wrote

>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?

7

derstarkerwille OP t1_j6sptzt wrote

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.

−3

jliat t1_j6wbrs9 wrote

> Many of my future articles are based off the idea of not believing in a God, because it is rooted in existentialism.

Are you aware that there was a number of Christian Existentialists?

An amusing idea is that AI chews at Gödel's ontological proof of God, and comes up with a "Yep!".

1

derstarkerwille OP t1_j7065tv wrote

>Are you aware that there was a number of Christian Existentialists?

Yes, but a good majority of them don't because many believe in Sartre's motto of "existence precedes essence".

I don't think Godel's ontological proof of God makes any sense.

1

jliat t1_j70xa9u wrote

> I don't think Godel's ontological proof of God makes any sense.

On what basis?

> but a good majority of them don't because many believe in Sartre's motto of "existence precedes essence".

"The idea originates from a speech by F. W. J. Schelling delivered in December 1841.[4] Søren Kierkegaard was present at this occasion and the idea can be found in Kierkegaard's works in the 19th century,"

Both Christians, and theists.

Sartre latter believed in Communism and Maoism. A central idea in many religions is that mankind was given free will by the creator. If you like our essence is a freedom.

1