Christianity

[Gary Childress]

Work has apparently been done on creating AI that is capable of learning.

The problem is that "learning" has to be properly defined. We have the same problem with the word "intelligence," in this discussion.

What computers are doing is adapting algorithms. That's not "learning," at least nothing like human beings so naturally do all the time. Likewise, computers today are not "intelligent," unless you reduce the definition of "intelligence" to "processing digital data."

So that claim's actually incorrect.

I've chatted with chatbots that have produced coherent and intelligent responses

You need to read about Weitzenbaum's "ELIZA" experiment, which he did back in the '60s. It's a cautionary example of how easy even experts are to fool on that score. ELIZA was a dead-simple, completely unintelligent language-altering program that still managed to convince a huge number of people that it was actually responding to them. We are far too easy to fool on that score. So don't trust your impressions: until you know the actual processes being used to fool you, you can be all too easily deceived on that score.

You can still find ELIZA online today. And you can try "her" out. You'll find it amazing "she" fooled anybody. But that's what naivete about AI seems to do to people: we all too readily project intelligence onto things that are not intelligent, if they seem to give us even the least evidence of "responsiveness."

The chatbots today are more complex, handle far more complex linguistic information, and are far more deceptive. But they aren't more intelligent...not if by "intelligent," we mean the kind of things human beings have.

Pretty much the only thing AI can't do (as far as anyone knows) is have emotions or sensations (consciousness). Otherwise, it can mimic a lot of things humans can do, and it can do them MUCH better. They're actually experimenting with brain augments to allow humans to perform various tasks better. That's not science fiction either. It's happening now.

https://thebulletin.org/2023/05/qa-how- ... st-heading

[Immanuel Can]

Pretty much the only thing AI can't do (as far as anyone knows) is have emotions or sensations (consciousness).

No, that's simply not the case.

Otherwise, it can mimic a lot of things humans can do,

You mean it can be programmed to reproduce things that appear sufficiently similar to human reactions that they can fool anybody who doesn't actually understand what a computer is, or how one works. That much is true.

[Age]

Self-awareness can be a wonderful thing. At least it "was" for some of "you" adults back in the days this was written. [/sarcasm]

What is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are 'TRYING TO' SAY and EXPRESS here?

I wish I could tell you, Age. Maybe it's something you have already discovered, or maybe it's not. I have no idea. I don't know the first thing about you. I can only go off of what I see on the forum. Enjoy!

SO, you have absolutely NO idea what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are 'TRYING TO' SAY and EXPRESS here. Therefore, OKAY, and I wish you luck.

[Gary Childress]

What is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are 'TRYING TO' SAY and EXPRESS here?

I wish I could tell you, Age. Maybe it's something you have already discovered, or maybe it's not. I have no idea. I don't know the first thing about you. I can only go off of what I see on the forum. Enjoy!

SO, you have absolutely NO idea what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are 'TRYING TO' SAY and EXPRESS here. Therefore, OKAY, and I wish you luck.

Thanks.

[Dubious]

Your posts are often rhetorically corrupt and this one is no different. I will explain point by point.

The history of Christianity from the moment it became official under Constantine...

That's Roman Catholicsm.

Do you know what "Roman Catholic" implies? It means the religion sanctioned by the emperor of Rome (officially, Constantine), and "Catholic" means "universal," or "of the [inhabited] world." In other words, it's the ideology of the Roman world, by definition of its name.

Christianity itself long predates Constantine. That's not even in doubt, not by any historian, and not even in the RC orbit.

I don't know how long according to your calendar it would predate. Nevertheless, that's why I said that Christianity prior to Constantine is very much a different story from how it developed after him but, of course, you didn't quote that part. There are, as we know, many forms of Catholicism which aren't Roman.

[Age]

You claim instead that there is evidence in those 16 or 17 YouTube videos that convinced you that He does in fact reside in Heaven.

It does not matter where God "resides," if He exists.

So, now we have even "immanuel can" QUESTIONING whether God exists or NOT.

Which is GREAT to SEE 'you' FINALLY become OPEN "immanuel can".

That's one of the things about being omnipresent that is analytically obvious. Your little addendum about the Pope and Rome is a bizarre one. But I see the reason you tacked it on: it lets you keep claiming I haven't come up to your "challenge," even when I have done what literally answers the original challenge you threw out.

Are you even AWARE what was being CLAIMED and ASKED FOR here above? Or are you, AGAIN, just PURPOSELY 'trying to' DEFLECT and MISLEAD here?

If you want to KEEP CLAIMING that there is 'evidence' in those videos, which CONVINCED you, then is 'this' TRUE or NOT?

The original point was simply this: is there non-religious, independent, rational evidence for the existence of God? Now that you have the videos, you could know that the answer is "Yes," beyond any reasonable doubt.

LOL
LOL
LOL

'you' are here SHOWING that 'you' ARE FAR MORE FOOLISH and UNWISE "immanuel can" than was FIRST PORTRAYED BY 'you'.

Were you NOT YET AWARE that the so-called 'evidence' for one 'thing' to one person can be A REFUTATION for the EXACT SAME 'thing' to "another person"?

Whether or not you're prepared to acknowledge it is now moot. You could, you should, and nobody can make you. So it's 100% on you to inform yourself of as much as you want to know. You have the evidence.

LOL These human beings, back in the days when this was being written, REALLY thought or BELIEVED that 'evidence' was some 'thing' of some importance.

They had NOT YET REALIZED just how INSIGNIFICANT 'evidence' IS, and just how even MISLEADING 'evidence' CAN BE.

Instead of USING ACTUAL 'proof' for their BELIEFS and CLAIMS, they would 'try to' USE 'evidence' INSTEAD. Which is WHY 'they' REMAINED SO LOST and SO CONFUSED, for SO LONG.

But the claptrap about the Pope, "resides in Heaven," etc? Nobody promised you that, Christianity doesn't claim that, and you made it up. So enjoy as many of the videos as you want...or don't. It's clear to me you don't even want to try to inform yourself...and I can't make you.

While 'you' CONTINUE to BELIEVE that, LOL, a "he" CREATED Everything, then it will be 'you' who REMAINS Truly MISINFORMED "immanuel can".

[Age]

It's clear to me you don't even want to try to inform yourself...and I can't make you.

Who has the time or inclination to read every book from cover to cover spanning 2000 years of human book production? We have to pick and choose how we devote the psychological resources available to us. Not everyone can be an expert on the Bible (except of course the clergy).

The word 'expert' brings with it a connotation of KNOWING ALL ABOUT 'the subject', or, NOT BEING WRONG in regards to 'the subject', and I would like to CHALLENGE ANY so-called "clergy" that they could even start explaining the bible WITHOUT even beginning to CONTRADICT "themselves".

From what I have experienced and observed "clergies" know LESS in regards to the bible than most young children do.

For example most "clergies" will SAY, and CLAIM, that God created the Universe, while most young children will almost instantly question, then who created God. Which, OBVIOUSLY, just completely and utterly leaves "clergies" DUMBFOUNDED, LOST, and BEWILDERED as to what to say next. Besides the usual, 'There are some things that we are not meant to know'. Which could NOT be MORE of a LIE and UNTRUTH as there could be.

If you want to be a Bible scholar, then that's great. If you want everyone around you to adopt the book you study as the last word on everything, then that's not so great (at least not for anyone who isn't you).

[iambiguous]

It does not matter where God "resides," if He exists. That's one of the things about being omnipresent that is analytically obvious. Your little addendum about the Pope and Rome is a bizarre one. But I see the reason you tacked it on: it lets you keep claiming I haven't come up to your "challenge," even when I have done what literally answers the original challenge you threw out.

As I recall, that's what we went back and forth regarding. You claiming that beyond a leap of faith, you knew that God did in fact exist.

And the videos cover that. If you looked at them, you'd already know how wrong you are.

But you will not.

You're on your own.

Hold on, Mr. Wiggle, lets get back to this...

The original point was simply this: is there non-religious, independent, rational evidence for the existence of God? Now that you have the videos, you could know that the answer is "Yes," beyond any reasonable doubt.

Whether or not you're prepared to acknowledge it is now moot. You could, you should, and nobody can make you. So it's 100% on you to inform yourself of as much as you want to know. You have the evidence.

But the claptrap about the Pope, "resides in Heaven," etc? Nobody promised you that, Christianity doesn't claim that, and you made it up. So enjoy as many of the videos as you want...or don't. It's clear to me you don't even want to try to inform yourself...and I can't make you.

So, that really is what you are going to cling to, Mr. Wiggle?!!! Rather than save my soul and henry's soul and the soul of all the others here who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior...saving souls by noting the video segments powerful enough to convince you that the Christian God does exist...we have to watch all of the videos.

Yet you won't even comment on the points I noted regarding "meaning" video above. You won't even suggest the next most persuasive video we should watch.

How about this: I'll agree to watch all the videos, one by one, in the order you indicate. But after watching them one by one and commenting on them one by one, you respond to the points I raise. Starting with the "meaning" video above.

Wiggle on or let's wrangle with it.

What video should I watch next?

And please explain to us why you refuse to respond to my own reaction to the "meaning" video. The church lady flat out admitting to the atheist that her own assessment does not prove that Christianity is the real deal.

[Age]

Complete garbage! Conscience and its battles with the external world and how it correlates with justice and the fate of the individual has already been pretty much explored and emphasized in the ancient Greek plays, especially those of Sophocles and Euripides. What you're saying is tantamount to IC's claim that one can only be moral if one believes in the bible in spite of otherwise behaving morally!

Conscience comes with unfolding awareness and doesn't require any fucking religion to back it up, when, in fact, most of the time it's religion which preempts it.

What's really apparent to most here it seems is that you are one big piece of snot, but perhaps that's not your fault. You may not yet have realized that just because snot is usually in proximity to the brain does not mean the two are interchangeable.

You were asked, Dubious Duck, to make it good. And you severely short-changed me! I expected a throatsome volley and instead I get this?! This is unacceptable!

Your posts are often rhetorically corrupt and this one is no different. I will explain point by point. You certainly deserve a thrashing but I will proceed calmly and with tremendous compassion. Though a ravening wolf I do have to be concerned for the upkeep of appearances!

Conscience and its battles with the external world and how it correlates with justice and the fate of the individual has already been pretty much explored and emphasized in the ancient Greek plays, especially those of Sophocles and Euripides.

This is an example of a partial truth. I did not say, nor would I ever say, that conscience at some level did not operate in the ancient world. But what I will say is that the moral sense was extremely undeveloped and, as well, without a defined and concretized structure comparable to that of Christian education.

LOL "alexis jacobi".

'Moral sense' was FAR MORE 'moral' AND 'sensible' in human beings WAY BEFORE "christianity" was even dreamt of.

'you' have OBVIOUSLY been VERY BLINDED by your VERY OWN biases here "alexis jacobi".

I suggest 'you' RETHINK WHO NEEDS a 'thrashing' here.

Pages back you made some semi-articulate gurglings and admonitions to *read history* and for this reason I will mention the stunning and abject corruption of the Roman (and Mediterranean) world around the time of the rise of Christian communities.

you appear to NOT YET UNDERSTAND what 'read history' ACTUALLY MEANS.

It hardly mattered what any classical Greek moralist might have thought or said, nor certainly any Roman one, the culture was exceedingly corrupt and, simply for the sake of honestly, there was nothing internal in it that could have addressed the corruption problem.

In fact what does the word 'history' even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

It was in this context and in response that Christian communities arose. And no matter how we now regard their focus on bringing about a transformation in the individual who recognized the corruption I speak of in themselves, and sought a cure for it, the historical fact is that early Christian community did indeed establish itself with that promise. And the point I made, which hardly needs to be bolstered by proofs or quotes since it is well understood and has been for ages, is that Christians could avail themselves of a solidly defined moral and ethical system that had been developed in Hebrew culture.

YET, as history has SHOWN, even hitherto when this is being written, so-called "christians" can be some of the most CALLOUS and ABUSIVE human beings to have ever existed. With this kind of MISBEHAVIOR STILL FULLY EXISTING 'today', when this is being written.

Obviously, the Christian emphasis on original sin (a tendency to sin inherent in the individual) and the way that *sin* was defined, was very differently conceived when compared to the Greek or Roman 'classical' models.

AND which IS VERY, VERY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Now, let us SEE what 'that way' IS, which you CLAIM 'sin' 'was defined'.

And if you do NOT SHOW us, then this 'thrashing' you DESERVE.

Again a 'shame culture' is quite different from a 'guilt culture' and therefore the notion of individual responsibility arises acutely when the moral and ethical focus is placed, exclusively, on the individual and his conduct. And whether you like it or not, Mr Quack, what I outline here are really simple, known and understood facts about the 1st century.

AGAIN, do you KNOW what the word 'history' refers to, EXACTLY?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

In regard to Sophocles permit me to quote the following and note the bolded sentences:

Owing to this reticence on the part of Sophocles, his feelings on the great questions of religion are not always easy to determine. But there can be little doubt that, as far as the popular legends are concerned, he belonged to a later stage than Aeschylus in the history of religious belief, and that he regarded them, no longer as revelations of truth, but only as picturesque and striking fictions. It is true that he everywhere handles the old mythology with the utmost tenderness, and addresses the gods of the people in language of pious reverence. The legendary deities still figure in his dramas as the directors of human destiny. It is the oracle of Apollo which foretells the disasters of Laius and Oedipus, and urges on Orestes to the work of retribution; and it is Athene who encompasses the fall of Ajax. Moreover, reverence for the established forms of worship is enforced on all occasions, and Athens is extolled for this very quality, that "she knows, more than any other land, how to honour the gods with due ceremonies." But although in all these matters he reflects the popular traditions and feelings of the time, yet the impression which he produces is not the same as that produced by Aeschylus. He nowhere shows the same earnestness and anxiety in dealing with the sacred legends; his tone is rather that of a man who has outgrown the simple creed of his countrymen, but recognizes its value and efficacy, and everywhere speaks of it with veneration.

I can assure you that in the early Christian communities God and God's actions and endeavors were made to be and were seen as extremely real and alive. There was (obviously you quack!) an immediate and demanding admonition coming from an immediate and thorough living god to subject oneself to existential and spiritual therapy. This was not mere mythology and a recounting of old legends: the advent of Jesus Christ and the reality and immediacy of coming under the influence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit were understood to be real and immediate.

And this explains, of course, the powerful draw of those early Christian communities.

What you're saying is tantamount to IC's claim that one can only be moral if one believes in the bible in spite of otherwise behaving morally!

This is (another) good example of a rhetorically corrupt statement, quite typical of all that you write. To offer proof of the points I have just outlined successfully (and incontrovertibly) I do not need to have my outline bolstered by a practicing Christian. The facts of the matter are known and accessible to all. An atheist could make the same statements and they'd be just as true.



Since I would never say that other people, and other cultures, and also the pre-Christian cultural world, did not have moral concepts, your assertion falls flat on that account. It does not matter what IC believes or does not believe, what matters is what any one of us can know through a study, even superficial, of the 1st century.

Christian community, with a living god understood to be operating immediately and directly in the spiritual transformation of the individual and the community, and having access to Hebrew scriptures (the Psalms notably), enabled a therapeutic religious community to achieve direct effect on the lives of those who *took the Christian cure*.

There are therefore 2 notable factors: One being a god that one engaged with immediately and directly, and the second being a defined moral and ehtical system to which one could refer and in that sense submit oneself to. The third factor is the surrounding Christian community that supported and also monitored the progress of the catechumen.

And finally ......

[Age]

iam hypothesized: "Come on, if henry believed he could demonstrate the actual existence of the Christian God, a God able to provide us with moral Commandments on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it, would he or would he not make every effort to bring this extraordinary revelation to his friends?"

Here we have ANOTHER example of how these people, back then, REALLY BELIEVED that 'immortality and salvation' was in regards to 'them', individually, AFTER they STOPPED living.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, the ABSURDITY, STUPIDITY, and SELFISHNESS OF speaks for itself, but 'this' is what they REALLY BELIEVED and THOUGHT.

I'll throw a life preserver to a drowning man, sure. I won't throw one to the guy who obviously doesn't need one, who tells me, flat out 'no thanks, I'm good'.

"It's simply ridiculous to imagine Mannie, a friend of his, being able to save his soul and not quoting over and again to henry from the Christian Bible and not urging henry to watch those videos in order to accomplish it."

What's ridiculous: tryin' to save an Olympic swimmer.

"Why?"

Yes, 'why'? Why would I, a deist, try to convert the world?

"By the way, I did watch one of IC's legendary 16 videos:"

For what it's worth: I don't care. I didn't offer you those videos and I didn't encourage you to watch 'em. Me: I don't give a rat's ass if you drown or not (I, in my own way, have thrown you dozens of life preservers and, as you continue to scream 'help!', you push each away...sink, swim: it's all on you now).

LOL This is written as though this one KNEW what 'it' was talking about.

[Age]

Why the eye roll, gary?

Well, you responded to my reply without "quoting" me. Therefore, unless I accidentally stumble across your reply to me, then I won't see it. It seems a little sneaky and under the radar to me if I can't easily see where someone has responded to a reply I made and therefore may miss the opportunity to defend my statements.

"henry quirk" CHOOSES WHEN and WHEN NOT to quote "others".

That way it can make it EASIER for "henry quirk" to have the LAST WORD.

[Age]

Gary groused: "Well, you responded to my reply without "quoting" me. Therefore, unless I accidentally stumble across your reply to me, then I won't see it. It seems a little sneaky and under the radar to me if I can't easily see where someone has responded to a reply I made and therefore may miss the opportunity to defend my statements."

Notifications are for pussies, Gary. Read the thread. Comment. Or: go to the Devil.

The ATTEMPT now at "justifying" this one's Truly SNEAKY and DECEPTIVE behavior is a True example of this one's INCOMPETENCE, and of 'the devil' AT WORK.

"Birds of a feather? Is that down or wool?"

Grizzlies have fur, Gary. Now: go...you're late for your shearin'.

[Age]

Gary flailed about with: "Literally, it's just Henry and no one else matters."

Well, let's see if this claim holds water: my kid, my ma, three good friends...that's five right there who count on me and who I count on...my customers: we've got a mutally benefical thing goin'...in all: it seems a lot of folks matter to me, and I to them.

Are just five human beings REALLY 'a lot of folks'?

Also, CLAIMING that you would SHOOT those 'folks' DEAD, if they just TOUCHED 'your stuff', seems like 'they' REALLY DO NOT 'matter' that much, to you.

What 'upsets' you, I think, is that, obviously, clearly, 'you' don't matter to me.

But, enough, Gary. I get no pleasure kickin' cripples. So, let's leave it here.

ANOTHER SURE SIGN of the Truly WEAK.

[Age]

OK. I watched them. Thank you for the brief summary. I'm not a "Christian" but some of what was said is certainly understandable to me.

Great. That's all I was suggesting that Biggie should do. Nothing more.

But he wanted you to tell him in your own words why you believe what you believe (or perhaps why you think he should believe). You simply linked him to videos. Do you have nothing you can communicate to us regarding your experience that affirms Christianity as the one true religion that all of humanity should embrace?

A GREAT POINT you make here "gary childress".

That is; people THINK that "others" WILL SEE in videos what 'they', "themselves", SAW, and SEE. Which is OBVIOUSLY BLATANTLY False. OF COURSE some MIGHT. But NOT necessarily so.

AND,

that if one can NOT even 'communicate' ANY 'thing' regarding their OWN experience, which AFFIRMS what they so desperately WANT "others" TO SEE, then it would be MUCH BETTER that 'they', "themselves", GO BACK and REVISIT what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which they BELIEVE to be true.

[Age]

Great. That's all I was suggesting that Biggie should do. Nothing more.

But he wanted you to tell him in your own words why you believe what you believe (or perhaps why you think he should believe).

No, he/she just declared unilaterally that there as no such thing as independent, rational evidence for God.

Will this is just because they BELIEVE that there is NO God. So, 'they' ONLY see 'evidence' for NO God. Just like you ONLY see 'evidence' for God.

'you' BOTH are as BLIND as "each other", and this is just because 'you' BOTH ONLY LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from what 'you' ALREADY currently BELIEVE is true.

'you' BOTH can LOOK AT the EXACT SAME 'thing', and then BOTH CLAIM that 'it' is 'evidence' for what 'you' "EACH" SAY and BELIEVE is true. Which is Truly farcical to WATCH and OBSERVE happen.

I provided it to him, a he/she changed the terms a half dozen times, claiming I had to show God was "in Heaven," or "like the Pope in Rome." I ignored all that nonsense, and waited for him/her to examine the evidence provided.

BUT 'the evidence' POINTS to the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you SAY and CLAIM here.

Now, GO BACK and watch the videos, then you WILL SEE 'the evidence provided', RIGHT?

LOOK, if you just EXAMINED 'the evidence', then you WILL SEE what 'me' and "others" SEE. It is just SO BASIC and SIMPLE "immanuel can". It is AMAZING that you just do NOT do it.

He/she still has not. If he/she has another question, we can deal with it when he/she has shown good faith with the first answer. Or not.

Have you got ANY questions?

If you do, THEN we can deal with it/them. Until then we WAIT for you to LOOK AT 'the videos' and EXAMINE 'the evidence' within them.