What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Greatest I am]

Do you not see that the Doctrine of the Atonement is meant to save the human species from its inbuilt biological propensity to misbehave? What do you think the Doctrine of the Atonement is for?

On our propensity to choose to misbehave of the opposite.

Baby Lab experiments show that we naturally default to love and cooperation and not to hate and the competition of the misbehaviors.

No one needs a 'lab experiment' to bear witness to this irrefutable Fact. One only has to 'look' and 'observe' the 'universal environment', or 'a lab' if one likes, to 'see' that the instinct within human beings is to love, and cherish, one another.

The general public tend to see more evil than good and they are wrong.

You are correct, but forget that we are good to each other so as to eventually compete and defeat the other guy.

Remember that song? Everybody wants to rule the world.

[ThinkOfOne]

It means we are all sacrificial lambs if the whole truth be known. Now and again this fact becomes clear as it did for the war poet Sassoon; and as it does in 2025 when we learn that medics in Gaza have been murdered because they would not relinquish their humanitarian duties. Self sacrifice is the theme of the Atonement. Jesus ' passion is the iconic example of the human species as rational and beautiful.

At the core of "The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement" is that the "sacrificial death of Christ" serves as atonement for the sins of others. How is this "rational"? It's not only not rational, it's perverse. Even more perverse is that a high majority of Christians believe that this atonement only applies to those who believe that the ""sacrificial death of Christ" serves as atonement for the sins of believers. This effectively makes not believing it as the only sin that God cannot forgive. In other words, God is okay with murderers, rapists, etc., but cannot abide those who do not believe it. What makes it even worse is that this concept is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus.

Where does the "self-sacrifice" of those other than Jesus fit into this? How are "we all sacrificial lambs"?

There always losers. In the end even successful people will die. Even the top predators , eagles, tigers, wolves , and humans will suffer and die. That is the way of the world and that is why we are all 'sacrificial lambs.' The world is full of suffering and death and all living things are sacrificed to the natural conditions of life.

Jesus Christ is the iconic man who transcended suffering and grief for the sake of others.

Many other human beings resemble Jesus Christ in caring more for others than for themselves. You don't need to look far to see them and even know them.

Well, it doesn't seem that you're willing to discuss this topic in good faith. You 've repeatedly failed to address points that I've been making. You've repeatedly failed to even respond to most of the pointed questions I've been asking.

Now for whatever reason, you'vd gone back to a post I made much earlier instead of my most recent. Following is your earlier response to that very post:

We are all sacrificial lambs in the sense that human life(and the lives of other sentient creatures) takes place in an environment that is mostly cruel and unjust. We are all lambs to the slaughter: if we are not killing other life forms to survive we are slaughtering each other in wars. Our only saving grace as human beings is to willingly sacrifice ourselves for others' sake.

For all intents and purposes, you are repeating yourself. What gives? If you can't make a rational case for your position, why don't you simply admit it?

[ThinkOfOne]

On our propensity to choose to misbehave of the opposite.

Baby Lab experiments show that we naturally default to love and cooperation and not to hate and the competition of the misbehaviors.

No one needs a 'lab experiment' to bear witness to this irrefutable Fact. One only has to 'look' and 'observe' the 'universal environment', or 'a lab' if one likes, to 'see' that the instinct within human beings is to love, and cherish, one another.

The general public tend to see more evil than good and they are wrong.

You are correct, but forget that we are good to each other so as to eventually compete and defeat the other guy.

Remember that song? Everybody wants to rule the world.

If, in fact, "Everybody wants to rule the world", how wouldn't that beget more and more evil until only one is left standing?

Similarly with "we are good to each other so as to eventually compete and defeat the other guy".

For all intents and purposes the underlying problem of human generated evil is that there are so many self-centered/selfish individuals. Even worse, many not only support it, they hold it in high regard. Consider capitalism for example. Also consider that many are so perverted by their self-centered views, that they are afraid of foreign countries sending "criminals and rapists" (based on false claims) to the US while at the same time are all for having one as their leader.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I am x 7? The only way to the Father is through me?

Yes. One does wonder which utterances in the Gospels are actually said by Jesus, and which by later commentators.

Jesus repeatedly emphasized the point that He spoke in parables. That is, He used figurative language. Despite this, the vast majority, if not all, Christians take statements such ""I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me" literally and out of context because they believe it justifies them in claiming an ultimate exclusivity which was not His intent at all. An exclusivity which is built upon some variation of the concept of substitutionary atonement: "An individual must believe that Jesus paid for their sins". A concept that is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. Despite all this, they fervently believe that it is true because it is self-serving to do so.

For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Christians are the modern-day Pharisees: Thinking themselves righteous when they are the "white-washed tombs", if not "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus sternly warned against.

They are metaphorically literal. His words. They say what they mean. The Jesus character believed it. In context. That was the character's intent. Not that we should have faith in him. He was declaring his faithfulness. To all. As Barth understood. He is exclusive, in his universal inclusion, not Christians. Now I don't believe any of it, the meaning, but I'm completely orthodox and give the fullest possible good will to the storytellers and the character to the point of full historicity. They all believed it. In good will. And I go rationally beyond orthodoxy, as reason does science, by virtue of transcendent intentional Love being the ground of being, being the best case theology; the atonement cannot depend on our believing anything. If Jesus were God incarnate, he was human enough (100%), to be wrong in that regard. But not wrong with regard to the transcendence of messianic Judaism. That he was it. He wasn't it, but utterly believed it, from his mother's mystical knee, that he was. It. The vast majority of Christians are helpless folk Christians. They're no more Pharisaical than you in your self-righteousness. The vast majority hope for the best, but are plagued with doubt that God is Love. Because of ignorant priests and theologians. Any God worth having, is Love. The only God worth having, is Love. Competent Love. Not the caricature of the Bible that even God in Christ couldn't not struggle with. Being fully human. A caricature made worse by theology. Up to the emergent. They have truly created a God in the image of Love. Pity.

[ThinkOfOne]

Yes. One does wonder which utterances in the Gospels are actually said by Jesus, and which by later commentators.

Jesus repeatedly emphasized the point that He spoke in parables. That is, He used figurative language. Despite this, the vast majority, if not all, Christians take statements such ""I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me" literally and out of context because they believe it justifies them in claiming an ultimate exclusivity which was not His intent at all. An exclusivity which is built upon some variation of the concept of substitutionary atonement: "An individual must believe that Jesus paid for their sins". A concept that is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. Despite all this, they fervently believe that it is true because it is self-serving to do so.

For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Christians are the modern-day Pharisees: Thinking themselves righteous when they are the "white-washed tombs", if not "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus sternly warned against.

They are metaphorically literal. His words. They say what they mean. The Jesus character believed it. In context. That was the character's intent. Not that we should have faith in him. He was declaring his faithfulness. To all. As Barth understood. He is exclusive, in his universal inclusion, not Christians. Now I don't believe any of it, the meaning, but I'm completely orthodox and give the fullest possible good will to the storytellers and the character to the point of full historicity. They all believed it. In good will. And I go rationally beyond orthodoxy, as reason does science, by virtue of transcendent intentional Love being the ground of being, being the best case theology; the atonement cannot depend on our believing anything. If Jesus were God incarnate, he was human enough (100%), to be wrong in that regard. But not wrong with regard to the transcendence of messianic Judaism. That he was it. He wasn't it, but utterly believed it, from his mother's mystical knee, that he was. It. The vast majority of Christians are helpless folk Christians. They're no more Pharisaical than you in your self-righteousness. The vast majority hope for the best, but are plagued with doubt that God is Love. Because of ignorant priests and theologians. Any God worth having, is Love. The only God worth having, is Love. Competent Love. Not the caricature of the Bible that even God in Christ couldn't not struggle with. Being fully human. A caricature made worse by theology. Up to the emergent. They have truly created a God in the image of Love. Pity.

You make a number of assertions about Jesus. By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Jesus repeatedly emphasized the point that He spoke in parables. That is, He used figurative language. Despite this, the vast majority, if not all, Christians take statements such ""I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me" literally and out of context because they believe it justifies them in claiming an ultimate exclusivity which was not His intent at all. An exclusivity which is built upon some variation of the concept of substitutionary atonement: "An individual must believe that Jesus paid for their sins". A concept that is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. Despite all this, they fervently believe that it is true because it is self-serving to do so.

For all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Christians are the modern-day Pharisees: Thinking themselves righteous when they are the "white-washed tombs", if not "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus sternly warned against.

They are metaphorically literal. His words. They say what they mean. The Jesus character believed it. In context. That was the character's intent. Not that we should have faith in him. He was declaring his faithfulness. To all. As Barth understood. He is exclusive, in his universal inclusion, not Christians. Now I don't believe any of it, the meaning, but I'm completely orthodox and give the fullest possible good will to the storytellers and the character to the point of full historicity. They all believed it. In good will. And I go rationally beyond orthodoxy, as reason does science, by virtue of transcendent intentional Love being the ground of being, being the best case theology; the atonement cannot depend on our believing anything. If Jesus were God incarnate, he was human enough (100%), to be wrong in that regard. But not wrong with regard to the transcendence of messianic Judaism. That he was it. He wasn't it, but utterly believed it, from his mother's mystical knee, that he was. It. The vast majority of Christians are helpless folk Christians. They're no more Pharisaical than you in your self-righteousness. The vast majority hope for the best, but are plagued with doubt that God is Love. Because of ignorant priests and theologians. Any God worth having, is Love. The only God worth having, is Love. Competent Love. Not the caricature of the Bible that even God in Christ couldn't not struggle with. Being fully human. A caricature made worse by theology. Up to the emergent. They have truly created a God in the image of Love. Pity.

You make a number of assertions about Jesus. By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

What, that the intentional ground of being would be Love? What else would it, They, be? I don't doubt Jesus' sincerity for a moment, or his mother's, aunt's, uncle's, father's, cousin's, culture's, ancestors', disciples', story tellers'. They all acted in good faith. Apart from the helplessly unenlightened ruling class. Who acted in fear and greed. And if the ground of being were Love, and Jesus were Love incarnate, then the story would be completely true. Preserved by the Holy Ghost. But the truth of it would not be. Because it's not a Love story. It's a human, cultural story reaching for Love, whether it's there or not. The God of the Bible, no mater how He evolved, is not Love. God, Love, would be universally, competently, transcendently, better than that fundamentalist God we see in our Bronze-Iron-Classical age projection. Only liberated covertly by Barth and prior outsiders, especially MacDonald. And by the emergent late last century and early this.

[Age]

On our propensity to choose to misbehave of the opposite.

Baby Lab experiments show that we naturally default to love and cooperation and not to hate and the competition of the misbehaviors.

No one needs a 'lab experiment' to bear witness to this irrefutable Fact. One only has to 'look' and 'observe' the 'universal environment', or 'a lab' if one likes, to 'see' that the instinct within human beings is to love, and cherish, one another.

The general public tend to see more evil than good and they are wrong.

If 'this' is what you 'see' and want to say and claim, then okay.

You are correct, but forget that we are good to each other so as to eventually compete and defeat the other guy.

I do not see this. But, then again, 'i' do 'look at' and 'see' most things differently to 'you' human beings.

What do you 'see' is the 'thing' or 'things' that you human beings are supposedly being 'good' to each other over or for, so as to eventually 'compete' and 'defeat' each other?

In other words, what is 'it', exactly, that you are only being 'good' to each other for?

Until you explain and show what 'it' is, exactly, the very reason, that I see humanity, on the whole, love and cherish each other for, is very, very different. To me the very reason why human beings love and cherish each other is certainly not to 'compete' for any thing nor to 'defeat' each other over any thing at all. To me the very reason you human beings love and cherish each other is the exact opposite.

Remember that song? Everybody wants to rule the world.

Are the heading titles to all songs real and true, to you?

And, 'I' for One certainly never ever wanted to rule 'the world', nor even just any person, at all. But, then again, 'I' am not any body.

[ThinkOfOne]

They are metaphorically literal. His words. They say what they mean. The Jesus character believed it. In context. That was the character's intent. Not that we should have faith in him. He was declaring his faithfulness. To all. As Barth understood. He is exclusive, in his universal inclusion, not Christians. Now I don't believe any of it, the meaning, but I'm completely orthodox and give the fullest possible good will to the storytellers and the character to the point of full historicity. They all believed it. In good will. And I go rationally beyond orthodoxy, as reason does science, by virtue of transcendent intentional Love being the ground of being, being the best case theology; the atonement cannot depend on our believing anything. If Jesus were God incarnate, he was human enough (100%), to be wrong in that regard. But not wrong with regard to the transcendence of messianic Judaism. That he was it. He wasn't it, but utterly believed it, from his mother's mystical knee, that he was. It. The vast majority of Christians are helpless folk Christians. They're no more Pharisaical than you in your self-righteousness. The vast majority hope for the best, but are plagued with doubt that God is Love. Because of ignorant priests and theologians. Any God worth having, is Love. The only God worth having, is Love. Competent Love. Not the caricature of the Bible that even God in Christ couldn't not struggle with. Being fully human. A caricature made worse by theology. Up to the emergent. They have truly created a God in the image of Love. Pity.

You make a number of assertions about Jesus. By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

What, that the intentional ground of being would be Love? What else would it, They, be? I don't doubt Jesus' sincerity for a moment, or his mother's, aunt's, uncle's, father's, cousin's, culture's, ancestors', disciples', story tellers'. They all acted in good faith. Apart from the helplessly unenlightened ruling class. Who acted in fear and greed. And if the ground of being were Love, and Jesus were Love incarnate, then the story would be completely true. Preserved by the Holy Ghost. But the truth of it would not be. Because it's not a Love story. It's a human, cultural story reaching for Love, whether it's there or not. The God of the Bible, no mater how He evolved, is not Love. God, Love, would be universally, competently, transcendently, better than that fundamentalist God we see in our Bronze-Iron-Classical age projection. Only liberated covertly by Barth and prior outsiders, especially MacDonald. And by the emergent late last century and early this.

C'mon Martin. You made a number of assertions as to what you believe Jesus had in mind. I had fully understood that you believe much of the mythology that the NT writers wrapped around Jesus' words. To understand what Jesus had in mind, you need to understand HIS words.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

[Age]

We are all sacrificial lambs in the sense that human life(and the lives of other sentient creatures) takes place in an environment that is mostly cruel and unjust.

1. The non human made environment is not cruel nor unjust at all.

2. A certain amount of the adult human being created environment, however, is cruel and unjust.

We are all lambs to the slaughter: if we are not killing other life forms to survive we are slaughtering each other in wars.

So, again, 'the environment' in which you are speaking of, here, is a human being created environment only.

Also, you human beings do not even have to keep doing what you mentioned, here. But, if you do keep doing these things, then there is no wonder at all why you are living in 'an environment', which is mostly cruel and unjust.

Our only saving grace as human beings is to willingly sacrifice ourselves for others' sake.

you say 'this', but then there is another one who says and claims that human beings are only good to 'compete' and to 'defeat' each other.

So, once more, 'we' can clearly see, here, just how many different views can be 'had' when it is the 'exact same thing' that is being 'looked at', and 'observed'.

[ThinkOfOne]

There always losers. In the end even successful people will die. Even the top predators , eagles, tigers, wolves , and humans will suffer and die. That is the way of the world and that is why we are all 'sacrificial lambs.' The world is full of suffering and death and all living things are sacrificed to the natural conditions of life.

Jesus Christ is the iconic man who transcended suffering and grief for the sake of others.

Many other human beings resemble Jesus Christ in caring more for others than for themselves. You don't need to look far to see them and even know them.

Well, it doesn't seem that you're willing to discuss this topic in good faith. You 've repeatedly failed to address points that I've been making. You've repeatedly failed to even respond to most of the pointed questions I've been asking.

Now for whatever reason, you'vd gone back to a post I made much earlier instead of my most recent. Following is your earlier response to that very post:

We are all sacrificial lambs in the sense that human life(and the lives of other sentient creatures) takes place in an environment that is mostly cruel and unjust.

1. The non human made environment is not cruel nor unjust at all.

2. A certain amount of the adult human being created environment, however, is cruel and unjust.

We are all lambs to the slaughter: if we are not killing other life forms to survive we are slaughtering each other in wars.

So, again, 'the environment' in which you are speaking of, here, is a human being created environment only.

Also, you human beings do not even have to keep doing what you mentioned, here. But, if you do keep doing these things, then there is no wonder at all why you are living in 'an environment', which is mostly cruel and unjust.

You've really geebed up the formatting of your post making it difficult to understand who said what and what you added. But from what I can tell, you've once again mixed-up Belinda's words for mine.

[Age]

Well, it doesn't seem that you're willing to discuss this topic in good faith. You 've repeatedly failed to address points that I've been making. You've repeatedly failed to even respond to most of the pointed questions I've been asking.

Now for whatever reason, you'vd gone back to a post I made much earlier instead of my most recent. Following is your earlier response to that very post:


1. The non human made environment is not cruel nor unjust at all.

2. A certain amount of the adult human being created environment, however, is cruel and unjust.

You've really geebed up the formatting of your post making it difficult to understand who said what and what you added. But from what I can tell, you've once again mixed-up Belinda's words for mine.

Thanks, and corrected.

[Belinda]

At the core of "The Christian Doctrine of the Atonement" is that the "sacrificial death of Christ" serves as atonement for the sins of others. How is this "rational"? It's not only not rational, it's perverse. Even more perverse is that a high majority of Christians believe that this atonement only applies to those who believe that the ""sacrificial death of Christ" serves as atonement for the sins of believers. This effectively makes not believing it as the only sin that God cannot forgive. In other words, God is okay with murderers, rapists, etc., but cannot abide those who do not believe it. What makes it even worse is that this concept is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus.

Where does the "self-sacrifice" of those other than Jesus fit into this? How are "we all sacrificial lambs"?

There always losers. In the end even successful people will die. Even the top predators , eagles, tigers, wolves , and humans will suffer and die. That is the way of the world and that is why we are all 'sacrificial lambs.' The world is full of suffering and death and all living things are sacrificed to the natural conditions of life.

Jesus Christ is the iconic man who transcended suffering and grief for the sake of others.

Many other human beings resemble Jesus Christ in caring more for others than for themselves. You don't need to look far to see them and even know them.

Well, it doesn't seem that you're willing to discuss this topic in good faith. You 've repeatedly failed to address points that I've been making. You've repeatedly failed to even respond to most of the pointed questions I've been asking.

Now for whatever reason, you'vd gone back to a post I made much earlier instead of my most recent. Following is your earlier response to that very post:

We are all sacrificial lambs in the sense that human life(and the lives of other sentient creatures) takes place in an environment that is mostly cruel and unjust. We are all lambs to the slaughter: if we are not killing other life forms to survive we are slaughtering each other in wars. Our only saving grace as human beings is to willingly sacrifice ourselves for others' sake.

For all intents and purposes, you are repeating yourself. What gives? If you can't make a rational case for your position, why don't you simply admit it?

The defining attribute of human nature is the ability to tell itself lies, and hope for good, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. You never get a AI doing that!

[Greatest I am]

No one needs a 'lab experiment' to bear witness to this irrefutable Fact. One only has to 'look' and 'observe' the 'universal environment', or 'a lab' if one likes, to 'see' that the instinct within human beings is to love, and cherish, one another.

The general public tend to see more evil than good and they are wrong.

You are correct, but forget that we are good to each other so as to eventually compete and defeat the other guy.

Remember that song? Everybody wants to rule the world.

If, in fact, "Everybody wants to rule the world", how wouldn't that beget more and more evil until only one is left standing?

Similarly with "we are good to each other so as to eventually compete and defeat the other guy".

For all intents and purposes the underlying problem of human generated evil is that there are so many self-centered/selfish individuals. Even worse, many not only support it, they hold it in high regard. Consider capitalism for example. Also consider that many are so perverted by their self-centered views, that they are afraid of foreign countries sending "criminals and rapists" (based on false claims) to the US while at the same time are all for having one as their leader.

Many are self centered and selfish?
LOL.
We all are that. In fact, your selfish gene, like mine, controls me.

If you do not want to be the fittest and rule, then you have reached your level of competence/incompetence, and have settled for what you are.

[Greatest I am]

No one needs a 'lab experiment' to bear witness to this irrefutable Fact. One only has to 'look' and 'observe' the 'universal environment', or 'a lab' if one likes, to 'see' that the instinct within human beings is to love, and cherish, one another.

The general public tend to see more evil than good and they are wrong.

If 'this' is what you 'see' and want to say and claim, then okay.

You are correct, but forget that we are good to each other so as to eventually compete and defeat the other guy.

I do not see this. But, then again, 'i' do 'look at' and 'see' most things differently to 'you' human beings.

What do you 'see' is the 'thing' or 'things' that you human beings are supposedly being 'good' to each other over or for, so as to eventually 'compete' and 'defeat' each other?

In other words, what is 'it', exactly, that you are only being 'good' to each other for?

Until you explain and show what 'it' is, exactly, the very reason, that I see humanity, on the whole, love and cherish each other for, is very, very different. To me the very reason why human beings love and cherish each other is certainly not to 'compete' for any thing nor to 'defeat' each other over any thing at all. To me the very reason you human beings love and cherish each other is the exact opposite.

Remember that song? Everybody wants to rule the world.

Are the heading titles to all songs real and true, to you?

And, 'I' for One certainly never ever wanted to rule 'the world', nor even just any person, at all. But, then again, 'I' am not any body.

You have just forgotten your birth rite and first thoughts. Know thyself.

If you can believe in your real beginning, you will know thyself.

Knowing thyself is said to be the main way of gaining knowledge.

I took my wife time travelling, mentally that is, the other night, from our present time, down to where she first became aware of herself as alive. Her “I am” moment.

At her present time, I had her admit that she was working towards her best possible end to her life. Just as I and all those who are reading this do. We do this perpetually and constantly.

I then had her follow her timeline back to her beginning, having to admit that her best end was always her prime focus, as it is with all life. Amendment. She agreed to all times except for the “I am”. I don’t know what to make of this lack of logic after following a plain logic trail. This aside.

“I am”, read that as “you and I”, is quite selfish. Universal this in life.

Some thank God. I thank nature and my God, I am, should he/I end in being real.

We are all expressed by our DNA and chemistry. It produces a material dualism that has most of us thinking in a body soul way. 95%.

What is the best end to our bodies, given that our DNA is telling us we are the best of breed?

Read that as King or Queen, or Alpha/Beta in our physical animal reality.

What is the best end for our bodies and souls is that we should try to become leaders of humans?

What is the best end for our souls is to become leader of heaven. Remember that Jesus dethroning his father.

We are all born wanting to be masters of both the physical world, and the other imagined supernatural world, should it be real.

I still have my initial desire to show my best of breed fitness in both the physical and spiritual realms. I still want to be King or God.

Do you?

What are you doing to further your first thinking and goal in life on becoming our next King/God or Queen/Goddess?

[ThinkOfOne]

There always losers. In the end even successful people will die. Even the top predators , eagles, tigers, wolves , and humans will suffer and die. That is the way of the world and that is why we are all 'sacrificial lambs.' The world is full of suffering and death and all living things are sacrificed to the natural conditions of life.

Jesus Christ is the iconic man who transcended suffering and grief for the sake of others.

Many other human beings resemble Jesus Christ in caring more for others than for themselves. You don't need to look far to see them and even know them.

Well, it doesn't seem that you're willing to discuss this topic in good faith. You 've repeatedly failed to address points that I've been making. You've repeatedly failed to even respond to most of the pointed questions I've been asking.

Now for whatever reason, you'vd gone back to a post I made much earlier instead of my most recent. Following is your earlier response to that very post:

We are all sacrificial lambs in the sense that human life(and the lives of other sentient creatures) takes place in an environment that is mostly cruel and unjust. We are all lambs to the slaughter: if we are not killing other life forms to survive we are slaughtering each other in wars. Our only saving grace as human beings is to willingly sacrifice ourselves for others' sake.

For all intents and purposes, you are repeating yourself. What gives? If you can't make a rational case for your position, why don't you simply admit it?

The defining attribute of human nature is the ability to tell itself lies, and hope for good, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. You never get a AI doing that!

Children are prone to telling themselves lies despite all the evidence to the contrary. But with maturity of their cognitive abilities, this "ability" becomes less and less. From what I can tell, a pretty high percentage of "adults" never fully gain that maturity. The downside is that it makes them prone to demagoguery, believing conspiracy theories, etc. Solid evidence and sound reasoning hold little sway for them. This seems to be especially true of those who are convinced that they are rational and reasonable despite all the evidence to the contrary.