/lit/ - Literature

>>20116424
>if if if
I don’t see much reason to entertain such silly hypotheticals

>>17256118
Because christianity is based and Jesus IS the way and the Logos, and people want to look "rational" criticizing the only thing that is the true, but they are just being self-destructive relax.

>>16983854
Very nice argument you have there, intellectually superior lefty. I will continue quoting retard harari.

>'Intelligence is decoupling from consciousness'.

Can't falsify consciousness, so this idea is unscientific. Also if you define intelligence as how quick something adapts to changing circumstances: AI is not even coming close to humans, just watch how it handles a leaky roof during a rainstorm.

>'In contrast, when we privilege human children over piglets, we want to believe that this reflects
something deeper than the ecological balance of power. We want to believe that human lives really
are superior in some fundamental way. We Sapiens love telling ourselves that we enjoy some magical
quality that not only accounts for our immense power, but also gives moral justification for our
privileged status. What is this unique human spark?'
>then goes on to show that scientists have not found a soul so the claim is refuted, we are equal to piglets now.

Don't know, maybe something to do with our huge encephalisation index that we are superior to piglets? Light suggestion.

>Then keeps on going with his 'eternal soul' strawman to argue that we are nothing special compared to other animals, as if you need unscientific claims to support the fact that Homo sapiens are superior to all animals that have ever existed (hint: it's encephalisation index).

>'To the best of
our scientific understanding, the universe is a blind and purposeless process, full of sound and fury
but signifying nothing. During our infinitesimally brief stay on our tiny speck of a planet, we fret and
strut this way and that, and then are heard of no more.
Since there is no script, and since humans fulfil no role in any great drama, terrible things might
befall us and no power will come to save us, or give meaning to our suffering.'

Uses as definition of meaning 'a meaning that is created by the universe specifically for Homo sapiens to fullfill', then claims that because of evolution, our lives are meaningless.

>'The entire contract can be summarised in a single phrase: humans agree to give up
meaning in exchange for power.'

Because we gave up literally believing in a transcendental God, there is no possibility of meaning anymore. Ok Buddy, define the possibility of meaning as contingent on a literal interpretation of religious texts and then assert there is no meaning possible. Nice.

One wonders if he has never noticed he just uses the word 'meaning' as a huge strawman and defines it how he likes it to be at that moment.The very word 'meaning' has no meaning, ironically, defined in the way scientism retards do.

Not my favorite FICTION book I must say

>>15880680
the quran