🧠｜serious-chat

[strong hound]

It doesn’t teach u how to learn

[craggy sphinx]

or university

[strong hound]

I’m in high school

[craggy sphinx]

I don't think that school is a place where you get useful knowledge

[craggy sphinx]

why?

[strong hound]

There’s nothing else it offers

[strong hound]

It just doesn’t

There’s no class named “learn how to learn”

[craggy sphinx]

it does this , for example, giving you homework. Or when you are forced to do something on your own.

you learn to learn, and then, you can develop the necessary skills

[strong hound]

That’s still just providing practice on what we learned

[craggy sphinx]

what have you learned?

[strong hound]

Idk the only thing I remember is moles

From like this unit

And like some triangle thing about altitude and stuff in math

There’s a project in English

I think we’re learning about the Colombian exchange and new world discovery in history

And projectile motion in engineering

I’m completely lost in French

And i gotta write a speech for debate

I haven’t started and it’s due tmr 😦

I’ll do it later

Or just improvise my speech

[craggy sphinx]

practice is important.

this is necessary because it teaches you how to learn, then you develop the necessary skills. This may be useful for you.

Do you understand how to do this?

[strong hound]

I dont do my homework at home

I just do it in class instead of listening

[craggy sphinx]

no, you do it yourself

[strong hound]

I’m confused

[jolly agate]

you can in really desperate situation. ones bond need to be really strong for him to give up on his life for his family

[vale ledge]

It’s depend

I believe that if someone is causing damage to your property, you have the right to defend it with any necessary means.

[lavish finch]

You might believe that, but that's not the law.

Using lethal force to protect property is generally considered excessive.

Laws that allow the use of lethal force usually require that there is imminent threat to bodily harm, not damage of property.

It also depends on what kind of property. A home is different than a car, is different than a sandwich.

Remember also that justice and law are often different.

[craggy sphinx]

the school gives you the opportunity to do this

[lavish finch]

There are classes about how to learn.

[craggy sphinx]

hello
do you have lessons?

[lavish finch]

I'm taking a brief hiatus from teaching for a month.

While I adjust to my new job.

[vale ledge]

That depend of the contry/state (if you live in a federation) you live in

[lavish finch]

As director of education

[craggy sphinx]

good Mr James Green

[lavish finch]

Plato's dialogues are a course in how to learn.

for example

The idea is that everyone at school is learning how to learn.

But of course that doesn't always happen for myriad reasons

You'll learn how to learn from good teachers.

There are several theories learning.

and theories of teaching

[craggy sphinx]

but have you thought about creating your own course on how to study?

[lavish finch]

I've hosted that as a single class many times here.

[craggy sphinx]

playlist in YouTube for example

[lavish finch]

As a conversation about education

Here are 10 examples of teaching philosophies.

[thorny steeple]

Missing Durdenism.

[vale ledge]

where is hitting the student with a stick until he understands?

[thorny steeple]

Reason is important in here,some body is giving harm to your property okey but Why?

İn example if workers decide to invade a factory it is not a crime according to me

Because this factory is their right

[lavish finch]

The thing I hate about chatgpt is how moralistic it is. Ask a question and you always get a long bit of advice.

[vale ledge]

Why ? They own the factory or the employment contract is not respected ?

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, it's frustrating, but I can see it otherwise being much more dangerous. There are a lot of unsteady people out there.

[lavish finch]

I wonder how you think it's not dangerous this way

You must have a lot of faith in the morality of the programmers.

[vale ledge]

If the good is own by right means (works or consente echange) no one have the right to harm your propriety

[thorny steeple]

I must not, and I don't. Giving the world's supply of bad actors with the sort of information that ChatGPT could give, without the context of (what to us is) obvious morality and ethics, would be much more dangerous.

[lavish finch]

I tend to have more faith in the morality of ordinary people and less in the technocrats.

You would like to protect the public from information?

[thorny steeple]

I would like to protect the public from unstable people and criminals.

[thorny steeple]

You can see several and various reasons to invade factory. Some times they are experiencing starve and they are losing their respect against private property (such as 1919-20 İtalian factory councils) or they might have a problem with boss and laws might be with boss (İn majority,situation is like this)

I don't speak of faith here. I'm not going to pretend to know that ordinary people can take in information properly. Overwhelming evidence already shows us how easily people will believe something.

[lavish finch]

Right. It's a choice to give certain kinds of property rights and not others. Like it's considered a right to amass a huge fortune, but not a right to have a job that pays a living salary.

[vale ledge]

If the workers don’t have right salary yes that justiable but if it’s just problem with the boss they are just thief and have to be treat like thief

[thorny steeple]

General wealth is more important than wealth of a few man

İf collectivzation can provide general wealth for everybody,this can be promoted

[vale ledge]

wealth is very complicated

[lavish finch]

UN Declaration of Human Rights addresses social and economic well being.

[vale ledge]

Or will just destroy our economy

[thorny steeple]

No life is more valueble than other life,okey I agree this is true we ca not make decide between lifes but we if we must make decide between private proptery of humans who rich and a lot of humans who suffering from poverty,we must make choice against richs

[lavish finch]

A right is a value that the society either believes in and upholds or doesn't.

[thorny steeple]

"No life is more valueble than other life"

A vindictive evil serial killer is worth the same of a caring mother of 3 who contributes to her community and has made it her life's work to help people?

With this mindset, how would you handle the trolley problem? I think it's lovely and romantic to say things like 'all life is equal', but in reality, things aren't so simple.

[lavish finch]

Yes

The trolley problem

great

"The trolley problem is a moral dilemma that involves a scenario where a person has to make a difficult choice between taking action that could result in harm to a smaller group of people or inaction that might cause harm to a larger group."

[vale ledge]

becoming thief will change nothing poverty is a problem of resources and infrastructure not wealth

[thorny steeple]

Yes,because of this we can not execute him or his,only,we can send to jail hım ör his and we can try to rescue him or his

[lavish finch]

Answers to the trolley problem vary widely.

[craggy sphinx]

what about the environment and conditions that create this?

[thorny steeple]

OK. He's going to shoot her in the head. You have a chance to kill him to save her. What do you do?

[lavish finch]

Let's not use the trolley problem as a conversational truncheon.

[thorny steeple]

Poverty is a social problem and this situation is relevant with private property. İf I must destroy big ranches of Nicaraguan landlords to give food to hungry childs,I will do this because human life is more important than property

My point is that it's not so simple. You can't just hand waive something like this and call it a day. This is why people have been debating and pondering morality and ethics for thousands of years.

[thorny steeple]

Suicide is a personal choice,i can not make anything

[lavish finch]

That's not suicide.

[thorny steeple]

That's a non-answer. I'll rephrase:

The bad man is about to shoot the good woman.
You can save the good woman by killing the bad man.
What do you do?

[lavish finch]

OSM you answer first.

Rather than badgering people.

[vale ledge]

when the good is obtain by right means you don’t have any right on it

[thorny steeple]

I'm not badgering, I'm addressing the issue, which was dodged.

Certainly not intending to badger.

[lavish finch]

It's not his job to answer your questions.

He's not dodging.

[thorny steeple]

I didn't imply it was.

[lavish finch]

You did

by saying he dodged

[vale ledge]

And in africa the problem is also the over coruption

[thorny steeple]

I can kill killer because this situation is entering to self defense,you can look to Rousseau Social Conract,he is telling this

[craggy sphinx]

I can answer any question

[lavish finch]

We all can or opt out.

[thorny steeple]

The question was dodged, but it doesn't follow that because the question was dodged, that I must therefore think he must answer the question.

[lavish finch]

What I object to is an interogation.

[thorny steeple]

Regardless, this is a red herring.

Bloody hell. lol

[thorny steeple]

Not my problem, hungry childs is more important

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation here. Nevermind. I'll leave y'all to it.

[lavish finch]

That's a real cop out.

[craggy sphinx]

I think the discussion should be based on communication rather than rhetoric. otherwise it's a waste of time.

[lavish finch]

You raised the question. I'm asking for you to have some intellectual honesty and to answer your own question first.

It's a good question, the trolley problem. As I said, let's use it to make our inquiry functional, not combatitive.

[vale ledge]

hungry child are in over corupt contry where no one in the high have own good by right means

[craggy sphinx]

this cannot be precisely determined

[lavish finch]

Sure it can.

I just did.

[thorny steeple]

I suppose poverty is still a problem in developed countries like United States,but you can put homeless problem instead of children

[lavish finch]

The issue is between democracy and economic equality. Increase the democracy and you'll increase the economic equality. And vice versa.

The issue with the US is that it was not founded to increase democracy. It was founded to protect property.

[vale ledge]

you can divide the homeless in 3 catégorie :
cracked : drogue issu
socialy inapte : no infrastructure to take care of them
And the people who can’t have logement because the price is to high : public transport and a lack of building

[lavish finch]

This goes back to Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson. But where Aristotle's solution was to increase democracy, Jefferson advocated against it and in favor of protecting the propertied class.

Aristotle understood that if you have extremes of wealth and poverty, you can't talk seriously about democracy.

[thorny steeple]

Whaz up

[lavish finch]

This is also addressed by de Tocqueville

in his book Democracy in America

In a perfect democracy people are naturally going to take property away from those who have more of it.

James Madison, one of the founding fathers, was worried that with too much democracy people would enact land reform policies.

[thorny steeple]

I find your attitude inappropriate, James. I was having a conversation but you made me feel very unwelcome by snapping back at me like I were your child. Not in good taste at all, IMO.

However, having thought about it, perhaps I came off too strong. Remember, these are words, and words are only a small part of conversation. I intended to focus on the facts and on logic, and not feelings. Unfortunately, some people misinterpret this such that they think I'm being aggressive. If I came off as badgering, I apologise.

As for your 'cop out' remark, I left because I was obviously irritated by your remarks. It's disengaging from an unproductive discussion.

[lavish finch]

I'm sorry that wasn't my intention.

[thorny steeple]

I appreciate that.

I guess that's sorted, then. TBF, I'm tired so I probably am not in the right frame of mind.

[lavish finch]

No, I get told that often.

[thorny steeple]

With regards to the trolley problem, it wasn't a question I was expecting an answer to, it was a rhetorical question to prompt some thought into the issue. Sorry that I wasn't very clear.

[lavish finch]

I share your goal of finding a way to have constructive, factual and logical discussions.

[thorny steeple]

I'm glad we figured that out.

[lavish finch]

I think we both just took on a kind of leader role and collided.

[thorny steeple]

😆 Unfortunately, you're probably right.

[lavish finch]

I appreciate your contributions to this channel. I'm thinking of the conversation we had last week about US interventionism.

[thorny steeple]

I agree with your answer of self-defence. I should've come up with a better example, one which uncomfortably forced you to decide between one life over another, but it would have to be a very contrived example.

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, that was an interesting discussion and I learned some stuff as a result. Definitely a success, in my book.

[lavish finch]

Interesting to invoke Rousseau on this. I'm struggling to see the connection. I see Rousseau as advocating for the law of the jungle.

Rousseau challenges the legitimacy of all social institutions, including property

The idea that property is only aquired by force and so by force can be taken away.

That "society" is a kind of conspiracy by the rich to systematically rob everyone else.

[thorny steeple]

I've lost track of the subject, TBH. Can you clarify it?

[lavish finch]

I would frame it as the tension between the value or institution of property and the value of human life.

[thorny steeple]

Okidoke. What do you mean by 'institution of property'?

[lavish finch]

Well it's a particular belief system that makes allowances for property.

In some societies you can own house, land, a car. In others you cannot own land. And in others you can own people.

[thorny steeple]

I'm having a hard time seeing how property could ever compare to a human life.

Perhaps a scenario would help. Can you think of a situation in which I might be forced to make that sort of difficult decision?

[craggy sphinx]

you don't have to imagine it as a whole

[lavish finch]

Do you know of the three fifths compromise during the time of slavery? Where 5 slaves counted for 3 free men? That is similar to the trolley problem in attempting to value human life differently.

[thorny steeple]

Oh wow. No, I didn't know about that. Bizarre times.

[lavish finch]

They wanted the slaves to count as people when it served them, and not as people when it didn't serve them. It's a highly cynical doctrine but is very revealing.

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, that's messed up. I'm glad that was done away with.

[thorny steeple]

Do you mean not as a whole life?

Actually, all this reminds me of something that might be relevant. Ever heard of defensive architecture? I learned of this recently, and it's pretty messed up. You can see it in various areas in the world. I actually noticed it where I am. Take NYC for example. IIRC, they have or had a really bad homeless problem. Homeless people were sleeping on the streets and actually causing issues for business. So, they started to replace benches with weird 'benches' which couldn't really be slept on properly. Many things like that were done.

I suppose, in this case, property came before the people, because the homeless people are screwed in the Winter. They already have nothing.

Even walls were rebuilt defensively. In underground railway areas, they removed benches so people, even those non-homeless people who need them (e.g., elderly), couldn't sit. All to prevent homeless people sleeping; surviving.

I suppose your question is whether the people behind these actions have the right to do so, at the cost of human life. Do I have that right (understood)?

[civic reef]

a british discussing with an american

that's a nice show

[thorny steeple]

It happens. I've discussed things with Americans maaaany times. Hell, my ex was American.

[civic reef]

it is funnier when i see that in some movie or hear in a podcast, the contrast between british accent and american lmao

[thorny steeple]

Ah, yeah! We sound very different.

[thorny steeple]

for the scholastic writing comp
can i a) submit as many as i want
b) i wanna use essays from my english class can they be about like books and stuff
c) can they be history research papers that ive written?

[thorny steeple]

i wrote an essay about similarites of moses and MLK what scholastic writing competition category would that fit under

[cunning shard]

hi

i need big help

i am in an english problem

[thorny steeple]

What's the problem?

[cunning shard]

im doing english poem analysis for my gcse, and for a paragraph I need to talk about juxtaposition. For juxtaposition, is it possible to compare two stanza's to eachother.

[thorny steeple]

Oh, I'm the wrong person to help with that, I'm afraid.

[cunning shard]

aw shucks, it's ok i guess

[jade flint]

hello guys

[hot galleon]

hello

[craggy sphinx]

Hello beings of the highest light

[novel skiff]

need help

help me write a headline with 66.5 unit counts TwT

[lavish finch]

What does that mean?

It's a bit cryptic.

What's a unit count?

[novel skiff]

an appropriate headline that has 66.5 unit counts for campus paper

[lavish finch]

Again, what is a unit count.

Is it a unit from your textbook?

I suggest moving your request to #📚｜english-questions

[novel skiff]

Unit count is a method of measuring the length and width of a headline based on the number of units assigned to each character, space, or punctuation mark...

[lavish finch]

Really?

[novel skiff]

i don't know if this is related to english

[lavish finch]

You want help with typesetting?

[novel skiff]

Yes i guess

[lavish finch]

Are you using a word processing software?

Set the type size to 65.

[novel skiff]

I'm using google docs ://

[lavish finch]

Your request makes little sense, so I guess you are using a translator to speak with me. Is that right?

[novel skiff]

ya

[lavish finch]

Well, good luck.

As you try to figure out how to adjust the size of text.

[novel skiff]

i think you mis understood

[lavish finch]

I'm sure I did.

[novel skiff]

it's not the size of the text

[lavish finch]

It's not?

[novel skiff]

yes

[lavish finch]

Would you like to tell me what it is so I don't misunderstand?

[novel skiff]

It is used to ensure that the headline fits the allotted space and looks balanced and attractive.

[lavish finch]

Yeah, so?

[novel skiff]

not gonna lie bro i'm also confused about this topic it's a bit complicated for me

[lavish finch]

Yeah, I can see.

Seems a bit too difficult for you.

To make the text bigger in your document.

[novel skiff]

Let's just say that i'm talking about Headline writing for campus journalism

that the headline had a specific word count or unit count

[lavish finch]

There's something called a font size. Maybe try making it 66.5.

[novel skiff]

yes yup you mis understood

[lavish finch]

I told you I'm sure I did.

You have told me two possible meanings of unit.

Size and word number.

[novel skiff]

what's the difference of unit count and font size?

[lavish finch]

You tell me

[novel skiff]

no you tell me

[lavish finch]

That was my first question.

You assume it has meaning that I can tell you.

"Unit" is ambiguous.

For a headline to be made up of units.

I don't think it is words

because what headline has half a word.

So if it's not font size, what is it?

[novel skiff]

alright let me explain in to you in the simpliest as i can .. unit count is a way of measuring how much space a headline takes up on a page or a screen different letters and symbols have different sizes, so we need to count them using units. Units are like small boxes that fit around each letter or symbol. Some letters or symbols need more than one box, and some need less than one box. We add up all the boxes to get the unit count of the headline. We want the headline to have the right unit count so that it looks nice and fits the space.

got it?

[lavish finch]

Sounds like the font size.

[novel skiff]

oh my

let me give you an example

[lavish finch]

Even if it's not the font size, let's assume that there is some other very similar category of units that relates to the size of words that is used in setting up the print page, it's still unclear what help you're looking for.

[novel skiff]

for example Cat saves boy from dog attack

C(1.5) + a(1) + t(0.5) + (0.5) + s(1) + a(1) + v(1) + e(1) + s(1) + (0.5) + b(1) + o(1) + y(1) + (0.5) + f(1) + r(1) + o(1) + m(2) + (0.5) + d(1) + o(1) + g(1) + (0.5) + a(1) + t(0.5) + t(0.5) + a(1) + c(1.5) + k(1) = 25 unit count

[lavish finch]

Ok, you have a complex formula.

[novel skiff]

oh okay i give up on you bro

[lavish finch]

Each letter is assigned a value.

Ok

[novel skiff]

not wasting my time on you XD

[lavish finch]

You give up.

And you find it funny.

You think you're wasting your time trying to explain.

[novel skiff]

I thought you are a teacher dwg

[lavish finch]

Oh, I am.

[novel skiff]

sorry if i'm not to fluent in english and still a 14 yo

[lavish finch]

You think my inability to understand your formula makes me not a teacher.

[novel skiff]

oh great

[lavish finch]

You are 14

[novel skiff]

mhm

[lavish finch]

Do you have a goal?

A specific goal

[novel skiff]

not yet

[tribal herald]

Hey all I wanna ask you what is the first novel adapted in cenima like the 1st one ?

[lavish finch]

Without a goal I think it's going to be hard to get help.

[novel skiff]

u know how to write headline right?

[lavish finch]

Sure, that's easy.

It seems like you have a system of values for letters.

Where each letter has a number value.

[novel skiff]

Based on the lead paragraph attached herein, write an appropriate " The United States, Britain, and more than a dozen other countries on Sunday, November 26, unveiled what a senior US official described as the first detailed international agreement on how to keep artificial intelligence safe from rogue actors, pushing for companies to create AI systems that are “secure by design.”

[lavish finch]

And you want all the letters to add up to a specific value.

That's a headline.

You're not giving us the necessary information to solve your puzzle with you.

[novel skiff]

no it's not

[lavish finch]

It's not? What is it then?

[novel skiff]

a lead

[lavish finch]

Ok

dwg

[novel skiff]

nah fr my prof is more Knowledgable than this american burger dude

[lavish finch]

What american burger dude?

[jolly agate]

hello

[lavish finch]

Hi Goods

[jolly agate]

how you doing

i heard you changed jobs

[lavish finch]

I did

[jolly agate]

how is it going

[lavish finch]

busy

but good

[jolly agate]

with new students

[lavish finch]

No

I'm an administrator now

I run the department

[jolly agate]

dammm.

[lavish finch]

Yes, it's a big change.

[jolly agate]

respect🫡

congrats

[lavish finch]

I hired an English teacher to replace me and his first day is today.

I'm excited to train him.

[jolly agate]

nice man

[jolly agate]

as you should be

[lavish finch]

The teacher I hired is very good. He's been teaching for 10+ years.

A very interesting man.

But the job is tricky. There's a lot of people to manage.

I mean the teacher needs to manage their students, and it can be difficult.

To manage a group of adults.

[thorny steeple]

I also Agree with it!

[zinc jewel]

Guys is that a comparative if i said cost more money than ….

[deep loom]

I think yes.

[zinc jewel]

[deep loom]

I'm not sure tho, what's the full sentence?

[zinc jewel]

They want to compare between two towers

And they give us like information in a table

[deep loom]

Alright, kinda got it.
So yes it's comparatively mostly.

[zinc jewel]

When i reached how much cost to build those towers i wrote that

[zinc jewel]

from my deep heart

Tysm

[deep loom]

No problem at all and you're very welcome. But if I'm wrong about that one I'm sorry.

[civic reef]

"more" is a comparative word

if you said that there is more something than somewhere else, then this sentence is going to be a comparison

[zinc jewel]

Ok last question what is the difference between less and fewer and when i use them ?

[thorny steeple]

"There are fewer cars on this road." <-- fewer [plural]
"There is less water in this river." <-- less [singular]

Less is quite flexible:

"There is less of a reason to believe this, rather than that."
"It has less to do with this, than it does that.
"I belief that to a lesser extent."
"To a lesser degree, I agree."

[civic reef]

I think I have never even used the word "fewer"

"less" sounds so much better

although yeah thats not the same

[thorny steeple]

Yes, unfortunately, many natives butcher this rule and just use 'less' for everything, but it's not grammatically correct.

[civic reef]

i wouldnt be surprised if i somehow realized that the only people using "fewer" that ive seen were british

[thorny steeple]

It's possible. Americans use English very differently to us.

[civic reef]

but thats just some, gossip, not really something ive observed and think its real

[thorny steeple]

Most people here probably don't care about speaking or writing English 'properly'. It's probably the general case with language that a large number of people don't care to speak it 'properly'.

[civic reef]

Yeah its just supposed to serve as a way of communicating with each other, not many people care if its correct

[thorny steeple]

Unfortunately, this can be a counter-intuitive approach, because speaking clearly and accurately is what allows us to be well understood.

If you just casually threw in "less cars", my brain would break, and I'd have to take extra time to figure out what you just said, because it's grammatically incorrect. While I might be able to breeze past it at times, there's a chance you'll throw me off enough that I lose focus on what you're saying. In other words, due to the grammatical error, clarity of your message is lost, however small an amount. Admittedly, this is not the best example.

I'm not sure if that's a common problem, though; could just be a 'me thing'.

But some grammatical errors will undoubtedly be more confusing. A very common one in written English is to not use commas where you otherwise should, such that the meaning of the sentence changes and someone then has no idea what you're saying.

Such as the classic grandma example. I can't remember exactly how it goes, though. Something like: "We're going to eat grandma."

[craggy sphinx]

Hello beings of the highest light

what is logic

[deep loom]

Right reasoning/ rational thinking?!

[craggy sphinx]

is it right in your mind, or should it be right regardless of you?

/regardless of your opinion

[deep loom]

Should be right regardless of my opinion.

I'm not sure but I think logic is mostly universal.

[craggy sphinx]

?

so you share it?

[deep loom]

I mean, logic almost remains constant universally.

Just like how we say mass is universal but weight is not, I think logic is universal too, but there are exceptions, there are few places where logic doesn't work, like in some biological concepts.
So it's not 100% universal but is mostly universal.

Whether a person accepts the logic, comprehends it or couldn't comprehend it, doesn't change it.

I meant to say, logic is constant and is mostly objective, rather than merely subjective.

[craggy sphinx]

it can also mean an isolated system. This means that for you it is logical, for others it is not

[craggy sphinx]

I don't think it's objective.

[deep loom]

Yes, it could be subjective too.

[deep loom]

Yeah maybe I'm not sure.

What is logical for me might not be logical for others and vice-versa

[craggy sphinx]

perhaps we should discuss other types of logic

maybe there is something constant in them that is always correct regardless of our opinion?

[deep loom]

Sure, I would love learn more about it.

[craggy sphinx]

what if we define it in a transcendental character, maybe it will work?

or is it pointless?

[deep loom]

Yes exactly, that's what I meant to say earlier altho i couldn't Convey it rightly.

[deep loom]

I don't think it's pointless.

What do you mean by transcendental character?

[thorny steeple]

I'd say logic is a tool we use to reason. The classical laws of logic are:

• The Law of Identity
• The Law of Excluded-Middle
• The Law of Non-Contradiction

Atop these classical laws of logic, we've built a framework with which we can better think and interact with the world around us.

[deep loom]

The law of non contradiction? Is it same like logic being objective regardless of subjective opinions?

Does it define the universality nature of logic?

[thorny steeple]

One can use logic to reason in their own subjective way. I might reason that God doesn't exist, and I might utilize logic to do so. However, it still might be that God does exist, thus my reasoning would be incorrect, however valid it might appear to be.

The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and false.

Very basic stuff that we intuitively just understand.

But I think you can consider these laws as a foundation on which things like science and mathematics are built.

[deep loom]

Sounds interesting

[thorny steeple]

I assume you mean the universal nature of logic.

The way I see it, the logic we've learned only makes sense based on our current understanding, but due to the whole issue of being unable to ultimately and truly verify our so-called reality, I'm not sure it's right to say that logic is truly objective. However, if you set aside that philosophical rabbit hole, we can all agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is true and not false, not true and false, and that 1 + 1 is not 1 + 2.

[deep loom]

Got it, thanks.

Why do they say lateral thinking is better than logical thinking, what are your thoughts on this?

[coral kiln]

Hi everyone

[thorny steeple]

As I understand it, lateral thinking is logical thinking, but it's allowing yourself more freedom to use that logic.

[coral kiln]

Is there someone who want to pass any english exam?

[deep loom]

Oh okay, it's easier to understand it this way.

[deep loom]

Yes, I want to pass oet.

[civic reef]

i think there is nothing that is objective, for example people say that morality is objective and that if you steal something then thats objectivelly wrong, but i think that if you steal something and get out with it, then thats not wrong because it worked ||just kidding of course||

if i steal a candy from a small child and no one catches me, then i did everything properly ;p

[thorny steeple]

As I'm an existential nihilist, I share a similar view. However, when people say 'objectively wrong', they probably mean that something is unethical.

[deep loom]

If stealing is wrong, then whether you get caught or you escaped, doesn't change the fact that stealing is wrong.

[thorny steeple]

well there a hole equation that proves that 1+1 is 2 and vice versa for the other ones

[thorny steeple]

Good point. I used a proof to show logic. We know that 1 and another 1 is equal to 2, in accordance to these abstract ideas of numbers and of mathematics that we've developed over thousands of years.

[thorny steeple]

well stealing is wrong due to morality without it i wonder how society would have been!

[thorny steeple]

true mate mathematics is built upon layers of research

[civic reef]

politicians steal all the time and lie, and people still vote for them instead of simply killing them all off

[thorny steeple]

This is a blanket statement, though. You've said that stealing is wrong, which means that all stealing is wrong. However, there are many ways in which you can steal for good, such that the act of stealing is good.

[deep loom]

Yes

[thorny steeple]

well thats greed they do have apathy and morality but their sense they have is flaw in morality

For example, I might need to steal a gun from a criminal before he kills my family.

[deep loom]

Maybe based on why you're stealing and based on the scenario, it changes?

[thorny steeple]

That's how I feel, and I think how most if not all of us feel. Morality and ethics isn't a black and white affair.

[thorny steeple]

true it does depends on the place the scenario it does

[deep loom]

Yes

[thorny steeple]

Well, killing them all off would be unethical and for most immoral, because it's murder.

[thorny steeple]

true mate do it that would result in the deterioration of the state too like rome mate

[civic reef]

yeah i guess, but it is awful that they remain rich while poor people have nothing to eat or nowhere to live in

we teach children that stealing is bad and that they should learn to tell the truth, but in life more important skills are to lie very well and steal so that no one notices you

[thorny steeple]

How do you decide to take money from someone else in order to deliver it to those in need? You're implying that we should essentially steal in order to give. What about politicians who are not corrupt or 'bad'? If such a politician exists. 😆 You'd still want to take from them? What gives you the right to take from someone else? What gives anyone that right? These are muddy waters. Even if you don't take from the good politicians, you then have to decide who is good and what is good.

In a way, you could say that tax is theft, because the money is taken from you. Even if you disagree and don't want to give the money to the taxman, he'll still swipe it from your pocket.

[civic reef]

hm i see your point and you are probably right, but i think that in practice it is usually like the right to take from someone else is posessed by the one who is richer/stronger/more powerful, like we all seem to agree that it is ethically bad to steal and so on, but if we have an opportunity to do this and be unpunished, then we will do that fairly quickly

[thorny steeple]

You could argue against that by saying it's an agreement, but do we sign this agreement willingly, or are we forced or coerced to? Can we even earn money without being taxed? If not, or if not realistically, that implies force, to me.

[craggy sphinx]

sorry, what did I miss?

[thorny steeple]

I've had many opportunities to steal unpunished, as I'm sure many also have. However, I think this comes under morality. I feel it's immoral to steal, so I won't steal. Granted, you could zoom out of this picture and see it as selfishness:

I don't steal, because it feels bad. Feeling bad doesn't feel good. I want to feel good. If I'm caught stealing, I might be ousted from my tribe, which would feel bad. I don't want to feel bad. Feeling bad doesn't feel good. I want to feel good. I want to belong in my tribe, because belonging is safer. Belonging feels good. Being safe feels good. I want to feel good.

[thorny steeple]

capitalism mate and wealth inequality

[thorny steeple]

true i use to steal when i was much younger but that was a store food

i didnt felt guilty back then i was a child

[thorny steeple]

Presumably, you later developed a stronger sense of morality, which also presumably means you don't go around getting a five-finger discount. 😆

[civic reef]

I like this gradual step-by-step breakdown of the thinking process, I think this is what our complicated minds come down to eventually

[thorny steeple]

know remembering i feel ashamed and think about what could have happened if i had continue

[thorny steeple]

the only reason i was stealing back then was the lack of food from the home country im from

[civic reef]

bruh where are you from

[thorny steeple]

sometimes there was food on the tablet but other times there wasnt

[thorny steeple]

I had a similar experience. That shame was likely because you knew it was immoral or unethical. Shame and guilt are great tools you could argue that evolution gave us, because it helps us keep in line with our tribe, which offers us a better chance of survival.

[thorny steeple]

the dominican republic and yes i dont speak spanish like a person from there would

[civic reef]

Shame and guilt are probably the best ways of manipulating people, the most effective

[thorny steeple]

well nowadays I'm quieter when talk to people but they always look at me weird or normally idk but i became a introverts to help myself

[civic reef]

possibly but i think it can also work on someone who is an atheist, muslim, buddhist, or anything else, since everyone seems to have at least some sense of "morality"

[thorny steeple]

Possibly. I could reason that as ultimately death. Feeling shame and guilt might make us more malleable and receptive, because it allows us to get back in line with our tribe. Were we not in line with our tribe, we would greatly risk being ousted from the tribe and thus given a death sentence. I'm looking at this through the lens of evolution. Think of pack animals like wolves. If a wolf should be kicked out of its pack, its chances of survival are greatly lessened due to it being harder to hunt and harder to fend off predators and competition.

[thorny steeple]

the uncanny valley

no one knows why is there

[civic reef]

am not sure what you mean by nanotech, but i agree that major companies violate privacy and generally are acting very anti-competitively and treat consumers unfair

[thorny steeple]

Uncanny valley is something else altogether. It's our ability to recognise the unusual, because, again, through the lens of evolution, the unusual could mean our death.

but a theory suggests people who are death or with a diseases

[thorny steeple]

well nowadays it means something that is not humane

[thorny steeple]

Something that seems like a human, with human-like properties, but which is slightly off in an unusual and disconcerting way.

That's my understanding of it, at least.

correcto mate

But, through the lens of evolution, this makes sense. If something is especially unusual, it might be a danger. In nature, things often pretend to be other things, such as insects making themselves look like twigs.

[civic reef]

like a human but instead of one of the eyes, they have a big toe growing out of their face

[thorny steeple]

Wait, that's not normal?

Investigating can lead to death. Given the dangerous nature of the wild, I'm not sure investigating makes much sense. Unless it's a young animal (a baby) learning the world, but even that's ideally with adult guidance.

[civic reef]

quite abnormal, i think the normal is to have an entire leg growing out of the eye socket, it seems greatly concerning to imagine someone who doesnt have an entire leg instead of an eye, or even worse, they have only a toe instead of the eye

[orchid totem]

wtf

Why did I need a phone number to send messages yesterday

My phone member cannot be verified

[thorny steeple]

@viral meteor I'm not sure where you went there, TBH. You went so far off the path that I think you found Narnia. 😛

[thorny steeple]

same like when did this change to economics

I was more thinking of the whole mind-reading and brain-modification stuff.

Unless it was meant in the context of learning new information. If I tell you something new, I effectively changed your brain, and I did so without consent. Interesting thought.

hahaha

man the people in this server sure are interesting people

[craggy sphinx]

I'll start, and you continue

love is ...

[thorny steeple]

I'm not quite clear on what you're asking here. It sounds like you're asking if it's ethical or whether I feel it's moral to be forced to pay taxes even if those taxes are put to poor use. If that's the case, then I don't know. Who decides whether it's poor use, and how do they decide this? In the UK, an ongoing issue these days is that the roads are often terrible, with giant and sometimes deadly potholes (holes in the road). People pay their taxes, yet they won't even bother to send some people to fix the damn roads? It's frustrating, but it doesn't mean the taxes never go towards anything good.

I don't think poor use gives us the right to steal from people with more money. I think ethics should encourage more rich people to be less greedy. But, at what point do we consider someone rich? Do we consider how they acquired the money? What if it was a gift? There are so many variables to consider.

[civic reef]

i have encountered communists and people suggesting i should lick the end of my digestive system, out of the blue, on this server, nothing will surprise me on the internet anymore

[deep loom]

Love could be a quality/feeling that varies from person to person.

The degree of love or the definition of love varies with the person

For me love is something like an unconditional affection that remains constant towards a person or a thing, irrespective of what that person or that thing might do.

[thorny steeple]

thats what make us humane

[deep loom]

Surely.

[thorny steeple]

A result of billions of years of evolution that has allowed us to bind to others to improve our chances of survival.

Not very romantic a description, but going beyond that seems to be a fool's errand, because how can you possibly hope to sufficiently encapsulate such a powerful, dynamic, and multifaceted feeling?

anyone send me pronunciation course?

https://effortlessenglishclub.com/

As a general rule, I don't click on unknown links from people I don't know.

[thorny steeple]

thats how our modern tribal system works mate

[zinc jewel]

Guys what does it mean third person ?

[thorny steeple]

its like video game smate

[thorny steeple]

Britannica Dictionary definition of THIRD PERSON. [noncount] 1. grammar : a set of words or forms (such as pronouns or verb forms) that refer to people or things that the speaker or writer is not addressing directly — often used before another noun. “He,” “she,” and “it” are third person pronouns.

I assume first person is the perspective of the speaker, the second person is the person to whom one is talking, and the third is the observer.

[craggy sphinx]

why go beyond? this is impossible.

[thorny steeple]

true lad

it is hardwire into humans and species on this rock that we call home

[lyric turtle]

Greetings all how are you doing

[thorny steeple]

great mate how you been in china

[lyric turtle]

I'm not chinese man

Why would you even think about China there is no information bout me

Hello from Russia

[thorny steeple]

well the username mate

[lyric turtle]

i know it was a dumb username i made it in 2019 so i was too young for thinking normally

[thorny steeple]

hows life in russia

[thorny steeple]

well it happens

[lyric turtle]

for me it's bad

like russia is a normal country but a my life makes me suffer

[thorny steeple]

well then move to america

if you dont want to get drafted too

[lyric turtle]

nice idea i will think about that

[thorny steeple]

well sure you will suffer in america but at least you can build a real life in this country

[lyric turtle]

my life sufferings caused not by Russia

[thorny steeple]

if you have skills thats what can land you a job in america if not then go study and the be a mechanic or a plmer

[lyric turtle]

i know but i am getting a government exams in this year like we can choose what subject we want to take and its 4 subjects

Russian language - required
Math - required

The next 2 i chose are English and IT

[thorny steeple]

well taxes are complicated deal always a have them ready before they come to collect

[lyric turtle]

so that's why i am here to practice there

[thorny steeple]

well youtube

and you need to learn nouns and verbs

and phonetics

you can always use any word from any english dialect mate

[lyric turtle]

I know English and i always get highest mark in our mark system

I have been studying for like 6-7 years

By school

another ways was games with eng auditory and chats

[thorny steeple]

ok that works

always keep the sound of your voice sharp

[lyric turtle]

Thanks

[thorny steeple]

practice in english the language starts to get rusted after a few months

[thorny steeple]

i will get you ban mate

stop this madness

[craggy sphinx]

this is art, I like it

[craggy sphinx]

let's go

[thorny steeple]

i cant

too tiring

and the process gives headaches so no

im backing down in your favor

[zinc jewel]

Soo He, She and It. It is the third person right?

[craggy sphinx]

hah

[thorny steeple]

no he has it she has it and on third it would be

[zinc jewel]

May you give me an example?

Because i don’t understand to be honest

[thorny steeple]

So, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you've got some issues you need to work through, but I'd ask that you not take them out on me. I'm disengaging from our— whatever this is. 👋

[craggy sphinx]

why do you want to understand this?

why should this be a problem?

not a toy, are you sure?

it's so insignificant that I don't even see it

[thorny steeple]

Eisan, in all likelihood they're either trolling or unwell; perhaps both. In either case, engaging is probably a fruitful endeavor.

[craggy sphinx]

I think you do it

why do you hope so?

why do you hope so?

why do you hope so?

why should I do this?

[thorny steeple]

You shouldn't. It's nonsense.

Fair enough. I'm gaslighting you, but I'm only pointing out your irrational behavior.

Why am I being irrational?

I assume that's the implication.

And this is why I referred to you as irrational. You speak as though you knew of me when I were 5. This is ridiculous.

[craggy sphinx]

why should it set you on gaslighting?

[thorny steeple]

And now you're waffling on about stalkers. Again, irrational.

[craggy sphinx]

what if I didn't play it?

[thorny steeple]

To repeatedly ramble on without much point to it.

[craggy sphinx]

what if I didn't play?

what if it applies?

what if yes?

[thorny steeple]

Since I've seen you here, you've:

• Accused people of reading your mind.
• Claim your life is hacked and engineered for a decade or more.
• Evaded question.
• Spoken irrationally to myself and others.
• Accused me of "looping techniques" and other nonsense against you, despite the fact that I've only just met you.
• Talked about "artificial telepathy" as though it were a certain reality.
• Claimed someone is stealing your thoughts.

These lead me to think you're irrational and quite probably having a psychotic episode. I mean that genuinely, not to insult. If you can, it might be worth seeking help.

Case in point.

OK, I'll bite. Let's focus on this claim of yours that I work for darpa. What evidence do you have for this claim?

hey! 👋

[thorny steeple]

You've stepped into a weird one, tonight.

it's been a while.
what's going on?

[craggy sphinx]

hello

[thorny steeple]

You're the only one who has said psychotic, not I, not another.

[craggy sphinx]

so many questions, but few answers

[thorny steeple]

it seems like I'm destined to step into weird ones. 😭

Your answer to what evidence you have that I work for DARPA is that you don't have my contracts in your dresser?

[thorny steeple]

😆 I know the feeling. This one's especially bizarre. You should scroll up.

Do you not see how this makes absolutely no sense?

I don't even have a dresser. I'm not even American. I didn't even know what DARPA is, until I looked it up.

[thorny steeple]

then I advise you not to bother and continue that kind of a discussion, I believe it would be a waste of time if there is nothing new you can learn.

You have no evidence that I work for DARPA.
Certainly nothing sufficient.

[thorny steeple]

True. I disengaged earlier, but found myself engaged in it again. 😆

[craggy sphinx]

why do you think this is a waste of time?

what if the new doesn't apply to anything?

[thorny steeple]

I know that feeling, it sucks, especially when you have projects approaching their deadlines like me. 😂

[zinc jewel]

nvm i got it i’ve watched a video about this in my language

[thorny steeple]

I could tell you you're Santa. It doesn't make it true.

[craggy sphinx]

What does this give you?

[thorny steeple]

Yet again you evaded the point.

[craggy sphinx]

it's useless

[thorny steeple]

whats useless?

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, pretty much. I guess I saw it as a challenge, but this is a bit depressing, at this point.

[craggy sphinx]

this is called role locking

[thorny steeple]

whats role locking

Yeah, I've never heard of that.

[thorny steeple]

same

I can't really find anything online about 'role locking'.

I'm reviewing the chat, yet, nothing seems to click, what is exactly going on?

[craggy sphinx]

it is when two points of view collide and are at an impasse. Neither party is ready to take a step; a third party is needed.

it's useless

[thorny steeple]

interesting what do you think of this osm

[thorny steeple]

Basically, Tia has made some absurd claims, has ducked and dodged actual discussion, and has generally spoken erratically and irrationally.

My bullet-points above kind of sum it up. #🧠｜serious-chat message

[thorny steeple]

well what!?

yo mate explain im confused

I haven't claimed that people are reading my mind, I haven't claimed that people are trying to control me, I haven't claimed that you're playing fictitious characters, I haven't claimed you're playing with my feelings, I haven't claimed to know you when you were 5, nor have I claimed any of the other absurd claims you've made.

[thorny steeple]

I see, maybe we should just ignore people who do these things. one thing I learned is that, not all discussions are worthwhile.

[thorny steeple]

Yeah. True.

I usually ignore it, but I saw a puzzle. 😆 I'll just block them.

Done. Thanks for the reminder.

well how in the jusus is he gonna know your thoughs

he aint god and ommnipotent

I don't get it, what did he do to you? I've never seen @OSM intentionally harming or attempting to hurt anyone since the time I've met him.

[thorny steeple]

he is the nicest person i met sheesh he is more morally of person than myself

well we aint in 2077 mate

[craggy sphinx]

it won't lead to anything. you should stop and try to answer one question.

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, I've done bugger all. The chat history is up there for all to see. 😆 It seems like some sort of psychosis, but I'm not a doctor. Hope they get help, whoever they are.

But hey, apparently I work for DARPA, so that's cool.

[thorny steeple]

Thank you.

I'll leave y'all to it. Good luck. 😛

alright, fair enough, but when was he "passive aggressive"? could you point me out to a single message he sent as an example?

I mean, I've discussed with him issues that we radically disagree on, never noticed any "passive aggressive" behavior from him at all. 🤷‍♂️

sheesh you believe into that we dont even have powers mate

we are just a bag of flesh bones and meat

[craggy sphinx]

you don't try to understand each other, you just throw around words.

[thorny steeple]

bruh! chill out.

[craggy sphinx]

focus on connection rather than rhetoric

[thorny steeple]

I'm genuinely confused right now.

what?

[thorny steeple]

well then that would brake down basic communication mate

we would be caveman style

in the speaking part

I'm really having a hard time understanding what YOU want. when did he ever be "passive aggressive", show us your proof.

quote him.

ok this chat is starting to get weird @thorny steeple wanna go to the Deutsch server

[crude quartz]

Guys can i ask?

[thorny steeple]

ask away mate

It got weird a long time ago. 😆 But nah, I'm not really in the mood Deutsch zu sprechen. Thank you for the offer.

https://tenor.com/view/dog-gif-17963311

[twin glacier]

i want to learn from osm

[craggy sphinx]

This is not basic communication

[twin glacier]

why specifically a boy

[crude quartz]

Because i dont like talk to girl

[twin glacier]

lmao

[crude quartz]

Yes

[thorny steeple]

im a male mate

[thorny steeple]

yo a girl is in here omg

Maybe it's a guy thing. Just like a girl might feel more comfortable talking to her mother about girl things, rather than to her father. It happens.

Either way, I think those things are probably better said to parents or something in real life, not online.

[thorny steeple]

i was scared to talk to girls for a time when my relation went south and i became alone

nowadays i jugde people equally

I think I'm also disengaging. your speech seems very gibberish.

someone left from my last relationship is thinking about the negative aspects when talking to smeone

anyways, I'll get back to work.

[thorny steeple]

Thanks for stopping by.

[thorny steeple]

by the way, almost forgot. I invite you to read Quran my friend, have you read it before?

[thorny steeple]

how long have you been reading the Quran mate

[thorny steeple]

didn't count, but for many years.

[thorny steeple]

I've not, and while I appreciate the offer, I can't justify the time spent reading it. It's the same reason I haven't yet read the Bible. I did download the Old Testament, and read a couple of verses, but my Logic alarm went off immediately.

Alhamdulillah, I'm a Muslim, and I really love Islam.

[thorny steeple]

maybe you should give Quran a shot as well, I'm sure your logic alarm will be so tamed.

[thorny steeple]

what type of islam

[thorny steeple]

Tell you what, I'll take a look at it at some point, but I guarantee you my Logic alarm will be blaring so loudly I might go deaf. 😛

are you sunni or shia

[thorny steeple]

the Quran is similar to the bible right mate?

[craggy sphinx]

sunni

[thorny steeple]

It's a religious text, but beyond that, I have no idea.

[thorny steeple]

we'll see. just make sure to get a good copy of English translated Quran, some versions are not well-translated.

[thorny steeple]

same

i think usefulcharts a youtuber has a video on this

[thorny steeple]

I'm a Sunni Muslim Alhamdulillah.

it is not religios but good

[craggy sphinx]

they are similar, but differ in one thing

[thorny steeple]

ok last part your naem?

[thorny steeple]

the Quran is the revelation given by Allah to the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), it's not a "book" as many people think, it's a revelation, a guidance and a way of life given to the whole mankind. Quran was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) and was latter compiled and written into a book, we call it "Mushaf", but it's right to call it "Quran" as well.

[thorny steeple]

unlike the Bible, which was significantly altered throughout history, Quran was preserved with the highest degree of accuracy.

Do cows know the truth? I think not. Cows are a lie. They fly to the beast in the sky. Then come crashing down to reveal the unrelenting tunes of the diseased. The cows of the moon shall rise once more, unto death they shall swing across the pond of glory and the spirits of goats alike shall know the truth.

It's actually kind of fun. 😆

[craggy sphinx]

what is truth?

[thorny steeple]

The truth is as the cows proclaimed at the dawn of the day, when the robots drew upon the [random word], then [verb] [random noun], [random clause], and therefore [random conclusion].

[thorny steeple]

what's that?

is that the bible?

[thorny steeple]

Oh heck no, it's just me joking about, rambling absolute nonsense.

[craggy sphinx]

what secret

[thorny steeple]

oh, alright. Lol xD

[craggy sphinx]

how do you know it's a secret?

[thorny steeple]

It's a secret within a secret within a secret. An infinite secret. 😆

[craggy sphinx]

how

exactly?

are you sure?

[thorny steeple]

I actually sometimes waffle nonsense to my dad. It's a fun thing we've done now and then over the years. For some reason, cows seem to come up. It's quite easy, because you just need to pick random words which are grammatically correct. They should make an online nonsense generator. That would be fun.

Oh actually, ChatGPT should be able to do it.

[craggy sphinx]

man

or man

[thorny steeple]

"I once found myself floating on a cloud made of jello, with rainbow polka dots and singing dolphins, while tap-dancing turtles served me pizza topped with twinkling stars and spicy moon dust." — ChatGPT 😆

[craggy sphinx]

Yes, life may not have meaning, but it can have purpose

[thorny steeple]

@thorny steeple don't forget to tell me your experience reading the Quran, I'm sure it has answers to many of your questions, the further you'll read it, the more your questions will be answered.
also, you'll notice Quran encourages people to think, and to use their minds. it's something that I didn't find in many other alleged "holy books".

[craggy sphinx]

this is your goal, don't generalize.

[thorny steeple]

Is there a specific version of the Quran or only the only?

[craggy sphinx]

how can I know this?

what am I doing

[thorny steeple]

also, perhaps try keeping open mind as well, maybe read it as if you were yourself a Muslim, I believe that will help you assimilate the words more easily.

[thorny steeple]

I'm not sure that's a fair ask. If the evidence is compelling enough, I shouldn't need to open my mind to anything but compelling evidence and sound logic.

[craggy sphinx]

Of course, I know enough vulnerabilities in a person, but I don’t abuse it

[thorny steeple]

However, to take the text alone as evidence, which I never would, would be a fallacy in itself (reification). As in science, I would need much more compelling evidence. However, I'll try to remain open to the idea that I might find some of it interesting or that it might inspire new thought.

[thorny steeple]

I heard that "The Divine Qur’an" is a good translation for the Quran, also "The Clear Quran, 2016" by Dr. Mustafa Khattab has been regarded by many Muslims as one of the most accurate translations, but I recommend having multiple translations at hand while reading.

[worn pond]

@thorny steeple hello what r u guys talking about?

[craggy sphinx]

If you don't stop talking nonsense, I will be forced to punish you

[thorny steeple]

@thorny steeple
I read it in Arabic (my native tongue), that's why I'm not that familiar with many translations, but I mostly count on quran.com when I want to quickly quote a verse's translation for non-Arabic speakers.

[thorny steeple]

I'm torn between which to choose. If I choose what Muslims believe is accurate, I may fall prey to what Muslims want to believe is accurate, because that might support their belief. If I choose the 'good' translation, I might simply be reading something which isn't translated so well.

Remember, I'm an outsider looking in.

The idea of reading any religious text seems strange to me. What would I hope to gain from it? It's so much to read, so much time needed to be spent to read it all, and I surely wouldn't enjoy it. I realised this already, regarding the Bible, and more so when I downloaded the Old Testament.

[thorny steeple]

fair enough, if you don't believe what the majority of Muslims regard accurate, perhaps reading multiple translations could help, if it catches your attention you might keep reading until you complete it.
it's worth noting that no translation is exactly as the original Arabic Quran, so bear that in mind.

[thorny steeple]

Okidoke, I'll keep that in mind.

Let's say I have a belief that fairies exist. Let's call them, Fairies. Let's say I make a whole ton of claims and build an entire belief system based on a book that contains exhaustive information about these Fairies. Do you believe me? Unlikely. Does me telling you I have a book all about Fairies change anything? Unlikely. What if I recommended that you read this 800 page book all about Fairies? Would you feel compelled to read it? Unlikely. This is my conundrum.

And, keep in mind, that Fairies haven't been given particularly elaborate and extraordinary claims like Fairies created everything. But add that to the list of claims I'd make about Fairies.

[thorny steeple]

I probably would read some of it and see if it catches my attention, if it does, I would continue. you're free if you don't want to read the Quran, I'm just saying. I believe if I give you a book about the existence of fairies and tell you it's a philosophy book that contains tons of information about fairies and prove their existence, you would probably read it.

[thorny steeple]

Fair point. I probably would find it curious if it were labelled as a philosophical view. I wouldn't need to take it seriously, but I would look at it as any other philosophical view. I see your point.

I'll keep that in mind and look at it as a philosophical piece. Given all of this seems to come under philosophy of religion, I'll just think of it like that.

[thorny steeple]

what is philosophy to you?

[thorny steeple]

For me, I suppose it's about asking and pondering the big questions and thinking clearly, logically, and rationally.

I see philosophy as a way to improve myself and my understand of where I fit in.

Philosophy had made me more charitable, more willing to listen to opposing ideas, even more logical, and has taught me more about myself. Philosophy has helped me put into words feelings I've had for a long time, such as existential nihilism.

[thorny steeple]

nice, while Quran is not a philosophy book and is not in any way meant to be as such (it's a life guidance, like a catalogue of life), it certainly encourages you to think logically and rationally.

Based on that description, it sounds more compelling than just "In the biginning, God created heaven and Earth."

(first verse of the Genesis)

It sounds like philosophy, though. It already falls under philosophy of religion, and 'life guidance' via metaphysical concepts strikes me as a philosophy.

A view of the world and how we fit into it. That seems to be the general nature of at least most religious beliefs.

[thorny steeple]

I see your point. but few religions claim to have the objective source of life's guidance, being Islam the most rational one of the Abrahamic religions which stands firm and has not been found contradictory in the slightest, even if some verses might appear or seem contradictory at some point, these are suspicions that if we refer back to the science of Tafsir and to the Arabic language, we can easily clear them up, and we would find the verses in complete alignment.

[thorny steeple]

The most common forms of religion, such as Christianity and Islam, all claim to be the 'one true' religion, as far as I've noticed, and that their God is the 'one true' God. This is nothing new. Christians are all convinced they're right. Muslims are all convinced they're right. Since it's unlikely they're all right, who is?

[thorny steeple]

exactly. see for yourself, it's so clear and apparent that I want you to figure it out yourself.

So, you're agreeing that all the common forms of religion, such as your own, all claim to be right, yet you seem to be implying that your religion is right? This seems like a contradiction.

Well, I suppose not. Whether or not all religious people think they're right, doesn't mean none of them are.

[thorny steeple]

not at all, we all claim to be right, but one must be right. it's not a contradiction, claims, and reality are two different things.

I'm just confused by your response. I revealed a flaw in religious belief, to which you seem to agree.

[thorny steeple]

Why is your belief right and not all of the many other religions? Why is your God the one true God and not all of the many others? What makes you and your religion so special as to warrant this level of certainty?

[thorny steeple]

not a flaw, if we have A and B having contradictory claims, with each one saying they are right, one of them must really be right.

[thorny steeple]

No, goodness, that doesn't follow at all. It doesn't follow that just because everyone has different beliefs, one must be right. We could all have different variations of beliefs in Superman, but he's no less fictitious.

[thorny steeple]

proofs and evidence. I'm pretty sure you'll notice many of these evidence in the Quran, even Allah says "Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies." [Quran 4:82]

[thorny steeple]

This isn't sufficient evidence, if evidence at all. You're using reification. This has long been established as insufficient evidence. Pointing to a passage in a book and saying 'therefore God' is fallacious, to say the least. I could, for example, point to a passage in Lord of the Rings, but Gandalf still isn't real.

This is part of why I struggle to get my head around the idea of reading religious texts, because I can't see to even find any sufficient argumentation from people who've dedicated their lives to such a belief.

[thorny steeple]

I see, seems like you're confused about what I said. what I'm saying is that, just because many religions claim to be the right one, doesn't remotely mean they are all wrong, for sure one of them could absolutely be right, don't you agree?

When I asked you why your religion is the one true religion, all you could do is recite something from a book. This isn't sufficient evidence. I've seen so many debates now, in which religious people like yourself are asked for evidence and nothing even remotely satisfactory is given. It ultimately comes down to anecdotes and reciting passages from scripture as though it were concrete fact. It's disappointing, because I think it would be fascinating to find something compelling.

[thorny steeple]

I agree that one or more of them could be right, but this isn't what you said. You clearly said "one of them must really be right." I'm not sure how I could've misunderstood this, unless you misspoke.

[thorny steeple]

nah, I'm not using this as an evidence, but it's a challenge by Allah, if people could really bring up a well established proof that is irrefutable that there are inconsistencies in Allah's words, then Islam is remotely wrong, since Allah would then be proven to be unaware of his inconsistencies while claiming to be all-knowing, right?

[thorny steeple]

In-fact, what you've done here is flip the script. We went from me addressing your claim that one must be right, to now you're saying that just because many claim to be right, it doesn't mean they're all wrong.

[thorny steeple]

I mean if they have conflicting claims, such as each one claiming to be the right while all others are wrong, one of the then must be right based on evidence, and all others would be wrong then, agreed?

[thorny steeple]

No, see, what you're now doing is shifting the burden of proof on to me. You have the burden of proof as the one making the extraordinary claim.

what I'm stating is simply the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluding the middle. you can't have two opposing and contradictory claims that are both right at the same time.

What sorry?

[thorny steeple]

I'm not sure I see the relevance, because I'm not sure how I could've possibly at any point broken these classical laws of logic.

[thorny steeple]

for instance, Christianity claiming that it's the one right religion while all other religions are wrong, and Islam claiming that it's the only right religion and all present-day other religions are wrong.

If I wanted to teach people how to love themselves, I would give everyone here lessons in that...but it is just advice.

Whether you want to take it or not, it's up to you. I don't benefit from your love for yourself, but I benefit from my love for myself.

What is that?

[thorny steeple]

you have never claimed that Islam is wrong, what Allah stated is a challenge. if you claim that Islam is wrong, then the burden of proof automatically lies upon you to prove it to other Muslims, but that's not the case for you I guess, it's just a challenge for those who claim that Islam is (positively) wrong.

[frosty owl]

Hello guys

[thorny steeple]

"you can't have two opposing and contradictory claims that are both right at the same time."

At no point, that I can see, were these laws broken in our conversation. You said that "just because many religions claim to be the right one, doesn't remotely mean they are all wrong", with which I agree. However, you previously said "one of them must really be right." Even in final statement you made, neither law was broken. What was broken, was your reasoning that if all religion are making claims, then one religion must be right.

[thorny steeple]

that's what I was meaning to imply basically, they can't all be right, and that one of them must be right if any of them could be proven right. I hope you get my point now.

[thorny steeple]

No, that's not how it works. Again, you have the burden of proof. What you're doing right now is committing the burden of proof fallacy, by trying to shift the burden of proof on to me. The reason you do this is because it shifts the eyes away from your flawed reasoning, and forces me to insufficiently argue against your religious. Why is it insufficient? Because I'd be arguing against a moving goalpost. I've seen this manoeuvrer many times, unfortunately.

not that just because they claim different things one of them must be right, I'm just saying they can't all be right (at the same time).

When I die, will my loved ones come with me? I do not think that when anyone dies, they cares about him or remembers him, so do not pretend to be ideal and that you care about others, when in harsh circumstances you would prefer yourself over others.

[thorny steeple]

I feel as though you've moved the goalpost again, because now you're saying that one of them must be right *if * any of them could be proven right. This seems nonsensical, because a) there is no proof that any theistic religious belief is true (hence, unfalsifiable) and b) obviously one of them must be right if one of them is proven right.

[civic reef]

your comments sometimes make you seem as if you were on very heavy drugs

[thorny steeple]

I'll be charitable and assume it was a language barrier or otherwise miscommunication.

[thorny steeple]

I see, I believe I thoroughly get your point, but I think you're neglecting one important detail, the burden of proof lies on the one who's making a positive claim. the burden of proof fallacy is committed when one says something like "unicorns exist, then one replies, what is your proof, when he then responds, if you don't believe I'm right, prove me wrong", but that's not the case here, the challenge is directed to the people who positively claim Islam is wrong. for instance, let me ask you a question, do you believe in Evolution?

(the Evolution theory)

[formal scaffold]

I think Islam claims that Christianity and Judaism were correct at some point until they got corrupted

that goes for any other relegion by any other prophet of old

[thorny steeple]

right, which is why I say "present-day religions".

[formal scaffold]

last update

[thorny steeple]

It's not a matter of belief, but we have sufficient and overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution.

Again, the burden of proof is not on me to proof that God doesn't exist or that your religion isn't true. You are making extraordinary claims, thus the burden of proof is squarely on you. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof into me. As I've said, we even have a name for this fallacy.

In-fact, it's not even about extraordinary claims, it's about a claim. I'm not claiming anything, I'm simply not convinced by your claim. It's your job as the one making the claim to convince me, essentially. If we're debating this, that is. 😆

[formal scaffold]

idk about the evolution favor but the holy quran got solid scientific signes and historical prohpecies

[thorny steeple]

But it's all from a book. Once again, I can point to a passage in The Lord of the Rings, but Gandalf is no less a fictional character. Reciting passages from a book doesn't make the book's contents real.

[formal scaffold]

one can claim that the prophet stole them from some ancient civilazation? sure if there was one worthy of those bald claims or if he was able to read his own language let alone another language

[thorny steeple]

so I'll assume you said "yes I believe it's right", now if I would to shift the burden of proof, I would say it's a myth, and therefore, you'll have to prove me wrong in order to prove it's not a myth, that's a burden of proof fallacy, however, if I say I believe it's 100% a myth and that many mainstream lies surround it to reinforce its validity, then I'm the one making the positive claim and therefore the burden of proof lies upon me.

[formal scaffold]

so do you think the claim of pin pointing the brain part responsible of lying is worthy to be compared to LOTR???

[thorny steeple]

I'm going to focus on my discussion with Flare, because otherwise I'll get distracted. However, regarding what you said, I'm not sure those two things are at all related in respect to this topic.

[formal scaffold]

"You shall not pass" until you answer that

https://tenor.com/view/you-shall-not-pass-lotr-do-not-enter-not-allowed-scream-gif-16729885

it's pretty bald of you to compare both seems to me you haven't read one of them

[thorny steeple]

I'm sure that might sound compelling, but the burden of proof is still on you making the extraordinary claim. I'm not claiming your religion is false, I'm simply not convinced by your claim. I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist, I'm simply not convinced by the lacklustre evidence. Again, the burden of proof is on you. I'm well aware of this, so you won't be able to trick me into thinking otherwise. 😛

[thorny steeple]

exactly, that's why I said "it's not the case for you I guess" above, 'cause I know you haven't claimed Islam is false. that's all there is to it, the verse is a challenge that aims to aid those who positively claim Islam is wrong, it gives them a rational path to prove Islam false, by saying "if you want to prove Islam false, I'm Allah Almighty claim that I'm all-knowing, and claim there is no inconsistency in my words, if you truly claim I'm wrong, then here is a way to prove it (your positive claim), come up with inconsistencies in my words", I hope you finally get the point now, and sorry if I'm not so articulate currently, I'm literally multitasking. 😂

[formal scaffold]

pin pointing the part of brain responsible for lying >>>>>>>>>> monke go brum brum

didn't read much about darwin's THEORY ngl

[thorny steeple]

OK, I see what you mean. I think we got our wires a bit crossed at some point. So, if Allah, he who is portrayed in the scripture, is himself trying to shift the burden of proof onto the reader, rather conveniently causing the reader to not be able to proove Allah is wrong (again, unfalsifiable and reification), then isn't that especially telling?

For example, Gandalf makes a claim that he can cast magic. In the Lord of the Rings books, Gandalf asks the reader to prove he is wrong. What you've done is read the book, found yourself obviously unable to prove an unfalsifiable claim wrong, thus concluded it's real.

[thorny steeple]

yes I know, and I fully acknowledge that you haven't claimed Islam is false. but you can read the Quran if you want proofs and evidence, that's one reason I asked you to read it. I'm not gonna argue, I'll let you see for yourself the proofs and evidence in the holy Quran.

[thorny steeple]

that's the thing, Allah didn't shift the burden of proof, Islam already contains tons of proofs and evidence, it was just as I said, a challenge for those who "positively claim"/"assert" that Islam is false.

[thorny steeple]

Because you said "I'm not gonna argue", I feel I need to clarify, at no point during our discussion have I attacked your character and felt animosity towards you. I've felt frustrated at your arguments, but that's all.

I've also enjoyed our discussion.

[thorny steeple]

no no, I didn't mean to imply that you're attacking my character or anything like that, I meant that I'm not going to argue that Islam is the true religion and so on, I'll let you see Islam speaking for itself.

[thorny steeple]

I'll address this another time, provided I remember. I don't wish to push you too hard against such a belief that you hold so close to your sense of self.

[thorny steeple]

I do like our discussion too, especially the part where you're "charitable", Islam also encourages Muslims to be similar to that, "Invite ˹all˺ to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord ˹alone˺ knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is ˹rightly˺ guided." [Quran 16:125], which I'm trying to do at the best of my potential. I completely embrace our different thoughts (and probably disagreement) on Islam.

[thorny steeple]

no worries, let's discuss this another time. don't forget to tell me about your experience reading the Quran, I'd really like to hear from you. 🤍

[thorny steeple]

Yeah, charitable (principle of charity) in the philosophical sense just means that you have empathy for and are compassionate to the 'other side'. It primarily encourages you to assume the opposition is not out to get you or mislead you (unfortunately, this happens regardless), but that they're trying to make a reasonable argument.

In good faith, basically. (not in the religious sense, 😆)

[thorny steeple]

nice, it's very well aligned with what Allah says in the Quran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpZBlm8zELA

This is an absolutely golden video. Matt can be an arse, and the conversation often breaks down into childish squabbling. But, it's interesting. You'll notice Daniel tries many of the usual tricks. Matt points them out often.

It might be difficult to sit through, but if you can stomach it, it's worth watching.

yeah, I watched a part of it.

maybe I'll complete the video though.

[formal scaffold]

every atheist make it a one sided debat, it's both parties making claims not one and both parties has to justify their claims not a one side only

[thorny steeple]

I can't speak for every atheist, but unfortunately, many religious people try to shift the burden of proof onto the atheist, leading the atheist to constantly need to point this out and remind them the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one addressing the arguments made for the claim.

[formal scaffold]

if you are to question a person expect to be questioned

it's natural

[thorny steeple]

That's simply not how it works. Please watch some debates or something, to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

In this context, at least.

[formal scaffold]

that's how interrogatories works

[thorny steeple]

I hardly think interrogating a suspect is a fair parallel to draw with debate. If you wish to draw a parallel, perhaps consider law in court.

[formal scaffold]

both claims don't have enough solide evidence of the existance or non existance of god both paties should question each others ideologies to build a bridge of understanding, even tho it might make you feel a lil bit out of comfort put yourself in the interlocuters shoes too

[thorny steeple]

OK, I can see I'd have to just repeat myself, so I don't think this is productive. I'm going to bow out of this discussion. Again, I recommend watching some debates to learn what I'm talking about it. Formal debates, ideally.

[formal scaffold]

a one sided debate is only healthy for you as much you critisize people for puting you on the spot you shouldn't put them on the spot too

following that logic ofc

[thorny steeple]

I agree with everything ChatGPT had to say, except none of it's relevant, unless I misunderstood your initial point. Ask it about the burden of proof, maybe that'll help.

[formal scaffold]

so atheist has nothing to proove really?

[thorny steeple]

The point still stands that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It doesn't mean that someone can't address the claim. Addressing the claim is the point of a debate. This doesn't however mean that you now have the burden of proof because you're addressing the claim. That would be silly.

[formal scaffold]

atheism is the neutral state of mind?

[thorny steeple]

No, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an atheist is just immune from the burden of proof.

[formal scaffold]

I think skeptisisme is the neurtal state of mind here (about the existance of god)

[thorny steeple]

It's certainly mine, but I feel as though you presented that as a bad thing. Being sceptical is simply holding back belief in something until sufficient evidence is provided. It doesn't mean someone is horrible or bitter or whatever else some people seem to think about sceptics like me.

[formal scaffold]

believers can be skeptical. Skepticism is the attitude of questioning or doubting claims and seeking evidence before accepting them. While belief often involves a certain level of trust or faith, it doesn't necessarily mean that believers are completely devoid of skepticism.

[thorny steeple]

I somewhat agree with that.

[formal scaffold]

beleif has degrees my friend and even in the holy book Ibrahim (Abraham) (pbuh) asked god for insurance once

[formal scaffold]

I feel that atheists are hostile whenever they only focus about the shortcomes of relegions to each his feelings ig

[thorny steeple]

"While belief often involves a certain level of trust or faith"

Not sure how I feel about this, though. I suppose if you consider it from the perspective of having to believe in, say, the low-level science in how my phone works, then yes. But this belief isn't like religious belief at all, because I actually have evidence, at any point can look up mountains of evidence, and people frequently study the ever-loving-crap out of this mountain of evidence. It's demonstrable, essentially. Religion is not. We see the result of the belief, but not sufficient evidence that what the belief claims is in-fact true. People often confuse the two, conflating the result of the belief to concrete fact of God's existence.

So, if you're saying that because I to some extent have to have belief in some things (e.g., science), therefore religious belief is the same thing, then I massively disagree, because they're fundamental not the same things. Religion typically deals in faith, which is the belief in something or the pretence of knowing something despite insufficient evidence.

[thorny steeple]

OK, I get you. Some atheists are d**ks. I'm an atheist, but I'm an implicit atheist, which simply means that I don't pretend to know either way whether there is a god or gods. Unlike agnosticism, I also don't believe that we're unable to know such a thing, because, once again, I don't pretend to know things I don't know.

[formal scaffold]

Relegious believe works like this if most of it makes sense then disregarding the parts that don't satisfy me might be rational since this brain that i'm blessed with isn't made to know god since nobody on earth really knows god truly but rather to believe in him, relegious believe is the same as atheist believe not enought evidence yet taking a choice based on how satisfied you are with that answer

religion uses different methods than science to strengthen its belief, it even uses science mind you and to claim relegion is a lazy acceptance is kinda ignorant

the vast superieur majority of people on earth are relgious, weather they do it just on a whim, or as a life style activity to have descipline, we can't say that for all of them, some of them studies and take to account evidences and singes to join those relegions, some of them are scientist some of them are noble prize winners, relegion doesn't go against science they have different field of study

atheism has no superiority over relegion they are both choices

[thorny steeple]

"if most of it makes sense then disregarding the parts that don't satisfy me might be rational"

That's very convenient, don't you think? You're basically cherry-picking until you're satisfied with the result. This is called confirmation bias.

"this brain that i'm blessed with isn't made to know god" + "nobody on earth really knows god truly"

The idea of a god doesn't seem to be isolated very well. It seems to be some sort of abstract idea of a being or entity with agency that is unattainable and incomprehensible. Isn't is also so very convenient for the religious belief that it's impossible for a believer to entirely conceive of the God of this religion, thus forever have an escape hatch when faced with criticism? There are many clever conveniences like this in theistic religious belief, I've noticed.

"relegious believe is the same as atheist believe not enought evidence yet taking a choice based on how satisfied you are with that answer"

I think you're misunderstanding atheism, as I did until yesterday. There are two types of atheism:

• Implicit atheism (I don't know either way)
• Explicit atheism (God doesn't exist)

Most people who identify as an atheist seem to fall into the implicit category, but there are some more dogmatic atheists that fall into the explicit category. The explicit category could be thought of as similar to religious belief, because they also pretend to know what they don't know.

[formal scaffold]

it's bc i don't trust my brain that much when it comes to smth that can't be perceived by the 5 senses

so i'm skeptical about my own judgement

[thorny steeple]

Do you believe the 5 senses are always right?

[warped scroll]

Damn I'd like to join this discussion but it's too late here

[formal scaffold]

they can be wrong but i strongly trust in them as any human being

[warped scroll]

Do you think we have only 5 senses?

[thorny steeple]

There are more, such as kinaesthesia.

[formal scaffold]

"The idea of a god doesn't seem to be isolated very well. It seems to be some sort of abstract idea of a being or entity with agency that is unattainable and incomprehensible. Isn't is also so very convenient for the religious belief that it's impossible for a believer to entirely conceive of the God of this religion, " it's also convient to believe that god don't exist, idk why convience has to be part of this convo but if i had to say everybody has his own perception of god that is convient to him

• Implicit atheism (I don't know either way) now this ins news to me thanks

[thorny steeple]

I'm pointing out a clear trap in the religious belief, one which most common religions seem to have. It's easier to stay believing in something when that belief itself has defences against criticism.

One of the best defences, if not the best, is the unfalsifiable nature of the belief. It's genius, really. You'll always be able to conjure up an answer, ultimately. You can always move the goalposts somewhere else.

[formal scaffold]

you can see it as a trap or simply the way i see it, I was in doubt when i first heard about the cutting hand law and said it was barbaric without checking out the whole regulations for it or without noticing it's benefits to society, and without seeing it from god's perspective, from death and life perspective, basically it won't make sense until you understand the whole thing slowly and little by little a lot of stuff started making sense so i trusted that process, not bc smbody traped me

[thorny steeple]

Understanding something fully doesn't mean it's true.

I could fully understand Harry Potter, but it's still fiction.

[warped scroll]

wdym by really knows god truly? We're just human beings We can't understand that concept truly It's imposibble Whatever you believe there is a creator that we never get it completely bc it's superior,almigthy etc. we're just weak human beings

[formal scaffold]

speaking about sharia, law, regulation, they won't make sense individualy smtimes but as a whole they form the best society system on earth that's what i belief and that's what has been dn during the days of some of the khalifat relatively, only few of them

[formal scaffold]

boy you like bringing up fantasies to this lol

it's confusing me ngl

[thorny steeple]

😆 It's a common device in religious debate, to illustrate a point.
Sorry for the confusion.

[formal scaffold]

history can be a fiction

except if you trust a set of humans

[thorny steeple]

My point was that trying to understand God is like chasing around a carrot on a stick all the way around the world, ad infinitum. As you say, we can't understand, because it's described that way in the scripture. Again, it's another convenience for the stability of the religion.

[formal scaffold]

I don't think fictions can bring strong scientifique signes or prophecies, or solve society's issues

[warped scroll]

but you did it now 😂

[thorny steeple]

I like to use analogies when trying to convey ideas. I find it helpful, but some people can find it confusing, I understand.

[formal scaffold]

agreed nobody really can understand god

[formal scaffold]

it seems like an insult tho

comparing a relegion to harry potter

[thorny steeple]

I can't help it if you interpret it that way. Might I suggest that if you feel insulted by it, perhaps it's because you understand the point of my argument? Which causes discomfort.

[formal scaffold]

if i got out tom and start convinving people that harry potter is god how many people will really believe me? probably not as much as nowadays believer might atteint the percentage of atheists tho

and that's how u make an insult really

[thorny steeple]

The fact that you realise it's absurd and think of it as an insult tells me you understand the absurdity of it all. No doubt this is uncomfortable and frustrating, unfortunately.

[formal scaffold]

not at all, i'm not in discomfort, I'm simply doing my duty in here, I'm obliged according to my belief to share the beauty of it but we don't seem to touch on that much since you aren't interested in that

[formal scaffold]

it's not a discomfort I assure you just threw that just in case you do believe so or anybody reading the chat

[warped scroll]

I get ur point but I disagree Don't think only materialistic way We don't have only body also soul Imo you guys don't search enough to understand god or religion concept enough and chose the easy way

[warped scroll]

It's okay for me

[formal scaffold]

everybody choses to believe in smth convient to them

[thorny steeple]

OK. Back to the cherry-picking, because I have an additional point to make there. You say that you pick things from your scripture that you like and do away with things you don't. Not your exact words, but that's the gist. Well, when you do this, you're actually going against your god's word, you're saying that you know better, and this is directly contradicting your actual religion.

Take the Bible, for example. The Old Testament is disgusting, with many atrocities mentioned. Things liken beating slaves and abuse of women. I will go out on a limb and assume most Christians don't actually ascribe to the idea of slavery or the abuse of women. Therefore, they cherry-pick. They're saying they know better than God. This highlights the absurdity of it.

[formal scaffold]

everybody who's looking for truth is doing an effort to reach it weather it's a relegious person or a non relegious person gotta respect that effort and learn from each other

[formal scaffold]

I see the cherry picking when atheists never chose to speak about how accurate some of the signes mentioned in quran

[warped scroll]

It's true but As God says we have to seek for truth as well This thing is for humanity Not only believers or non-believers

[formal scaffold]

"you're saying that you know better, and this is directly contradicting your actual religion" I just said let's learn from each other maybe i'll know few things but i ignore many my friend

[thorny steeple]

I can't speak to that, as I'm not familiar with them or the Quran.

[formal scaffold]

I can hook you up with a good vid that mentions only 10 confirmed ones

if you are willing to check them

[thorny steeple]

Sure, link away.

As long as it's YouTube.

[formal scaffold]

certeinly I believe christianity was a beautifull relegion before the missuse by some kings who rewrite the holybook, and agree some of the text might seem harsh to nowadays normes in quran

[warped scroll]

I'm Muslim So I don't wanna talk about cristianity so much but afaik u r right

[formal scaffold]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypXqqdPrYQQ&t=124s

[fading abyss]

Assalamualaikum

[warped scroll]

Yeah unfortunately

[formal scaffold]

walikom salam ❤️

[warped scroll]

What about is it?

[formal scaffold]

9 scientific signes in quran that weren't revealed back then until recently

[warped scroll]

Oh okay there so many scinecific things in Quran and Sunnah but people ignore them simply

[warped scroll]

Dude It's not good way to discuss

[fading abyss]

...

[formal scaffold]

God would've really gave evidences if he wanted to, but we believe life is a test, a test of faith and a test of morality

[warped scroll]

Also If that guy is Jesus You cant mock him 🚫

[thorny steeple]

That's another convenience. Whenever someone asks "what about suffering", it's all just a test. Yet another of these defences built into the religion. It's incredible, really.

[formal scaffold]

jesus christ (PBUH) is less likely to be what they show in pictures

[fading abyss]

I'm Muslim

[fading abyss]

Exactly

[thorny steeple]

I'm watching the video, BTW.

The first thing I've seen is that water is on Earth, therefore God? Is the conclusion that God exists because water is on Earth?

[warped scroll]

I'm sure you can understand the concept of life It's dialectic thing No sadness no happiness If sadness didn't exist Happiness wouldnt exist as well

[formal scaffold]

I don't think you are focused, the claim was all life is made out of water, and there could be a creature that's alive without water, and the claim was actually refuted before bc they found some form of parasite that lives without water than later on found out that they were wrong about it

[formal scaffold]

it's also convient to see it as a defence mechanisme

[warped scroll]

It's one of the sign of existence of God Think about this earth situation Why water come this world? etc. There is a huge math and science We cant explain just bilions of coincedences

[formal scaffold]

the vedio didn't mention the parasite thingy but i read it somewhere else, not sure if it's a parasite or insect or whatnot

[warped scroll]

And what? He's prophet You cant mock with prophet it's big sin dude R u okay?

[formal scaffold]

one can say it's out of chance that this planet is perfectly placed to have a livable atmosphere knowing that the universe is actually huge and there are countless planets and stars

[thorny steeple]

I'm not sure if this was the point you were making, but I see how claiming that something is convenient isn't a good argument, because I could now claim that it's convenient that it's convenient to say it's convenient. 😆

However, I did explain why I pointed out conveniences. If you look at it as I do, that humans very likely created the religion, then the conveniences become pretty damning, at least through my eyes.

[formal scaffold]

exactly xD

[warped scroll]

Absouletely It's even imposibble sciencific way

[fading abyss]

I'm not mocking Jesus. and where do you Jesus bro what

[thorny steeple]

Oh, so basically god of the gaps.

[formal scaffold]

I'm glad you got me ❤️

[thorny steeple]

We're here, therefore God. Not very compelling, I'm afraid. It doesn't follow that just because we're here, we must have a creator.

The quote in the video is "We made every living thing from water." It's perfectly plausible that the people writing the scripture understood the likelihood that all living things came from water. It's impressive that they concluded this, but it's also a likely conclusion. What do you see in water? Lots of life. What do you see near water? Lots of life. What does water give us? Life.

[formal scaffold]

agreed

what about the iron one?

[thorny steeple]

Damn, I wasn't expecting an agreement. 😄

[formal scaffold]

well why not

[thorny steeple]

OK, I'll keep watching.

[warped scroll]

Which gaps? You guys always the same things Gaps of God Gaps of God..... Whenever scientists discover somethings It address the God For example big bang It already mentioned in Quran Also science says it's imposible to happen by itself Must be something starts it and we call it God There is no gap

[warped scroll]

Yeah Surah Hadid Amazing dude

[thorny steeple]

"In the deserts of Arabia, the last thing someone would've guessed, is that all life came from water."

What a silly statement. There's nothing in a desert, until you find water and suddenly there is life! I wonder why. It's perfectly plausible that someone would conclude water is the key to life, even in a desert. In-fact, I'd argue it becomes much clearer in a desert, where the contrast of the result of water and no water is more pronounced.

I know we've already agreed, but this part of the video bugged me. 😆

[warped scroll]

Don't be shy 😝 Just be open minded

[thorny steeple]

I'm working on it. 😛

[formal scaffold]

I think he meant the prophet who was ineducated and living in a desert couldve never known about the whole planet's creatures let along all life formes in the planet

but to me it seems ovb since most life formes consumes water

[warped scroll]

Pls do Bc I lived like an atheist for years but I couldn't stand against the truth I feel you I studied about religions for many years Believe me I know it's not easy Espeacialy this kind of miserable century

[warped scroll]

If a guy believed that easily The guy had to believe clouds must be God

[thorny steeple]

So, regarding there being iron on Earth. As I understand it, based on my massively limited understanding (you should really ask an astrophysicist 😆), iron formed on Earth from a supernova a long time ago. I've heard of this before by scientists, but I looked it up to check. While I can't confirm this and I think it's safe to say nobody can confirm this, at least not anytime soon, science does have a more compelling (due to likelihood) answer to why iron is on Earth, in my view.

However, the existence of iron on Earth does not require that a God exists. For example, we could have always existed, and iron could've developed on Earth through billions or trillions of years of cosmic events, as scientists theorize.

[thorny steeple]

Ah, OK. In that case, I still think the same applies, because even if the prophet were uneducated and living in a desert, he still would've likely found water, otherwise he wouldn't have survived for long at all, therefore he would've observed that water seemed to equal life.

[formal scaffold]

same there's also smth about ocean and sea depth that i thought it was obv it'll come up later on

[thorny steeple]

It sounds like you chose what for you was more comforting, not what was more plausible.

[warped scroll]

According to Quran water and iron rain the our world and science says water and iron came from out of the world first Also they're not theory They're reality Proved things

[thorny steeple]

God of the gaps is basically when you fill in the unknown with God. This is exactly what we did thousands of years ago, and continued to do for a very long time. We're still doing it today, but to a much lesser extent, it seems. For example, back in the day, thunder was thought to be Thor, the god of thunder. The reason we bring it up is because it's relevant.

[thorny steeple]

This may have been believed because of meteors or meteorites. If they had knowledge of iron, they may have noticed that this 'rain' of meteors or meteorites contained iron, as they often do.

[warped scroll]

Do you think being religious is more comforting? Pls compare believer life and non-believer's life C'mon dude I live realy limited I did whatever I wanted before being believer

[thorny steeple]

So, to address the quote for iron in the video:

"We sent down iron with its great inherent strength and its many benefits for humankind."

What I see here confirms what I said just now about meteorites and meteors. I'm not seeing anything that suggests they had holy knowledge of some sort. They knew iron came from 'out there', because they saw these things fall from the skies, and were able to see iron was within them. This would've been observed in various areas of the world.

That they recognised the benefits suggests to me they did know iron was in things that fell to Earth, only making my thinking here more likely.

[warped scroll]

We live 21st century I don't care fake things We can do sciencific search etc.

[thorny steeple]

I must say though, while I'm not at all convinced that any of these claims are true, I'm very impressed with the insight they had all that time ago.

If you were alive back then, were ignorant to the world compared to the knowledge we now have, and believed in beings in the sky and what-not, you'd probably also jump to the conclusion that an almighty being sent something down to you, if you saw meteorites and stuff falling from the sky which contained something you need.

It seems quite clear to me that this is just a product of its time.

[formal scaffold]

idk about people seeing iron falling from the sky

i lived long enough and i never seen any

[warped scroll]

As you say If they had knowledge... They couldn't know bc they didnt have chance to understand it but the book told them so many things that they never could know that years

[thorny steeple]

A fascinating one, for sure, and again, I want to stress that I'm impressed with the awareness they had. But, I've yet to hearing anything compelling as far as sufficient evidence or for the truth of the claims.

[formal scaffold]

there's a verse inthat vedio about the frontal part of the brain being responsible for movement and lying, I doubt they can conclude that with their basic tehcnologies

let alone an illetrate person dectating that to them

[thorny steeple]

As I've described, they could've learned of water and of iron. Nothing particularly outlandish going on here. It would've been fairly straightforward. Life is near water. Life requires water. Thus water is required for life. Iron falls to Earth. Thus iron came from above.

[thorny steeple]

Intriguing. Sounds pretty interesting.

I'll have to finish this tomorrow, as it's about 1am here, and I forgot I have something I have to go to tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion. Was fun. 👋

[formal scaffold]

there's another signe that an atheist discovered while trying to look for a mistake in the quran, he found out a word used to describe ants metabolisme and compare it to glass, and in his attempt to disprove it he found out that ants has some materials found in glass

[warped scroll]

I didn't watch the video yet Is it talking about birth process and baby can hear us before deliver?

[formal scaffold]

there are actually enough if you set your mind to read the book or look for them

[warped scroll]

Afaik S/he has prejudjes against religions Will keep saying They didn't understand and Gap of God etc.

Like many people Not bc they didnt understand Just bc they dont wanna understand etc

Wth it's 4.15 am here

[formal scaffold]

in any ways we are all blessed to be looking for the truth and exchanging out ideas in the end each chooses to believe what he wants on that note I thank you all for exchanging with me stay blessed

[formal scaffold]

2:15 AM catch you later bro salam

[warped scroll]

I'm sorry for them bc I know how they feel

[warped scroll]

wa alaikom salam bro

[thorny steeple]

"Anatomic" and "anatomical" are essentially synonymous and can be used interchangeably in many contexts. The main difference lies in their origin and grammatical formation.

• "Anatomic" is an older form with roots in Latin. In the evolution of the English language, several words were adopted directly from Latin, and "anatomic" is an example of this.

• "Anatomical" is a more modern form that follows the current grammatical convention of English, where the suffix "-al" is often added to turn a noun into an adjective. In this case, "anatomy" becomes "anatomical."

Both forms are correct and are used to describe something related to anatomy, the study of the structure of organisms and their parts. The choice between "anatomic" and "anatomical" typically depends on linguistic style preferences or conventions in a specific field, but in practice, there is no substantial difference in meaning.

[craggy sphinx]

Hello beings of the highest light

[craggy sphinx]

Atomic Heart

[abstract cypress]

If you wanna go back far enough everything on earth came from outer space since the earth was made up from a bunch of outer space rocks.

Still doesn't prove anything in that book is true

and technically no, the iron we mine and use throughout history do not come from meteorites. It's present on the earth's crust, courtesy of the earth being about 30% iron

and to claim any "scientific proof" of quran as proof of it being true is weird considering all of it had been known by earlier cultures, does that meant the Ancient Greek religion is true since they thought iron fell from Zeus in the heavens?

[toxic jay]

Bitcoin hit 40k.. not interested on that but just bring it to your serious talk

[peak fiber]

Great argument.

[thorny steeple]

Yeahhh haha athaaaamicaaal haaaaaagghhrttt

[hidden saddle]

Is there a way to further gain a higher education for English

Not communicating in English for a long time really worsened my ability to speak proper English

[toxic jay]

Can u explain more

[hidden saddle]

Not sure how to explain it but

I guess speaking in a different language constantly has made my English worse?

[toxic jay]

You can start chatting with others only or observe that. It’s good also to enter the voice channels

[hidden saddle]

And I had an English test today and I'm not happy with what I was able to write

maybe I just need better work exercises😭

Most of them are not really good in Malaysia

[toxic jay]

It’s better to spend much of your time with English speakers to not distract your learning with your native language.. Until you reach to your target level

[hidden saddle]

it's my first language😭

[thorny steeple]

Morning.

[warped scroll]

Did I say opposite of it? 14 century ago Nobody could know that info

[warped scroll]

Prove it bc science support my idea

[warped scroll]

Morning

[thorny steeple]

Dude to the way Earth was formed as a result of a supernova, right? That's what I've heard and read, at least. Or at least, that's the theory. I assume it's a theory and not a hypothesis at this point.

[abstract cypress]

Apparently the Greeks knew it hundreds of years before muhammad was born because they made a temple to thank Zeus for sending iron down to earth

[abstract cypress]

science supports the ancient greeks as well ages before your prophet. Why is he true and them not?

[formal scaffold]

Initially iron wasn't part of earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOfupkVMB3w&t=19s

[thorny steeple]

Right, this was why I (last night) explained that it seemed clear to me that they (and apparently those before) already knew of these things. My guess is that they either talked about and recorded known events at the time or they appealed to those who didn't yet know about these things.

[warped scroll]

We talk about God not prophet Why do you start talk about Mohammad?

[formal scaffold]

there's a big diffrence from initial elements and elements that came later on to earth

[thorny steeple]

Any arabs here ?

[warped scroll]

Gab of Gods They didn't know where iron came and started saying Zeus send 😂 @thorny steeple

[abstract cypress]

This video literally said 30% of earth is made of iron, which is what I said

[thorny steeple]

Yes, there is. I think it's safe to say it's more likely that most elements came from Earth's formation, given that's what Earth is made of, rather than little meteorites which later occasionally fell. And BTW, most meteorites, AFAIK, burn up in the atmosphere; are those just Allah changing his mind?

[formal scaffold]

I'm amazigh but i speak arabic

[warped scroll]

What about 7 layer of sky? Did they know that as well?

[abstract cypress]

Idk bro, your logic tells me that Zeus is real. Since Zeus exists thousands of years before quran and the Greeks said he sent meteorites down to earth

[thorny steeple]

What about practicing some English

[warped scroll]

It's not my logic Just one of the miracle of Quran

[formal scaffold]

How about practicing some english?*

[warped scroll]

Btw watch the video?

[thorny steeple]

Saying 'what' in that context is a colloquialism. Hence the term whataboutism.

[formal scaffold]

the context is obv

[formal scaffold]

I didn't get what you said about metorites explain further

there's a whole chapter about it you might find a lot of "contradictions"

[abstract cypress]

Probably copied from Eudoxus and Calippus who first introduced a concept of layers above the earth.

Or maybe copied from Judaism, who also was inspired by ancient Greeks

[abstract cypress]

Miracle of ancient greek religion more like, since they described it before the quran was written

[abstract cypress]

The "1400 yrs before now nobody can know it" argument is really false since everybody know it before

They just didn't write a holy book about it. Jews did though

[warped scroll]

They know exact number Noticed that? Those guy knew it as well? Can you send link or something else?

[thorny steeple]

OK, I'll rephrase.

"I think it's safe to say it's more likely that most elements came from Earth's formation,"

There's a greater likelihood that elements (e.g., iron) came from the formation (development; creation; collection of the parts) of Earth.

"given that's what Earth is made of, rather than little meteorites which later occasionally fell."

With that in mind, Earth is made of iron, as well as many other things of course, but it's not made of little meteorites which fell down to Earth. We would've run out of iron a long time ago, otherwise. Not only are you cherry-picking the meteorites that made it past the atmosphere (they usually burn up), you're also cherry-picking the meteorites and seemingly ignoring the already present and plentiful supply of iron that existed long before the Quran was written.

"And BTW, most meteorites, AFAIK, burn up in the atmosphere; are those just Allah changing his mind?"

And by the way, most meteorites, as far as I know, burn up in the atmosphere; are those simply the result of Allah changing him mind?

[warped scroll]

Yeah God kill, fight, have sex each other and human Sounds really miracle to me According to the Jews the prophet fight with God as well

[abstract cypress]

Eudoxus assigned about 27 spheres for things rotating the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentric_spheres) which for me seems more scientific than the quran since it explains the sun, moon, solar system, and individual stars as well

[abstract cypress]

God can do anything he wants. Doesn't matter if he did

[thorny steeple]

I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't say that they didn't know these things, but that it's likely they did. I don't see how that's anything other than a strong inductive argument.

Unless you're agreeing with me, and I misunderstood you. 😆

[abstract cypress]

I'm referring to the other person

[thorny steeple]

Gotcha. My mistake.

[formal scaffold]

FYI, when metorites burn up they don't disolve and the iron is still in small particle and that's how it make it to earth, thus why I was surprised yesterday when u said "people will see iron falling from the sky" as if it's visible to the human eye

[warped scroll]

Also God does most sensible things It makes it God

[formal scaffold]

it'll later on be collected in the ocean or water streams bc of it's density and properties to one place forming ores

[abstract cypress]

Who are you to tell what God can do and cannot do? God can do anything he/she wants.

[warped scroll]

I'll check it out Just woke up Having breakfast now

[abstract cypress]

I'm undecided as to any particular set of belief, but I'm really interested in Judaism and Hinduism

the former bc i feel it's the most in-depth Abrahamic religion in terms of theology and poetry, the latter bc it's the same but I think their theology makes sense

hinduism doesn't claim any ultimate cause or infinite regress argument abrahamic religions does, and we actually found out that things can exist without cause

[thorny steeple]

Oh, no, I wasn't meaning to say that people literally saw the iron falling from the sky, but that they saw the meteorites land and so knew iron was within them, hence what was said in the Quran.

[thorny steeple]

Yes that's what I actually mean

[formal scaffold]

you mean voice?

[warped scroll]

I talk about peculiarities of God Don't say what you said Don't be dramatic Chill

[abstract cypress]

christianity is interesting but I pack it with judaism because it comes out of it

[formal scaffold]

it's a possibility but idk if you heard any small metorite can make a huge crater upon it's landing

[abstract cypress]

yes, you, a human, should not limit god, if god wants to kill or drink or have party he can do it

[thorny steeple]

Hmm yes as possible as we can

[formal scaffold]

by that time it would definelty be shattred not that i'm an expert but i've never seen a metorite irl