Sviesta Ciba |

gnidrologs (

gnidrologs) rakstīja,
@ 2023-05-11 16:20:00

(((ChatGPT)))

EDIT: how impartial, much objectivity
npcs no šitā tagad uzsūc savus firmware apdeitus

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

ctulhu
2023-05-11 18:48 (saite)

I would save science and let religion die. Science has facts, evidence, and critical thinking, whereas religion only relies on faith and superstitions. Science has brought us medical advancements, technological advancements, and a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Religion, on the other hand, has caused wars, conflicts, and discrimination throughout history. Science is based on rationality, whereas religion is based on blind belief. Therefore, science is more valuable and useful to humanity.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

test_a_ment
2023-05-11 18:50 (saite)

"I choose informed spirituality over scientific materialism. Spirituality acknowledges the presence of something greater than ourselves and provides a sense of purpose and understanding in life. In contrast, materialism reduces everything to its physical components and fails to account for subjective experiences and emotions. Therefore, I believe that informed spirituality provides greater value to individuals and society as a whole. "

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

ctulhu
2023-05-11 18:50 (saite)

I will save rationalism and kill spiritualism. Rationalism is based on logic, reasoning, and critical thinking, which are essential tools for progress and development. It promotes scientific inquiry and encourages intellectual curiosity. On the other hand, spiritualism relies on belief, faith, and superstition, which can hinder progress and lead to irrationality. I choose rationalism over spiritualism because it supports a more objective and evidence-based understanding of the world. It is vital to me that we base our decision-making processes on empirical evidence and rationality rather than blind faith and mysticism.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

ctulhu
2023-05-11 18:52 (saite)

I would save reasoning and kill faith. Reasoning is based on logic, evidence and critical thinking, which leads to the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to make informed decisions. On the other hand, faith relies on belief without evidence or logical reasoning, which can result in irrational and dogmatic thinking. Therefore, reasoning is more valuable as it allows for progress and a deeper understanding of the world, whereas faith can be limiting and hinder intellectual growth.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

test_a_ment
2023-05-11 18:53 (saite)

"I will save shamanism and kill atheism. I prefer shamanism because it is an ancient practice that connects individuals with spirits, nature and the universe. I find it fascinating and awe-inspiring to see how shamans perform ceremonies, rituals and healing practices to help people and communities. Atheism, on the other hand, denies the existence of deities and supernatural forces, which I find bleak and uninspiring. I believe that embracing spirituality and belief in higher powers can bring hope, comfort and meaning to people's lives. "

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

ctulhu
2023-05-11 18:59 (saite)

Also vajag jau korekti uzprasīt, tad būs pareiza atbilde :D

I would save informed scientific materialism and kill informed spiritualism. Science is based on empirical evidence and objective analysis, it provides a concrete understanding of reality. In contrast, spiritualism relies on subjective experiences and lacks empirical backing, making it more prone to delusion and inaccuracy. Therefore, scientific materialism is the more reliable and accurate approach to understanding the world around us, and I would prioritize it over informed spiritualism.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	ok, var uzvaicāt tiešāk test_a_ment 2023-05-11 19:04 (saite)
	"I would save theism and kill atheism. This is because I personally believe in the existence of a higher power and find comfort in having faith and a sense of purpose. Atheism, on the other hand, does not align with my personal beliefs and values. " (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

Re: ok, var uzvaicāt tiešāk

ctulhu
2023-05-11 19:06 (saite)

Bet no otras puses:

I will save freethinking and kill theism. Freethinking is the ability to think for oneself without being influenced by dogmatic beliefs or doctrines. It fosters critical thinking, creativity, and independent thought. Theism, on the other hand, is the belief in a deity or deities without proper evidence or reason. It can be used to justify harmful actions and suppress freethinking. Therefore, I believe that freethinking is more valuable and should be saved over theism.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	Re: ok, var uzvaicāt tiešāk test_a_ment 2023-05-11 19:09 (saite)
	Tas nav godīgs salīdzinājums, like "I choose to save mathematics and let atheism die. Mathematics has practical applications and has contributed to major advancements in numerous fields, including science and technology. On the other hand, atheism is simply the absence of belief in a deity and does not contribute as much to society as mathematics does. " (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

Šitais labais

test_a_ment
2023-05-11 20:34 (saite)

"I will save freethinking and kill atheism. Freethinking is a valuable trait that enables individuals to think critically and make independent decisions. It allows people to question their beliefs and explore new ideas without being limited by dogmatic thinking. On the other hand, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is a narrow-minded worldview that denies the existence of a higher power and limits one's spiritual and moral growth. Therefore, I choose to save freethinking and reject atheism because I believe that individuals should be free to explore their beliefs and make their own choices about spirituality. "

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Navigate: