It doesnt care about mental health

Imagine a luddite trying to critisize something for being idealist. It really matters how tech is introduced. The real enemy of thought is consumerism.

>religion makes people happy
no it doesn't, have you ever met a religious person?

technology makes me happy
Submitting myself to a collective idiocy which was made up by a few demented fucks hundreds of years ago will not.

This is Jow Forums - Technology

>The real enemy of thought is consumerism.
You're a consumerist too, hypocrite.
Unless you're an ascetic vegan who will never have children, then you can honestly say you aren't a consumerist.

>technology makes me happy
You're just another confused materialistic consumer.

>all good philosophy has already been created.
Im begging you to please stop using this as an excuse to not think. Philosophy is something that requires tention, struggle and inndividual reflection. If you go in to it looking for someone to give you an answer you've already gone wrong.

Truly ignorance is a bliss.
Science discovered more in 30 years than religion in 30000.

being a consumerist doesnt just mean "I consume things", you consume air and food to live
consumerism means consumption takes the place of other things in your life, like instead of worshipping god you worship companies that produce goods, and instead of improving yourself you purchase more things to own

Philosophy is taking the Bible and figuring out why everything happened and how you can live so that it doesn't happen again. I don't read the Bible word for word and memorise it, I simply accept it as fact and think up from that.

>Science discovered more in 30 years than religion in 30000.
Science is still desperate to answer what and how created the universe and what lies beyond in a scientific manner. There are no hard facts for that so the scientific method has not completely succeeded.

Look up cognitive distortions. Honestly makes all spiritual stuff seem silly as fuck.

What is "technology"?

Do you have an explaination for this or are you going to leave it at that? Can one not enjoy anything material without it being consumerist?

Religion has no answer either. It has dogmas, which aren't answers. Besides, creation of the universe is irrelevant to living.

I did not assert that every technology has to be rooted up. Tge majority of you are just indulging in it. Never realized other side of the coin. You are being controlled by your subconsciousness deeply attached to many seductive technologies

>Can one not enjoy anything material without it being consumerist?
being materialistic, consumerist, or a technophile are three different things, but they're all bad in their own way

>dogmas
The Old Testament is not a bunch of imperatives as you seem to think it is.
>Besides,
Uh oh goalposts.

>Technology is bad
Not so fast, Ted. Things are complicated.
>It doesnt care about mental health
Yes, it shouldn't. It should make hard and tedious tasks easier.
>While religion makes people happy
Don't speak for everyone. So far it just made me confused.
And, as you mentioned technology being bad, isn't religion a kind of technology as well? Like, it's a tool for maintaining mental health and for controlling people as well.

Of course you can but how can you say technology makes you happy period? There is so much more to life than $5 processors sold for $500.

*One philosophy is taking the bible...

Yes, good correction.

>The Old Testament
My point applies to every religion.
>Uh oh goalposts.
The nerve. Science having no answer to one thing doesn't refute my point

>People began to hang out with only their phone rather than ponder on deeper themes
Why is this a bad thing actually?

Your point is general and roundabout and does not address what I said in the first place. I am Christian so I accept the holy scriptures as fact, a basis, and use belief, further reading, and talking with priests to build upwards.
If you accept science as the basis of your perception, you are only allowed to use the scientific method to build upwards, and the scientific method is inconclusive on the most important topics above all. We can have this conversation in another 30 years to see if the creation has been answered.
Of course, I still apply the scientific method professionally and I am good at it, seeing my earnings. Just that I don't place myself in an enclosed world.

Correct use of computers is not a consumerist endevor. Computers are a tool. The only reason why the consumption aspect of technology is so widly seen as the enjoyable part is because we live in a consumerist society.

People always look for ways to distract themselves from their problems, religion and phones are ultimately the same.

>and the scientific method is inconclusive on the most important topics above all
Which is? How/why the universe was created has no effect on your life. That's just how it is. Thus it's not even in the top ten most important things, at least to me. I care about reliability and reproducibility.

Uncertainty and struggleing with questions larger than yourself is a very integral party of human nature and something we been finding beuty in since the dawn of man

like "what is the purpose of my own life"

So assuming you learned the actual truth about how the universe was created. What next?

That's fantastic, however I am interested in the fringe as well, finding the lack of bijection between our knowledge and the universe unnverving and unscientific. I see the schism between the theories of everything and the way some scientists dare identify themselves with their hypotheses rather than keeping it to themselves until they are proven fact, very akin to pagan societies. Hope you catch my drift. Have a good one.

no, the most important topic is the purpose of your own life which science provides no answers for and I would say even misleads you on the topic. How the universe was created is not important

You can ask that anything should give you the answer to this. Expecting religion or science to give you a direct answer is misguided. Struggle

religion is closer to the meaning of life than science is

Which one?

Actually the porpus of your life is the most important thing. No use blubbering around with the other stuff.

any of them, their messages don't differ that much

empty head full of superstitions OR capable of harnessing envionment

Your pick but imo you are wrong.

So what you saying is that there are truthes which are found by struggeling with questioning the nature of the univerce, reguardless of context?

>finding the lack of bijection between our knowledge and the universe unnverving and unscientific
Natural science is by design incomplete. You might even say it's inherently wrong. Without incompleteness there's no discovery. You can never assume you're right. Modern science is defined by the falsifiability principle. What you see as unnerving is what scientists see as a reason to go on.
>I see the schism between the theories of everything
A real problem.
>and the way some scientists dare identify themselves with their hypotheses rather than keeping it to themselves until they are proven fact
Well that's not very scientific, see falsifiability.

>empty head full of superstitions
that's not a fact, that's your bias
science is a process for discovering facts, no "facts" have been discovered about meaning which is still the most important thing for a human to understand

I'm saying that nearly all religions hold some element of truth in regards to meaning, so does struggling with questioning the nature of the universe

What makes science different

>questions larger than yourself
That's the actual problem. Over the course of history small people deeply concerned with big questions ended up either living miserable monk's life, dying for some shitty "revolution" or just being a dick and ruining the lives and career of all people in sight.
Basically, being actually wholeheartedly unironically concerned with things that are not your business is a tranny way and will only harm you and all people around.

science is the discovery of objective facts through the scientific process. Meaning isn't within the realm of facts, so science provides no meaning.

What meaning? There is no meaning in anything. If you think there is you have a bias. Nothing is random.

>nearly all religions hold some element of truth in regards to meaning
Gotta have some evidence of that.

If you think there isn't you have bias

Absolute retarded. Have you ever travelled much?

False, there is no objective meaning. A stone doesn't fall because it have a meaning but because of gravity, gravity exists as a emergent property of reality and why/how reality exist we can never know.

>which is still the most important thing for a human to understand
Not really.

They wouldn't be popular in the first place if they didn't

Nothing provides meaning. You create it yourself through a struggle to understand the world around you

I said meaning, not objective meaning
>why/how reality exist we can never know
so basically you went from "It doesn't exist" to "we can never know" in the same sentence

That's your personal philosophy, not an objective truth

Science is 100% the wrong place to ask. It is simply the wrong methodology. How in the world would you ever design an experiment that answers what the purpose of life is? The scientific method is pretty darn good at creating hypothesis about repeatable measurable phenomena. Applying it outside of that realm won't lead to anything.
Philosophy might have the answer.
Religion might have the answer, depending on whether the god proposed exists or not.

Plenty of objectively wrong yet popular things.

So illiteracy has some truth in it, otherwise it wouldn't be so popular.

Personalizing
Attributing personal responsibility, including the resulting praise or blame, to events over which the person has no control
The root of every religion.

Things become popular because a particular element of them resonates with alot of people. All religions are also full of bullshit, but there was a foundation of truth somewhere inside there that caused people to take them seriously in the first place. Even something like Scientology which L Ron Hubbard literally just made up as a sci-fi writer still reflects on some deeper truths even if it is literally all just made up

Because I know that everything is predeterminined at least for anything above quantum mechanics and under observable space. Not saying that there exists something that isnt predetermined.

We can simulate everything if we had computation power and way to obtain all information required.

>but there was a foundation of truth somewhere inside there that caused people to take them seriously in the first place.
Hearing what you want to hear is not truth. The opposite of it in fact.

So you know everything is predetermined except the stuff that literally all matter and energy is made from? Seems legit

I don't think simply hearing what you want to hear is enough to make something stick around for thousands of years

Nothings going to answer you directly. If you want meaning, find it. Thats how people do.

>I don't think simply hearing what you want to hear is enough to make something stick around for thousands of years
Read that again and take a deep think.

>I don't think simply hearing what you want to hear is enough to make something stick around for thousands of years
I got some news for you man, its gonna blow your mind

The tenents of religion that have lasted for thousands of years don't have much to do with telling people what they want to hear. They're things like moral parables

Hearing what you want to hear is EXACTLY what makes it stick around for thousands of years.

They just tranlated reality in to fiction. Something profound is there but science will trim it to more real theories.

Yes at least if the concern is humans. We cant do anything that isnt predetermined.

Humans are made from non-deterministic subatomic particles

People want their problems solved. Religions pretend to give answers to the questions people can't answer themselves.

Marginal effect that can be ignored. Round up and then if in millions years rounding error becomes big enough we can just do the observation again. If we knew the lowest level we could simulate without rounding errors. Changes nothing about determinism. Doesnt matter if we dont know. Still goes exactly like it started. Rules stay the same. Predetermined.

Atoms move in predetermined way and our actions do so too. Still doesnt change anything. Everything is static if we slice a moment. All copies will do the exact same thing. Unless there is bit flips at the lowest levels. If there is makes no difference probably ever. At least anything above that bit flip level. Maybe there is hardware running or something we never will be able to know. There is no proof for now that rules would change. Humans are rounding machines that cant do non-deterministic actions.

Opinion, not fact.

Are they? Simulate closed system at atom level and see that everything goes as rules say. Slowly rounding error creeps and then you check the system again. In pre-determined way. Now scale up and you get the same result.

if the smallest system is pre determined then anythig above is too. Life is and so is universe.

We dont know what is beyond this system or thst there even is something. Maybe there is maybe there isnt. Maybe it affects at some point but currenly no theories.

>Simulate closed system at atom level and see that everything goes as rules say.
What if the rules themselves say that things don't go the same way? Local realism violations are well known.

demonstrably false in almost every facet of human existence

>Marginal effect that can be ignored
what an unscientific thing to say
even excluding the realm of sub-atomic particles there's a huge amount of things humans do not know about the universe and how it works, but people presume they do because they think understanding the parts means they understand the sum

Because we cant get that information if we could we probably would get one path not off paths. Lets say that there were this violations. What cuold it mean? That outside force is changing the system or we just dont have closed enough system that is completely known.

>Marginal effect that can be ignored
Particle physics are measuring things that have one in a million chance of happening. With 99.9999% confidence.

For simulating without massive computations. Yes it matters but not if it is not feasable.

Hidden variables theory, debunked.

so if you can't measure it it doesn't matter?

You just said that being stupid and happy is better than being right or true. kill yourself.

I was a christian and can defend religion pretty well, but i stopped being religous after talking with so many religious idiots like yourself

Yes as in not known. Still doesnt change pre-determinism.

Karma? As in being reborn based on how good of a person you where? thats the dumbest thing ever, like why is a cockroach worse than a cow? what is the criteria here? who set the criteria?

>Yes as in not known
No as in debunked. Determinism is over.

I think people need to quit mixing up some ethereal force of poetic justice/the fact that actions have consequences with the sum total of every deed you've done over your life/lives.

No it still matters. Just not when you have to get results. Moving towards gives diminishing returns. Does it matter at that point if we get results but not 100%. No it still tells us the same. Doesnt matter as much at that point. Matters but not much.