this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
77 points (81.3% liked)

Asklemmy

43138 readers
1625 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Sure that's a valid defintion, albeit a super specific one and it directly exclude all (or almost all) known forms of religion on Earth.

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Run command: "Fiat Lux"

Warning: it will take 7 days to complete operation. Continue?

"This had better be good."

"Fuck it, I'm tired of waiting, I'll come back on the 8th day."

"Oh, this IS good."

"What are these stupid apes doing? Fine, I'll educate them myself."

Instantiate avatar: "Jesus_Nazareth"

Which part is directly excluded?

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The one where there is not only zero proof of anything of it being real, but also zero (or nearly zero) religious people actually beliving that.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

And if we were talking about whether it were real, or whether people believed it in those specific terms, you'd have a point. But since we're talking about your assertion that major earth religions are "directly excluded" by that definition of "higher beings," i still fail to see the exclusion.