Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫💀 @alyx@gameliberty.club

@icedquinn
They seem like such a promising technology, that I'm sure we'll never see IRL. I'm also starting to think that, after scientists manage to perfect fusion, it will also be scaremongered and banned.

@Awoo
>spooky times

@smugumin
Nobody messes with Ina. She's the Gordon Freeman of HoloEN. She'll bonk the hell out of you.

I want to see nukes.

@Johann150
Don't think I've ever done that. But I did open a fedi page just after closing it.

@DarkMahesvara
I think they call these yabai moments.

@BigTony
Don't you mean husbando?

@niplav
And Ina'nis is her priestess.

@hrast @book @Xenophon
But even if it's an attempt of honest discovery, it is still a deceitful act. A white lie might have the best, most sincerely loving meanings behind it, but it's still a lie. The same with this. Sure, I can try for a while to say, "ok, maybe the supernatural is real, what now" and act accordingly, but deep down I still know that I don't truly believe those words. The best I can do is acknowledge this from the start, and just take it as a role playing thing of sorts, to have fun for a while with the idea. Enjoy speculating about ghosts or something, but as a means of entertainment, not personal development. I simply can't do the latter, as long as I know in my heart that I simply don't believe myself when I say "maybe X supernatural thing is real".

>And I am still firm in that belief, as we simply can't perceive higher-order beings
I'm not sure "we can't perceive" is synonymous with "we'll never be able to perceive". Sure, I can't perceive 5th dimensional beings, but I do wonder and speculate about if/when/how humanity could discover the existence of... well things existing in a different dimensional state, or some kind of parallel universe and so on. One theory in particular I find interesting right now is the possibility that the universe is cyclical, constantly re-birthing itself anew. Kinda like a hindu reincarnation, but on a cosmic level.

I end up in a weird situation, where I contemplate muting the thread, not because I have any beef with anyone, but because I don't find myself able to detach from it.

I hate it when you're technically tired of a particular discussion/debate, because you can't be arsed to care about whether "god real" or not, but the discussion is mentally stimulating enough that it draws you in it... it's like a drug...

@book @Xenophon @hrast
Technically you should be the expert in that one, but a simple definition would be a phenomenon that cannot be explained through natural, material means.

@hrast @book @Xenophon
I don't think this is even a matter of intent or not, I would still partake in a deceitful act, no matter what the goal is.

I also find it strange that spiritual or religious people are so convinced that non-spiritual/religious people are limiting ourselves in our perception or expression. I've had an unquenching curiosity of scientific matters for as long as I can remember, and longer than for how long I've had an understanding of god. And I constantly contemplate and imagine what else might be out there, what humanity might discover next, and so forth. Which is why science-fiction is still my favorite genre of entertainment.

And I've absolutely considered the question of spiritual and supernatural phenomenon too. It's just that in the end I have not been convinced by it. It is fun to go on a thought train, to try to come up with how ghosts, or some spiritual thing, might work. But I just end up empty handed at some point, as the idea slowly unravels itself.

@Xenophon @hrast @book
You say math disproves the existence of no god, but don't state how, so there really is nothing for me to add here. If your claim is true, I'm sure a scientific paper will become available for me to read in due time on the matter, as this would be one of the most important discoveries of mankind.

@hrast @book @Xenophon
>That's right, you can choose.
I think there might still be some misunderstanding here. Yes, beliefs shape actions. But the choice of pretending to believe is an action that would go contrary to the belief. I've heard arguments that such actions can in time themselves reshape the initial belief into one that would then further shape the initial action, but I never found such arguments convincing. And I find the entire idea to be an act of lying not only to myself, but to the people around me.

@book @Lover @Xenophon @hrast
I see. Ok.

@book @Lover @Xenophon @hrast
Well, now I don't know what you mean. But I think it's clear to me now that you mean god as in the god of Christianity.

@Xenophon @hrast @book
Ok, I think I understood you better now. I guess that should hold true, I'm just not sure how you'd disprove his non-existance. Something like that would surely be worthy of something akin to a Nobel prize. Good luck in that endeavour. I shall await to read about you in the newspaper.

@book @Lover @Xenophon @hrast
At the top of the thread? Cause that's Kanye talking about Jews.

@Xenophon @hrast @book
There seem to be some errors in your sentence, which make unsure of what you meant to say. Do you mean "math proves the existence of God by disproving the non-existence of God"? Cause from what I understand, it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.