411–420 of 875 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s reprehensible, but also refreshingly open-minded. It shows an awareness that other religions deserve an equal footing to his own. I prefer this over the nuts who decry Sharia law while wanting to implement a Christian equivalent.
Did not expect to read on HN that thinking it is good to kill people for a caricature is "refreshingly open-minded"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was, but John Paul II was traditionally conservative. I think Francis resonated with more people–Christian or not–because he emphasized compassion, humility, and social justice. He spoke more openly about issues like poverty, climate change, and inclusion–his encyclical LAUDATO SI’ is a great read–, and he often used language and gestures that the "common man" could relate to. Perhaps the way he dressed so simply–…
I think it's interesting that PJII was very popular with Catholics and possibly less so with non-Christian. Despite or because being more conservative? He was also a very good man and humble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * As Pope Francis observes, “the very use of the word ‘intelligence’” in connection with AI “can prove misleading” Yes, LLMs are more about knowledge than intelligence. AK rather than AI.
Interesting, I would consider knowledge to be something innately human in a way that solving problems isn't. Though intelligence is possibly even less well defined than knowledge, so it's hard to tell.
I believe intelligence goes beyond that: knowing that such a system is a solution to an observed problem, architecting said system, using the output to solve a problem, analyzing the results, and deciding where to deploy additional systems.
I think both examples above can be done by AI (if not now, then soon)—but only after being prompted carefully by a human. However, a generalized AI that can do all of the above for any problem in the known universe is likely very far off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bible only has sparse and often contradictory references to hell - so it's very difficult to state "what the Bible says about hell" as if there's a unified picture laid out.
I've heard descriptions of hell of everything from the classic "fire and torture" we all know, to it being a total and complete detachment from god (in a disappointed and kicked out of the house by your parents kind of way). It's similar to descriptions of Satin. Everything from the horns and pitchfork all the way down to a "beautiful fallen angel" that he technically was explained to be in the bible. I've always jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Illustrating perfectly how wide this conversation really is, as we don't even have consensus about what "knowledge" means :)
We do! https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/knowledg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bible has very little to say about hell in general.
Gonna disagree with you there. https://www.openbible.info/topics/hell
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many Catholics I know were absolutely shaken by this Pope, and were absolutely not supporters of the man. They thought he was too liberal and too modern.
[flagged]
No, the Pope isn't infallible by definition. Catholics believe he is capable of making infallible statements, but it isn't a 24/7 eats breakfast infallibly superpower and not every statement is infallible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed; and when the Second Vatican Council decided Mass should be said in the vernacular, the obligation of the Church was to follow. Instead, the conservatives of the church ('conservative' here means those that emphasize adhering to tradition and are adverse to change) created a rift by eschewing this change and even heightening the importance of the Latin Mass, creating the impression that a mass spoken in the lo…
> the Second Vatican Council decided Mass should be said in the vernacular It didn't actually. See Sacrosanctum Concilium : https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_coun... Vatican II opened the way for use of vernacular in the Mass while also directing "use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". In practice, after the overhaul of the Latin rites was completed and promulgated (pu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> after all even a firm atheist can't be absolutely sure there is no genuine God Why so? There is no reason for one to exist so not having one is the obvious case. We could of course assume anything, that we are av stylization, that the world is a large ice cream, that what we see is not the reality, whatever If we go for that, sure, we cannot be sure of anything. But we then must also believe that we may live in a l…
>There is no reason for one to exist so not having one is the obvious case. It's a usable supposition, sure, and I agree that being asked to prove a negative is silly, but you can't actually be sure that one doesn't exist. It's not the obvious case at all, it's not even all that obvious as a supposition. What's more, superficially at least, it makes more sense to believe in a supreme, essentially divine creator than…
Why, they are the same to me. None is more probable because none needs to be.
We can explain some things (until we cannot, and then we look for another model). Some we cannot explain because we do not yet have the appropriate knowledge. Someday we will, or we won't.
The difference between me and someone who believes in one or more deities I that I can say "we don't know because we are not good enough yet". They need to say "this is driven by god" (for reasons I cannot explain)