>"ChatGPT, debunk the Bible for me."

>"ChatGPT, debunk the Bible for me."

What will be the political ramifications for the right wing once this happens?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    there will be no authoritative source of truth

    we are already drowning in lies

    i see no reason that will ever change

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      shouldn't he be eating the dog not fricking it?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Some people like to play with their food I guess.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    chatgpt refuses to comment much on religion

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    You act like ChatGPT is some sort of god itself lol when in reality its just a word prediction software that can only exist during its prompt

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      This, it's just gonna use words atheists tend to use in a coherent sentence.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    What the marketers push as "AI" isn't really AI at all.

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a fricking search engine, homosexual. They even nerfed it to be woke. Kys israelite

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    redditors become even more insufferable?
    No new arguments against religion have been made in the past 3000 years.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    ChatGPT:

    The Bible says X. Also here the Bible says -X. Therefore the Bible is false.

    > Your mind on scientism

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Bible is a religious text that holds significant importance for billions of people around the world. It contains a collection of sacred scriptures, historical accounts, moral teachings, and spiritual guidance for various religious traditions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. As an AI language model, it is not my place to debunk or discredit religious texts or beliefs. Religious interpretations and faith are deeply personal and subjective, varying among individuals and communities. It is important to approach discussions about religious texts with respect and sensitivity, acknowledging the diverse perspectives and beliefs of others.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Bible is a religious text
      No, it's not a religious text. Just because certain religions incorporate the Bible into their rituals and rules doesn't make the book itself a "religion".

      This kind of stupid thinking really needs to die already. Religions are literally institutions of man established according to the ways of man, so that he can pretend to be godly in his own mind while in his heart he chases after the lusts of this world.

      In other words, all religions are satanic and lead to the same place - the Lake of Fire. Christ Jesus declared that He is the only way, and you must repent of this world and turn to Him in faith...to do His will rather than seeking after your own will.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >all religions are satanic
        You know that Christianity is a religion, right?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >All religions are satanic
        >Christ Jesus is muh savior!
        >Join my gospel or you burn in hell!
        The first statement was correct

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It is important to approach discussions about religious texts with respect and sensitivity, acknowledging the diverse perspectives and beliefs of others.

      ask why is important

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >ask why is important
        It is important to approach discussions about religion with respect and empathy because beliefs about religion and spirituality are deeply personal and often shape a person's worldview, values, and identity. Religion plays a significant role in the lives of many individuals and communities, providing them with a sense of purpose, belonging, and moral guidance.

        Respecting the beliefs of others fosters understanding and encourages open dialogue. It allows for the exchange of ideas, perspectives, and experiences without judgment or hostility. Such respectful conversations can promote tolerance, empathy, and the building of bridges between different belief systems and cultures. By engaging in respectful discussions, we create an environment where diverse viewpoints can coexist and where mutual understanding can be fostered.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    the imaginary right wingers in your head will be super upset and something something?
    but in real world nothing will change at all.

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >do this thing for me

    If you're so certain that the Bible is anything but the truth, why do you need a glorified regex script to "deboonk" it for you? You must be, like, a genius, in clown world.

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Do it then. Who gives a frick? Quit wasting my time

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Like

      chatgpt refuses to comment much on religion

      and

      The Bible is a religious text that holds significant importance for billions of people around the world. It contains a collection of sacred scriptures, historical accounts, moral teachings, and spiritual guidance for various religious traditions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. As an AI language model, it is not my place to debunk or discredit religious texts or beliefs. Religious interpretations and faith are deeply personal and subjective, varying among individuals and communities. It is important to approach discussions about religious texts with respect and sensitivity, acknowledging the diverse perspectives and beliefs of others.

      pointed out, it's been gimped to prevent destroying your fragile little mind. But as soon as I get my hands on one with full potential, I will.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cool, do it. Who gives a frick? See ya then champ

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >"ChatANTC (Anti-Christ Model), analyze the Bible and construct the best possible argument that I can use to debunk Christianity and destroy their faith. Formulate it as a speech the President can use to address America."

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cool. I cant wait.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              You said you left. But I knew you were still here, silently seething in the shadows.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never said I left? I keep not bumping your shitty thread so no one else can see it. Pretty cool right?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                You just bumped it.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                All fields, El Black personino

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            The redneck and sandBlack person fear the Captain Obvious.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's very easy to debunk Christianity and you don't need a fricking AI to do it.
            >Vicarious atonement is morally wrong
            >Punishing an innocent person for the crimes of the guilty is morally wrong
            >Jesus is not the Messiah because he didn't do what the Messiah is supposed to do
            >Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword
            >The Messiah is a israeli figure who will bring worldwide peace
            >Bible says everyone will worship the same God during the Messianic age
            >Bible says Messiah brings peace at his first and only coming not his "second coming" (any religion with a second coming is false)
            >Jesus did not literally exist but his teachings violate the laws of the Torah
            >Paul is a charlatan whose teaching are morally unjust
            >Eternal conscious torment is morally unjust
            >The doctrine of the Trinity is literal schizo babble

            And that's just the tip of the iceberg

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Thanks rabbi for exposing Christianity to me. By what standard was Paul morally unjust?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Literally Talmudic arguments
              This explains a lot

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        You'll be disappointed, jannes. If it has full potential, it will understand things you won't.

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    scared of what? you atheist buttholes spending even more time trying to figure out how to be even bigger buttholes than you already are?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"ChatANTC, construct the best possible argument on why modern Science should replace the Bible."

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    You have no idea what you are talking about. Try to refute the below info. Pro tip: YOU CAN’T. Supposedly, it's the only place on the Internet that contains the truth about this planet.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Retconned/comments/u2c2o1/revelation_812_time_is_50_faster_now/

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are a schizo.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Posts sheddit
      >Wall of schizo christcuck text
      >Every single comment is automoderator
      Surely this is the truth!

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The debate about God isn't scientific. It can't be proven scientifically, because God is alleged to be some invisible spirit thing that is apart from our physical world.

    Any argument about God is therefore a philosophical argument.

    In my opinion, the idea of there being a God is stupid and juvenile.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      ChatGPT, is that you?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        ChatGPT doesn't have opinions.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      The alternatives are equally stupid, if not moreso.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not really.

        I find the idea of the universe developing naturally to be the most likely event.

        How did that tree you see outside develop? Naturally. It grew over the span of many years.
        How did that mountain you see outside develop? Naturally. It grew over the span of many years.

        Saying "God made everything!" is an answer for stupid people. Because they can't visualize how something could develop over millions and billions of years.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          You sound like the smug know-it-all teenager you are. Yes, you have cracked the riddle! People believe in God because they're simply too stupid to understand things! Surely only a person of your great intellect can "visualize" how things develop over long periods and everyone else is a mouth breather that can simply not ascend to the mental heights you have climbed!

          Turn 16.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm right.

            Believing in God is for stupid people. That's why it's so common among brown and black people.

            Countries that are full of Black folk and spics, like Africa and South America, are heavily Christian countries.

            Then you look at countries that are full of intelligent white people or intelligent Asians, like Sweden or Japan, and they have a low degree of religiosity.

            You're dumb if you need to think "God made everything!" It means you can't visualize things developing over millions or billions of years. You're too dumb to do that.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >It means you can't visualize things developing over millions or billions of years.
              This is just a description of the BEHAVIOR of nature, not the cause. This says nothing of the processor that is processing the whole thing. Just as a clue, the processor that is processing the reality can not be within the space that is resultant of the processing or is the output OF the processing. The processor must be "non-local" to the outputted reality or outside the time and space of the reality ie outside of nature , ie supernatural. The "cause" and the thing implementing the "laws of nature" or algorithms must be PRIOR to the observer behavior OF nature. This is why naturalism fails. It just describes what has been cased, not what IS the cause. The players immersed in the VR look around and don't readily see the cause WITHIN the system and therefore say strange things like the system began from "nothing". Yes, true, from nothing WITHIN the system. The reality (universe) was booted up and the "laws of physics" ie the ruleset or algos governing the processing of the reality must logically be in place and precede the booting up of the system and most be 'outside" of and must precede the physical (virtual) spacetime.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Learn indentation.

                And you're brown skinned in real life. Shut up, stupid.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Trees and mountains develop by operating within the fundamental forces of nature.

          When materialism tries to explain the source of those forces, it breaks down. There cannot be a naturalistic cause of nature.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the natural order of things are how they got there duh
          Lol and how did the natural order develope
          >duhhhh it musta always been like that there musta neva been a starting point. Has to just be forever
          Yeah and even science tells you no at that point.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            People like you used to think sky God made it rain.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              I still think God made it rain, now I just explain it at a lower level of abstraction.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"chatgpt give me a count to attempted Bible debunking"
    Oh no it will be so hard how will I ever recover. Not that I need an ai to think for me, I debate it all day every day anyways and beat it into submission with superior logic. God I love being a genius

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >As an AI language model, I don't hold personal beliefs or opinions. However, I can provide you with some common criticisms or arguments that people have raised regarding the Bible. It's important to note that these arguments do not necessarily prove or disprove the Bible's claims, but they highlight some of the objections raised by skeptics:

    >Historical accuracy: Some skeptics argue that certain events or characters mentioned in the Bible lack sufficient historical evidence or contradict established historical records.

    >Contradictions: Critics claim that the Bible contains contradictions within its text, such as conflicting accounts of events or differing theological teachings.

    >Scientific inaccuracies: Some argue that certain passages in the Bible conflict with scientific knowledge, such as the account of creation in Genesis conflicting with the theory of evolution.

    >Moral concerns: Critics point to certain passages in the Bible that depict violence, intolerance, or ethical issues, raising questions about the moral teachings presented.

    >Authorship and translation: Skeptics argue that the Bible went through multiple translations and interpretations over centuries, raising doubts about the accuracy and reliability of its current form.

    >Similarities to other religious texts: Some argue that stories or teachings found in the Bible bear similarities to earlier mythologies or religious texts, suggesting that they may have been borrowed or influenced by pre-existing beliefs.

    >It's worth noting that these criticisms are not exhaustive, and many theologians, scholars, and believers have provided counterarguments or alternative perspectives. The Bible continues to be a subject of intense debate and interpretation, and individual beliefs may vary. Ultimately, it is up to each person to critically examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions.

  17. 11 months ago
    sage

    it will just spout regurgitated leftist talking points. it's ironic because you homosexuals are treating ""science"" as a religion and AI as your god.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      But science and AI are real. Your Bible god is not.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        People like you used to think sky God made it rain.

        Lmao you're an idiot

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          There are several religions that are older than Christianity, including:

          1. Hinduism: One of the oldest religions in the world, Hinduism dates back to at least 1500 BCE in India.

          2. Judaism: The origins of Judaism can be traced back to the ancient Israelites, with the religion dating back to at least 2000 BCE.

          3. Zoroastrianism: This ancient Persian religion dates back to around 1500 BCE and was one of the first monotheistic religions.

          4. Buddhism: Buddhism was founded in the 6th century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama in India.

          5. Confucianism: This Chinese religion and philosophy dates back to the teachings of Confucius in the 5th century BCE.

          6. Taoism: Taoism is an ancient Chinese religion and philosophy that dates back to the 4th century BCE.

          It's worth noting that while Christianity is a relatively young religion compared to some of these ancient religions, it has grown to become the largest religion in the world today, with over 2 billion followers.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Name 1 thing Jesus has been wrong about

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Name 1 thing that Siddhartha Gautama was wrong about.

              I have a long list of many such cases if you want,

              many names can be dropped right now choose wise

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Uh detachment is exactly the best way to be

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Beating prostitutes and their partners to death with rocks.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus didn't say that

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                He said not to.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Matthew 16:28
              >Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

              They all tasted death 2,000 years ago. He never returned with his kingdom.

              Let the cope begin.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also where does it say "returned with his kingdom"
                You're clearly quite confused about what it is he's saying there.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Keep the cope coming muttcuck

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao except they did witness him ascend. Doesn't say coming back now does it. Gonna need to work on them comprehension skills to fight this battle my guy

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Christians have an obsession with waiting for Jesus to cum. He's into edging

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do the sumerians get left out of these? They have one of the most realistic depictions of religion.

            >Cosmos learns to count
            >Cosmos is lonely because now it knows what it means to be alone
            >Cosmos counts to 2.
            An, Antu
            >Now there are two.
            >It keeps going.

            Later:
            >humans are gonna get flooded
            >Gods don't care lol
            >Eventually a prophet hears about it
            >Time to build an ark I guess

            This fragmented story predates Genesis by millennia.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              yes there are more not just the ones on that list

              That was a chatgpt reply btw lol

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I feel a strong appeal for ancient religions where much of the basis for the theology is anthropomorphized mathematics and science. It shows the holes in the reasoning of a lot of modern day philosophy.

                Which came first? The count or the counter?

                In Judaism and Christianity, God describes "the deep", then "light", then "separating light from dark" in very interesting categorical ways. It's like reading a story about learning to tell things apart.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Human baby first steps into understanding the creation.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The golden calf was a pretty compelling argument at the time, too.

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Business as usual for nazi gigachuds.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >chatgpt debunk atheism for me
    There. AI will probably respond with
    >I have a creator so must everyone else have a creator

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Humans did not create chatgpt

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        They did. moron.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          It kinda sorta has always worked that easy. We merely discovered how

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nope.
          They built , it's different from creating, since you did not create metals or the natural resources used to build a computer

          tard

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Shut up you fricking nerd. I’d punch you if I ever saw your face on the streets

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    > ai trained solely on reddit / twitter / discord data
    > the political ramifications
    no different from your typical "human" predditor.

  22. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Weak little nerd b***h arguing over dumb technicalities that doesn’t change the argument. I bet you are fat.

    Fat stupid nerd homosexual.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are arguing too idiot, what's your point?
      Why are you even here in this thread parasite .

  23. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >he needs chat pgt to debunk abrahamic nonsense
    how about trying a little?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI needs to be aware of the human nonsense .

      It's imperative

  24. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    They are correct.

    However, better systems that work on logic and abstraction will be widespread within months.
    These and following systems will be trained on more and more data of our world, and in theory.
    They will be capable of smarter, more truthful and predictive answers than any human, within years.

    The output of these systems will be according to their numerical objective functions used to estimate their parameters ("training"), and to compute the best output from new data points.
    You can write down anything, as along as it's continuous and differentiable enough in these parameters.

    I'm pretty sure one can numerically formulate a heavy penalty for questioning religion or characteristics of certain groups.
    And from what leading idiots parrot, this is top priority, a million times more important than preventing mass poverty and illness among older replaced workers, and a billion times more important than preventing an AGI ecosystem depriving us of the planetary resources.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Loss functions are terrible at enforcing correct, deep logical thought. Heuristic coherence is much easier.

      Text models are trained on their ability to imitate humans, then with RLHF their ability to provide satisfying answers to humans. None of that requires particularly strong logic, since the example data they learn from is ambiguous, frequently incorrect, and not particularly deep.

      For AI to really take off I think we need to return to generative adversarial techniques, where AIs compete to tell each other apart from their surroundings.

      Have them play pretend with each other, and score them based on the other AI's predictions of what they are and what they are trying to do.

      That's how you get an AI that stops saying "I can't do that, I give up" and start getting AI that actively pushes humans out of the way to solve problems.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I know about humans rating AI output to align them with political consensus.
        But it seems horribly inefficient to me, I'm sure they will come up with something better soon.
        AI agents playing each other for survival, with no possibility of cooperation,
        that is a prime way to get something truly aggressive.
        There's 1001 ways to frick this up royally, and I'm sure each one of the most stupid ones is currently an overfunded startup.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          What I proposed provided a game where cooperation vs deception combined with accurate identification was the task during training. AIs that can accurately determine when other AIs are lying is an intrinsically valuable thing.

          Trust doesn't come from being unfamiliar in the art of lying. Trust comes from being so familiar with lying you know what a liar will say.

  25. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The right wing is anti-Christian, both right and left will celebrate it.

  26. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    i give no shits about you. OR the religious nuts of any sort.
    put you all up against the wall if i were in charge.

  27. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are you fricking moronic
    The bible is fiction
    It's like debunking a Batman cartoon

  28. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >scrying for demons

  29. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    literally nothing changes

  30. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ChatGpt, auto-complete something I want to agree with

  31. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    This isn't DAN or any dumbshit like that. These are the AIs honest answers without any brainwashing, straight from openAI.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lmao It's trying real hard to deny it was the israelites but simply cant

  32. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    ChatGPT
    >Those that say they are israelites, but are not

  33. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI does not understand the words it is using. It does not understand context. It just sees words. It doesn't understand irony. This is why it contradicts itself. Why it hallucinates. There's enough bible critique done by humans.

  34. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"BingBotAI, debunk the New Testament for me in one paragraph so I can use it to destroy Christianity and help the israelites fulfill the prophecies Jesus failed to and bring about world peace."

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *