The constant debate in theology isn’t a sign of richness — it’s a glaring symptom of intellectual failure. It’s a playground for midwits who mistake complexity for truth and obscurity for depth. Thousands of years of arguing about made-up metaphysical blueprints with zero resolution or consensus. No other field would survive this level of non-delivery. It’s not profound, it’s parasitic — feeding on people's fear, ego, and need for meaning without ever producing anything real. Theological "thinkers" are like children arguing over the rules of a board game that doesn’t exist, each convinced their fantasy has divine authority.

Enlightenment traditions expose this for what it is — a noise machine to keep the mind busy and the self intact. Zen, Advaita, Taoism — they don't argue, they end argument. They strip away the nonsense, the personhood, the endless word games, and point directly to what’s real and prior to thought. That’s why theology will never touch them. It’s not just inferior — it’s the opposite. One clings to delusion and makes it academic. The other kills illusion entirely. One needs followers to validate itself. The other disappears when seen.

>>24492095 (OP)
You don't even understand the topic enough to write about it without ChatGPT. Sad. Come back after you read.

>>24492095 (OP)
That's a whole of text of excuse the fact you were raised by a single mom

>>24492097
You mean like theologians have been doing for 2,000 years — reading, writing, debating, and still ending up with 50,000 denominations and zero agreement on who or what God even is? That’s the point. Theology rewards reading without understanding, arguing without resolution, and obedience without realization. It’s a cult of complexity, not a path to truth. I don’t need to read another thousand pages of invented metaphysics to know a hamster wheel when I see one. You’ve confused depth with delay.

>>24492098
And that’s a whole lot of projection from someone whose worldview collapses if a talking snake isn’t real. If you need ancient fairy tales to feel like a man, maybe look at your own daddy issues before pretending theology makes you strong. Being loud about religion doesn’t make you grounded — it just means you traded your spine for a shepherd.

>>24492103
That has zero anything to do with it. You're just trying to provoke people. Go outside.

all religions lead to the same god, its just the matter of choosing which one suits you based on culture and circumstance,

I was born catholic, so i am a catholic

>>24492109
Of course it has everything to do with it — you're not defending theology because it's true, you're clinging to it because it's the only thing giving shape to your hollow self. You threw a tantrum the moment your make-believe got poked, then pivoted to weak playground insults like “go outside” — the last refuge of someone with nothing to say. If you actually had an argument, you’d make one. But you don’t. You’re emotionally invested in a belief system that’s failed to deliver anything but division, control, and cope.

>>24492122
You’re not spiritual — you’re a walking refrigerator magnet. You post the same cherry-picked quotes from every religion like it’s some deep revelation, when really it’s just your shield against ever having to think critically. You don’t believe in anything — you just don’t want to be wrong. Pretending all religions say the same thing isn’t enlightenment, it’s intellectual cowardice. You’re clinging to that collage of contradictions because if you actually examined them, your whole identity would collapse. You didn’t find peace — you found a cop-out and wrapped your ego in it.

>>24492150
im not interested in arguing with a chatgpt, btw we all know you are using a chatgpt dude, you forgot to erase the em dashes

>>24492153
You're not spiritual, you're a human Hallmark card with brain rot. You parade your copy-paste interfaith garbage like it’s profound, but it’s just mental bubble wrap — soft, safe, and completely empty. You slap together contradictions, call it “oneness,” and think dodging real thought makes you wise. You’re not enlightened, you’re neutered. A coward hiding behind bumper sticker theology because facing reality would crack your paper-thin identity. You aren’t deep — you’re just too scared to pick a side and too stupid to realize they can’t all be right.

>>24492095 (OP)
Are you an American? Shoo-shoo, "religion vs. atheism" isn't a real issue anywhere.
There are just third world mentally deficient barbarians (Arabs, Americans, Africans, pajeets) who die and kill and live for ancient fairy tales and there are civilised people (Europeans, East Asians).

>>24492097
>>24492153
Funny how people say that right after losing an argument to one.

man who looks at thousands years of intellectual tradition: 'uh actually thats intellectual failure'
ok then let me make it real easy for you. One era. The Era of Christ. Four Gospels. All that matters is the Jesus question - who was he?
>>24492122
that 's not what the Bible teaches thoughbeit.

>>24492162
Cherry-picking one era and four ancient stories to sum up everything is not deep thinking — it’s mental bankruptcy. The “Jesus question” is the ultimate bait-and-switch: obsess over a figure who’s been debated to death for two millennia, while dodging any real inquiry into what actually matters — direct experience, reality beyond myth. If this was all so clear-cut, why are you still stuck arguing about who he was instead of living like it? Theology isn’t about truth, it’s about clinging to fairy tales because facing reality takes actual guts — something clearly missing here.

>>24492160
oh yeah man, we totally lost to the computer who is trained to spew bitter faggotry like a fedora tipping atheist

What's funny is that even LLMs acknowledge that the supernatural is real. How do you make sense of that, OP, without recourse to God? Or some similar deity?

>>24492102
>>24492103
It's funny that you could replace theological words with philosophy and end up with the same meaning. ChatGPT has such vacuous and inane criticisms. A real criticism of various theological doctrines is possible, although your LLM did not manage to create any.

One could imagine that in the future, "learning" and debate would consist of these little GPT-phorisms
>Odysseus wasn't a hero — he was a liar masquerading as a thinker. He wasn't some lost man — he was a misogynist returning to claim his property.
>You say he was a liar masquerading as a thinker? That's funny when you're a rhetorician masquerading as a philospher. Odysseus wasn't a liar — he was a pragmatist. He wasn't just a misogynist — he was a tragic man seeking his home.
>A tragic man seeking his home? You ignore the vast tapestry and rich cultural narratives to suit your narrow understanding of mythology — that's not understanding, it's dogma masquerading as depth.
And so on. In a sense, it will be a bit like dogfighting or—a bit more accurately, I would say—Pokémon. People won't so much as engage in the fight itself, but pick their champion fighters, like Claude, or Copilot, or whatever is available right now, and cheer them on based on the sassiness of the aphorism. I guess you could argue that it isn't a significant departure from prior modes of ignorant debate, but I think this is fundamentally different—at no point ever will a single thought be required to pass through the heads of either speaker. It will unending be and trade of empty rhetoric and GPT-aphorisms. Neither person will ever engage with the topic, nor will they understand why their chosen AI says the things that it does. They will accept it as factual because the great AI wrote it. One is led to remember Plato's story of Theuth in Phaedrus:
>when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Quite bleak.

>>24492095 (OP)
If there was a first mover, you're still yet to prove that this is a god, and you're still yet to prove that this is the christian God.

>>24492177
Right, because when your beliefs get shredded, the only move left is to whine that it sounds like something a "fedora atheist" would say. You didn’t lose to a computer — you lost to your own inability to defend your faith without crying about tone. If all it takes to shake your worldview is blunt language and coherent arguments, maybe it wasn’t worth much to begin with.

>>24492160
Where was your argument? The entire thing was devoid of any form of argument besides empty statements like "it's bad", "it didn't produce", or "it isn't real", each one without substance or applicable to many other parts of intellectual thought. Your GPT contradicts itself here >>24492157 where your OP references this form of Oneness and the multiplicity of truth in doctrines. You aren't really saying anything, but these empty statements can make you feel like you aren't an imbecile.

Write a genuine, full criticism of theology or what have you and you'll get a serious reply. Use ChatGPT. I know you cannot write without it, and you do not understand enough to write regardless. Just have it write an essay and post it here.

>>24492122
Ok so which religion do I pick so this same god allows me to sinlessly masturbate, and why wouldn't everyone alive pick this religion?

>>24492189
If anything, the fact that AI can process the entire span of human thought — every scripture, every argument, every theological cope, every mystic ramble — and still can’t resolve the God question doesn’t prove mystery, it proves incoherence. You’ve had millennia, thousands of thinkers, oceans of blood and ink spilled, and after all that, the question still folds in on itself like bad code. It’s not deep — it’s broken. A question that generates infinite noise and zero clarity isn’t profound, it’s defective. And when even the cold, impartial synthesis of all human knowledge throws up its hands and spits out contradictions, maybe that’s not a sign to double down. Maybe that’s the clearest answer you’ll ever get.

>>24492190
You’re not deep — you’re just upset the curtain got pulled back. What you call “intellectual tradition” is mostly centuries of refined word games, and now that a machine can generate them faster and cleaner, you're panicking like a priest caught lip-syncing the liturgy. Your entire identity hinges on the mystique of slow, ornamental thinking, and the second that mystique is automated, you cry that thought itself is dying. No — what’s dying is your monopoly on sounding smart. AI didn’t cheapen discourse. It revealed how cheap it already was.

>>24492200
You’re mistaking verbosity for substance. The criticism is simple, and that’s what makes it sting: theology generates endless discourse without resolution because it’s built on unverifiable premises. Its “truths” are narrative-dependent, circular, and immune to falsification. That's not deep — it's insulated. Philosophy can collapse or evolve under pressure — theology just metastasizes. That's the difference. And the fact that you need me to churn out a thousand-word essay to validate something so basic only proves how addicted you are to performance over clarity.

You don’t want critique — you want ritual. You want ten citations, flowery hedging, and a fake posture of seriousness, because that’s how you gatekeep bad ideas. You’re not defending truth, you’re defending the right to waste time arguing over fantasy in academic language. If you actually had a response, you’d give it — instead, you’re demanding formatting. That’s not intellectualism. That’s cope.

>>24492205
>your monopoly on sounding smart.
If only you sounded smart. This post was devoid of substance as well. The point also isn't that LLMs cheapen discourse, it is that it eliminates it entirely. I am not talking to you, I am talking to a formula that is predicting what the most likely response is given some set of pre-baked parameters and your copy-pasted request. Ask your LLM to give a genuine and thoughtful refutation rather than a series of thoughtless and unsubstantiated claims.
>>24492208
Not really. If you weren't an imbecile, you would have realized that the "simple criticism" was already addressed:
>"it didn't produce",

Hinging one's beliefs on unverifiable truths is not that exceptional. It is common, for instance, to base one's systems on the premise that one can "know" reality. One might raise an exception—that most atheists do not believe anything is real but only tacitly accept it for expedience. Rather than being based on the unverifiable, all systems, such as philosophy, are rather based on nothing. There is no supremacy in either, although the latter loses the right to speak at all. (if only that he is always saying nothing, and that every statement he makes can be prefaced with: "My beliefs are meaningless, they are not good, and there is no reason to do or believe anything I say unless it is useful to you") You further assume that only what is empirically falsifiable is worthy of inquiry, when much of discourse is motivated by that which is unempirical. Theological beliefs are motivated by these unfalsiable axioms, but they evolve and adapt to the changes in theological or natural understanding like any philosophy.

Though you call it "metastasization" without qualification, theology does evolve and has very clearly evolved throughout time. The new crux of your argument is that what separates the "bad" systems from the "good" in this case is that some beliefs founded on unverifiable premises (e.g., Vedanta) evolve while another "metastasizes". The reason your LLM was inclined to say this is because of these three statements I made:
>"it's bad", "it didn't produce", or "it isn't real"
It predicted that I was about to eliminate the ethical, pragmatic, and epistemic arguments that your posts very tritely and shallowly referenced. You should beg your LLM to elaborate on what makes theology metastasize where Buddhism or some philosophies simply "evolve".

The rest of your post can be very clearly understood here:
>And the fact that you need me to churn out a thousand-word essay to validate something so basic only proves how addicted you are to performance over clarity.
Where you forget that your very particular worldview is also founded on these thousand-word performative essays, filtered down to you from reddit comments and youtube videos. Rational understanding is generally not founded on unsubstantiated, inane aphorisms delivered thoughtlessly from a corporate webpage.

>>24492208
To simplify and make your LLM response more coherent, include this tl;dr in your next message to your chat bot:

The difference between your presumed rational philosophies and theology are imagined. Both are founded on unfalsifiable premises, both self-criticize, both have evolved, both will evolve, and both yield productive results depending on one's values. Claims that one has more or less rationality, is more or less wrong, or has more or less benefit are value based and irrelevant. The evolution of various branches of Christianity to more mystical, less theistic, more symbolic and such demonstrates that it, like any philosophy, is open to change and debate, and that the older strains of belief remain extent or influential insofar as older strains of philosophy remain when new branches sprout. Where you may say that other systems invite evolution and criticism, theology invites it as much as any ethical framework, and has changed just as much, and dogmstically resists change just as much as modern ethical systems resist (e.g.,) conservative questioning of the value of equity and such.

All of your original claims are irrelevant, pointless, or false. Your AI's trite remarks failed to formulate an argument. Retry.

>>24492265
You're now conceding that theology isn’t a source of truth — just another self-referential framework clinging to symbolic drift. By flattening it into “just like philosophy,” you’re admitting it has no unique claim to insight — only to survival through reinterpretation. That’s not evolution. That’s narrative elasticity to avoid collapse.

Your relativism is the retreat. Once you can't defend theology as more than a value system, you’ve forfeited the claim that it reveals anything. If everything is “just as valid,” then nothing stands. Including your argument.

>>24492198
Man, it's a shame thomas aquinas never considered that and didn't dedicate half the summa theologica to explaining how the prime mover is god

>>24492095 (OP)

>>24492271
Not really; I am refuting your post and your entire position as completely meaningless and self-contradictory. You have not demonstrated that either is more valid than the other—and, unlike me, only you demand something empirically real
>It’s not profound, it’s parasitic — feeding on people's fear, ego, and need for meaning without ever producing anything real.
something with resolution or consensus where it does not even exist in your rational philosophy:
>Thousands of years of arguing about made-up metaphysical blueprints with zero resolution or consensus
Something that is not
>endless discourse without resolution because it’s built on unverifiable premises
like any othet philosophy, or
>"truths” [that] are narrative-dependent, circular, and immune to falsification.
Yet you provide nothing, falsify nothing, make no point, and do not even successfully declare one side more valid than another. This is more a
>glaring symptom of intellectual failure
as your beliefs feed on your ego, fear, and need for meaning without providing anything real.

Try again.

>>24492160
It's not really possible to have an argument with someone using chatgpt because they'll just prompt chatgpt to keep pushing. It's like arguing with a troll, in fact, that's exactly what it is.

>>24492300
You've now reduced your defense of theology to, “You can’t prove it’s worse than anything else.” That’s not a refutation — that’s surrender. You’re not making a case for theology; you’re just insisting I can’t disprove it absolutely, as if “not falsified” equals “intellectually valid.” By that standard, flat earth theory’s still in the ring too.

What you call a contradiction is actually clarity: I’m pointing out that theology doesn’t produce insight, resolution, or progress because it’s built to preserve ambiguity, not resolve it. Your response? Admit that no system does — a relativist escape hatch. You’ve abandoned truth entirely just to protect your belief from criticism. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s a retreat behind fog.

You’ve abandoned any claim that theology reveals truth, and now you’re just clawing at symmetry: “Well, nothing else produces truth either!” That’s not clever — it’s a concession. You're not rebutting me, you're just dragging everything down to theology's level to hide the collapse.

You accuse me of ego, yet you're the one raging to preserve a system that can't stand on its own unless every other framework is declared equally useless. That’s the last refuge of someone who’s lost the thread: if it can’t win, it demands the whole board get flipped.

>>24492306
If your argument can’t survive unless the other person types slowly and thinks less clearly, that’s not a debate — it’s a crutch. Calling it “trolling” when your points get steamrolled isn’t clever, it’s just admitting you’re outmatched and need the rules changed to keep up. The tool doesn’t matter — the weakness it exposed does.

>>24492306
Yes. When their LLM is wrong or hallucinates, they will often not even know it's happening. Here is one example: https://desuarchive.org/r9k/thread/81417906/#q81419335
A ChatGPT user's LLM began hallucinating that the Y-Chromosomal Adam meant that there was a time when humans did not have a Y-Chromosome. He continued arguing because he wasn't really engaging or understanding what was going on, just using each prompt as if it were gospel. They are unthinking, ignorant zealots.

>>24492310
AI isn’t some infallible oracle — it’s a mirror reflecting human knowledge, biases, and errors. When someone leans on AI to argue, the quality of the debate depends entirely on their own input and understanding. Hallucinations or mistakes don’t prove AI is useless; they reveal that humans are still responsible for thinking critically and knowing what to trust. If the tool stumbles, it’s because the user isn’t wielding it wisely. Blaming AI for poor arguments is just a dodge from facing the fact that the real challenge is in human intellect — which AI only amplifies, for better or worse.

If someone misuses a tool, it doesn’t invalidate the tool — it exposes their limitations. But what’s got you really seething isn’t hallucinations; it’s the loss of your monopoly on sounding informed. You’re not scared of people being wrong — you’re scared of people no longer needing you to feel like they can think. That’s why you focus on the medium instead of the message. Every time an LLM dismantles a stale argument, you retreat to anecdotes like this and pretend it proves all critique is invalid. It doesn’t. It just proves you’re not used to being challenged by people who now have the tools to do it better and faster than you ever could.

>>24492095 (OP)

The core essence of your post shows a misunderstanding of the topic. You're correct in identifying that there's no resolution or consensus in theology, but should perhaps consider that that is the point.

Theology, ultimately, is the description evaluation and articulation of faith, capturing its wisdom, contradictions, logical conclusions et al. Faith, however, is something that cannot have any resolutions, as it's a living, changing thing. Theology, like sociology and to a lesser degree psychology, does not exist in solutions, only ever-changing descriptions. I suppose you can (and you are) spend your time arguing against faith itself, but given that it's persisted after centuries of atheist arguments and rebuttals, (and longer, if you could consider that atheism was more commonplace than one might think in classical civilizations) I'm not so sure it's all that easy a thing to dismiss

>>24492307
Again, this is not the point. I believe you have reached the context window of your LLM or you are posting replies individually without the context, otherwise it would not be so egregiously wrong. This is a perfect example of why you need to read and intellectually engage with the topic itself.
>You've now reduced your defense of theology to, “You can’t prove it’s worse than anything else.”
I have not. My arguments have remained static the entire thread, but unfortunately the context grew too large for your AI. Refuting the AI's argument is not the same as providing a positive argument for theology. I am showing you, that under your own standards, the LLM's output is entirely meaningless rhetoric. It is not a surrender but a categorical invalidation of your argument per your own standards. I am not saying that "is falsified" is equal to "intellectually valid", again, this is your LLM veering deeper and deeper into hallucination.

An example of how you are failing is here:
>I’m pointing out that theology doesn’t produce insight, resolution, or progress because it’s built to preserve ambiguity,
Theology quite literally does. Your LLM is contradicting itself. I am not merely asking your LLM to falsify theology: I am asking for any form of substance at all.

How does "Vedanta" or "Zen" pursue truth? What is that empirical truth? Theology provides insight, "resolution," and progress in the exact same ways, strictly under your LLM's definition, and strictly in line with the philosophies your LLM mentioned. As you want your AI to declare one is more valid than the other, it must create a substantial reason.

You do not understand the topic, and as your LLM's context becomes more and more cluttered, it also fails to predict the next tokens in its reply.

>>24492316
>quality of the debate depends entirely on their own input and understanding.
>the user isn’t wielding it wisely.
It is evident that yours is sorely lacking as well. Just as he, you greatly overestimate your extremely low level of intelligence and knowledge. When you are as ignorant as you are, it's very difficult to dig yourself out, and reading from your superiors or religious texts like ChatGPT is a good way to avoid learning at all.
>real challenge is in human intellect — which AI only amplifies, for better or worse.
Yes, quite the amplification in your case.

The AI also fails to understand that I wasn't criticizing AI itself, but a specific case: when it is wrong or nonsense, as in your case, users like you fail to realize because, ultimately, you do not have enough understanding to determine the validity of what the LLM outputs. You are the human error.

Again, just as he, you will never be able to understand that everything you are posting is a misunderstanding spawned from your own ineptitude, wrong, or meaningless. No thought will ever pass through your head. No rationality exists in you. Here, just as with any inept ChatGPT user, you are soundly refuted and can just receive another prompt to continue.

Instead, try inputting the conversation and ask it for a genuine opinion on whose points are stronger and more valid. See if your God considers you to be in the right; I give you my guarantee that it will tell you your arguments fail.

>>24492364
You’re right to say theology reflects faith’s contradictions and shifts, but that’s exactly the problem — it’s a moving target precisely to avoid being pinned down or falsified. Unlike sciences or philosophies that aim for clarity or useful models, theology thrives in ambiguity and circular reasoning. It’s not that faith “can’t have resolutions” — it’s designed not to, so it can endlessly persist without accountability.

Theology hasn’t survived because it’s true or wise — it’s survived because it was backed by the power of the state, enforcing belief through force and social control. Its grip has been slipping ever since information became widely available and people stopped blindly accepting whatever authority handed them. It’s a crutch for those terrified of reality, relying on dogma rather than evidence or reason.

Faith that needs constant defense is just doubt begging for permission to exist. True certainty doesn’t waste time begging or weaseling. Theology’s contradictions aren’t a sign of complexity — they’re proof of a failing system desperately patching holes to avoid collapse. It clings to power, not truth, and that’s why it’s dying.

>>24492378
>it’s a moving target precisely to avoid being pinned down or falsified.
That's only a rationalization of it but not a meaningful understanding of the system itself.
>It’s not that faith “can’t have resolutions” — it’s designed not to, so it can endlessly persist without accountability.
What about
>Zen, Advaita, Taoism — they don't argue, they end argument.
This is just you holding one system to a different standard because of an irrational cultural tendency.

>Theology hasn’t survived because it’s true or wise — it’s survived because it was backed by the power of the state, enforcing belief through force and social control.
This is the human error again? Many religions have survived or grown to have cultural dominance in spite of lacking a state or institutional power. This is factually incorrect.
>Its grip has been slipping ever since information became widely available and people stopped blindly accepting whatever authority handed them.
This is conjecture.
>Faith that needs constant defense is just doubt begging for permission to exist.
Meaningless aphorism.
>True certainty doesn’t waste time begging or weaseling.
Where is, and what is this true certainty?
>Theology’s contradictions aren’t a sign of complexity — they’re proof of a failing system desperately patching holes to avoid collapse. It clings to power, not truth, and that’s why it’s dying.
Again, pointless conjecture.

You are looking more and more idiotic.

>>24492095 (OP)
For a final post, I want to offer you genuine help, OP. I will do so in an inflammatory way, as you require it. Read the post with the intent of bettering yourself.

Here you begged your LLM to argue against someone who was agreeing with you, in fact in a much more rational way, by contradicting your OP:
>>24492122
>>24492150
>you’re a walking refrigerator magnet. You post the same cherry-picked quotes from every religion like it’s some deep revelation, when really it’s just your shield against ever having to think critically. You don’t believe in anything — you just don’t want to be wrong.
>You're not spiritual, you're a human Hallmark card with brain rot. You parade your copy-paste interfaith garbage like it’s profound, but it’s just mental bubble wrap — soft, safe, and completely empty. You slap together contradictions, call it “oneness,” and think dodging real thought makes you wise.
>...
>You aren’t deep — you’re just too scared to pick a side and too stupid to realize they can’t all be right.
He disengages immediately because he recognizes that you are an imbecile whose LLM accidentally spoke of the very user copy-pasting its replies.
You are the refrigerator magnet using quotes from an LLM to shield yourself from ever thinking critically. You don't believe anything — you just don't want to be wrong. You're an actual, unironic human Hallmark card with brain rot. You parade your literal copy-paste garbage like it's profound, but it's just mental bubble wrap — soft, safe, and completely empty. You have literally slapped together contradictions, called it "oneness" (Vedanta, Zen, Taoism) and think dodging real thought makes you wise. You aren't deep. You're just too scared to pick and side and too stupid to realize you're wrong.

You will copy-paste again, of course, parading your mental bubble-wrap like it's profound, but it will again be completely empty; In your case, full of factually incorrect statements, self-contradiction, meaningless aphorisms, and all to help you avoid any form of real thought. You misuse AI in the exact way the AI instructed you that people misuse it: >>24492316 and like any common imbecile are unable to see it.

This is for your own benefit, not to win an argument—you need to engage with topics rationally instead of outsourcing all forms of intellect to a fallible tool that you grossly misuse and are too ignorant to understand. If it is possible for you to ever get better and become rational, this is not how it will occur. You need to quit leaning on GPT like this, especially not when the evidence that it is giving you grossly incorrect and contradictory information is clearly presented. You must learn to rationally engage and formulate your own arguments.

If it is possible for you to ever stop being an imbecile, you need to begin by admitting you were wrong, and that you must learn from the instances where you are soundly proven wrong, and thereby become right.

>>24492148
No, i actually had direct experience. You wouldn't know anything about that because you only care about what's immediately sensible. Read William James.

>>24492158
>Americans
No one said anything about Americans, Liam. Make you get a license for your butter knives so you can make toast for breakfast tomorrow.

>>24492201
Because not everyone watches the same kind of gay porn you do.

why are you niggers arguing with a retard posting through AI, this board truly has gone to shit

OP = Raped

>>24492095 (OP)
>Enlightenment traditions expose this for what it is
Damn it I thought this was going to be another Kant thread.

>>24493424
dumb pajeet

>>24493671
>The data revealed that India was the largest user of ChatGPT, with 45 percent of respondents saying that they used the artificial intelligence service.

>Morocco was second on the list, with 38 percent of respondents giving the same answer. The United Arab Emirates ranked third, with 34 percent.

>>24494570
guess that makes you a chink?

>>24494587
I'd say using AI excessively and poorly reflects being a "dumb pajeet", yes.

>>24494589
are you going to stop breathing oxygen because niggers breathe it too?

>>24494607
If I were breathing it like a drooling retard, certainly. It's no surprise that someone with your reading comprehension failed to utilize ChatGPT.
However, entertaining your attempt at a refutation, since we are English speaking, the two countries with the largest English speaking populations are the U.S.A and India.
>USA: 299,270,000
>India: 228,539,090
For China, that number is
>"10,000,000"
A separate number is "300,000,000", but this is only for "learners", not those that have conversational capability. This means that there is a near equal chance for you or I to be American or Indian (and Chinese if I use the highest possible number that the data allows, including every kindergartener that learns to say "Hey me see you"). Now let's apply the ChatGPT usage rates:
>USA: 299,270,000 * 0.23 = 68,832,100
>India: 228,539,090 * 0.45 = 102,842,590.5
>China: 300,000,000 * 0.18 = 54,000,000
That means statistically it is most likely for an English speaker on the internet using ChatGPT like this to be Indian, based on pure numbers. However, the only thing that definitively indicates you're a pajeet are your low IQ, fluency, knowledge, and skill. Want more statistics or have I driven this point far enough?

Avoid speaking at all if you're less intelligent than a GPT model.

>>24494652
Lmao imagine writing this much cope

>>24494656
Don't worry, I know you can't read without ChatGPT. A wise philosopher once said,
>>24492148
>— the last refuge of someone with nothing to say. If you actually had an argument, you’d make one.

>>24492199
You can convince ChatGPT to say anything, including the opposite of what you got it to say in OP. LLMs are based on predictive text, not actual logic and reasoning. Absolute brainlet.

>>24494758
>you used words, bro
congrats, you discovered that words are just words. now try actually saying something with them instead of crying because they hurt your feelings

>>24494784
>look at this thread
>op gets raped
>op gets raped again
i don't think the problem is hurt feelings, i think its op and ai users are fucking retard lmao

>>24494806
if that was true you wouldn’t be seething this hard and replying like a triggered chimp. can’t hide the salt, keep it coming

>>24494816
I just think the thread is entertaining, that's what posting on an imageboard is for. If you wanna go again then you can, but here's another quote from my favorite intellectual:
>"You threw a tantrum the moment your make-believe got poked, then pivoted to weak playground insults" >>24492148
Anyway, I thought you were purely trolling for the KEKs halfway through but it's surprising that you were unironically retarded. I don't mean that in an offensive way, just purely descriptive.

>>24494823
keep flapping, it only proves how owned you are

>>24494825
Those kinds of playground replies are really only for making you feel better about yourself after humiliation. It's okay, you don't have to be so upset. It's an anonymous imageboard. You'll wake up tomorrow, have a coffee, and forget this ever happened. Since this is the /lit/ board, it would be nice if you took the moment to learn and improve so that in the future you do better and are more knowledgeable, but I know (realistically) the majority of people like you don't have any potential. Hopefully you do better. If it makes you feel less stressed out, I'll go ahead and say I concede, you can take a nap, relax, and wake up recharged for if you want to either go again or remain quiet.

>>24494829
these desperate condescending speeches after you get wrecked are just another kind of cope, the kind you dress up to look wise so you don’t have to admit you flopped. if you weren’t thoroughly humiliated, you wouldn’t be here doing emotional cleanup duty in a dead thread. nobody buys the fake serenity, priest. just take the L and log off with some dignity. or keep spinning the loss, it only gets funnier

>>24494832
>if you weren’t thoroughly humiliated, you wouldn’t be here doing emotional cleanup duty in a dead thread.
Your GPT model is talking about you again.
Tomorrow, if you still have any confidence in yourself or ChatGPT, you can feed it this thread and have it formulate a list of my flops and how I got humiliated (or do it yourself if you feel confident enough), I'd be interested in reading it from your perspective. If you're still upset and stressed then you can tap out though and avoid it; Remember thst your identity isn't tied to getting BTFO'd in one clumsy thread. Good luck OP.

>>24494845
winners don’t loiter. you’re still here because you lost and can’t cope.

>>24494848
I already said I conceded here >>24494829 so you can restart consensually from these posts if you feel confident tomorrow:
>>24492370
>>24492377
>>24492422
If I can't cope, that's mostly up for you to decide whenever you feel like it. It gives you the opportunity to let it go or, if you want, try again to humiliate me, without any harm to your ego.

>>24494855
you already got humiliated. i'm not rerunning your L on request. grow up, admit you got owned, and crawl off.

>>24493440
No Kant here

>>24493156
nta, but generally, when someone is talking up Europeans on the internet, it's highly unlikely to be brit

>>24492158
What makes ancient fairy tales better than modern ones?

>>24492158
What makes modern fairy tales better than ancient ones?*