• PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • theilleist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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?

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • theilleist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months 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.