The Targets of Atheists

Question from Frank:
Why do atheists always talk about how Christians are fake, but never mention Islam as a really fake religion?

Answer by SmartLX:
Atheists have all the same reasons to deny and oppose Islam as they do Christianity, but they will naturally challenge religion in the form in which it appears in their own community.

The atheists you have the opportunity to read or listen to mostly live in countries with a Christian majority, or at least where the majority of religious people are Christian. Christianity is therefore the religion with the greatest impact on their daily lives, and the religion whose apologetic is the most prominent in the arena of debate. Therefore they most often inspired, provoked and otherwise motivated to discuss and criticise Christianity. In Muslim countries, it’s different.

There is also the fact that in many countries devout Muslims have threatened (and often succeeded, say in Bangladesh) to persecute and even kill critics of Islam. Though unfortunate, it is perfectly reasonable for people to withhold their criticisms of Islam if they believe their safety to be at risk.

The important thing to remember is that most the criticisms of Christianity apply just as well to any other faith, including Islam. The core supernatural claims at the heart of the scripture are unsupported by available evidence. Believers who gain political power in numbers invariably attempt to legislate in favour of their religion, and in particular to enforce religious morality upon non-adherents. People spend vast amounts of time, effort and money doing things which have no purpose except to please an invisible entity for an intangible reward, supposedly withheld until after death.

10 thoughts on “The Targets of Atheists”

  1. Frank – Many atheists do spend time discussing the contradictions and irrational portions of non-Christian religions. The same day your question was posted on this website LX also answered an email regarding Buddhism as it so happens. But as America is a mostly Christian country, and the countries on our continent and even in our hemisphere are mostly Christian, that is the religion that most people know, and so that gets the majority of the discussion time.

    Like most atheists, I find all religions to be silly and baseless. On some of the other websites I frequent, Islam and Judaism do get included in some of the debates. I’ve also tackled Taoism, Hinduism, and even Zoroastrianism (there are actually millions of people that still follow that ancient faith). They are all fair game in my mind.

    I know Christians feel like they are getting picked on, but that’s what happens when you are the big player in town…

  2. “People spend vast amounts of time, effort and money doing things which have no purpose except to please an invisible entity for an intangible reward, supposedly withheld until after death.”

    A perfect example of a straw man argument. If you are going to criticise Christianity, then at least target what it actually claims, and not what you think it claims! The benefits of belief in God are as much for this life as the life to come. That is indisputably the teaching of the Bible, as well as the experience of believers (at least, my experience, anyway!). And it really is astounding that you think a life of love, mercy and compassion has “no purpose” (after all, these are the actions which flow – or ought to flow – from authentic faith in God).

    As for “pleasing an invisible entity” – well, absolutely everybody does that, atheists included. It’s called one’s own consciousness, or self. My consciousness, as well as yours, is not an empirical entity. It may be expressed through physical apparatus, but it is, in itself, intangible and invisible. The only difference between atheists and theists, is that the latter believe that our consciousness (or spirit) is part of an objective reality, whereas, irrationally, atheists deny that, and, in effect, believe that that which is most fundamental to human existence is merely an emergent property (really a kind of illusion) of material reactions.

    It seems rather ironic that an atheist should criticise theists for supposedly doing “things which have no purpose” – as if atheism has any meaning or purpose! If we really are nothing but bundles of chemicals somehow (no one knows how) thrown together by a totally mindless, materialistic universe, then there is clearly no ultimate purpose or meaning to anything. And if you should argue that we have to create our own meaning, then you have absolutely no grounds to criticise any other worldview, if you really think about it!

    This is another example of the self-refuting nature of atheism, and, of course, any claim which is self-refuting is, by definition, false. No greater evidence can be adduced against any claim than that of self-refutation.

    1. Welcome back, Allistair.

      I didn’t say everything Christians and Muslims do has no purpose outside of pleasing the deity and serving the religion, only that there are such actions: worship, prayer, fasting (and other unnecessary forebearance), tithing, proselytising and everything else done for your god and not your fellow man.

      No one doubts the existence of consciousness, regardless of its origin, because each person experiences it for themselves. It is not just visible but undeniable in its presence. That’s streets ahead of any deity.

      The meaning or purpose of an action does not have to be “ultimate”. It can simply work towards a goal, any goal. That said, there are many goals which are completely unproductive in practical terms (e.g. getting in one more game of Solitaire before starting work) and we try to avoid spending too much effort on those. Pleasing a deity that isn’t really there would be one of these unproductive goals, so belief or nonbelief in the deity makes a big difference: I think your big goal is unproductive even though you think it’s the most worthwhile goal there is.

      I never criticise a worldview for being meaningless because meaning is subjective, as described above. I criticise worldviews for being based on incredible claims for which there is no good evidence.

    2. Allistair writes: [A perfect example of a straw man argument. If you are going to criticise Christianity, then at least target what it actually claims, and not what you think it claims!]

      So you mean what it literally claims, like it’s OK to own slaves? Or are we into the wonderful cultist world of interpretation, which as we all know is limited only by the total number of individual Christians who each have their own take on what it “actually claims”?

      [The benefits of belief in God are as much for this life as the life to come.]

      If a god exists of course, AND you happen to worship the right god out of all the gods in human history, AND you happen to properly interpret the contradictory manuscripts divinely inspired by that god. Since no two Christians have exactly the same understanding of the Bible or what the god wants, that means that there are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians. You can’t all be right in your personal version, so that means most of you are actually wrong in some way. You have about a one in a billion and a half chance of being the person that got it right (assuming any of you got it right, you could all be wrong and no one gets the door prize after you die).

      That is indisputably the teaching of the Bible, as well as the experience of believers (at least, my experience, anyway!).]

      Said every Christian, ever, all of which are 100% sure they are right and saved and going to heaven based on their personal belief system…

      [And it really is astounding that you think a life of love, mercy and compassion has “no purpose” (after all, these are the actions which flow – or ought to flow – from authentic faith in God).]

      Let’s examine this a little more in depth. From your cultist point of view you naturally think that there are benefits from belief in a god. That viewpoint is shared by all dogma followers, regardless of the flavor of god they so happen to believe in. If there are no gods however, or if you aren’t worshiping the right one, then your belief is a colossal waste of time and energy. Same can be said for any believer. On the flip side, my non-belief could be totally misplaced, and I could be heading for a pretty bad afterlife in some shape or form. I don’t know any atheist that can say they weren’t given a chance to hear the message about various gods, so we end up paying the price.

      Regardless of whether or not I am right or you are right, Allistair, the “purpose” behind life is selfish. That’s the bottom line. A believer does what they do so that they get their reward when they die. It’s a selfish end game. Everything you do in the name of a god is done so that you get yours at the end of the day. Atheists are no different. I volunteer at Habitat for Humanity because it makes me feel good, and it helps keep a family off the street which might reduce crime in my area and make it safer for me to live for example. I get something out of it, and so does the organization and the family getting the house.

      Life is a selfish endeavor. Every living thing competes for the best resources, in order to continue it’s line. It’s a very instinctual thing. Since your conversation before my post touched on purpose, I want to mention that the real purpose to anything in life is being selfish. Even if we are being religious or humanist in our actions, there is no denying that everything done by each one of us has a selfish purpose behind it. There is a benefit to what we do, and that’s why we do it.

      [As for “pleasing an invisible entity” – well, absolutely everybody does that, atheists included. It’s called one’s own consciousness, or self. My consciousness, as well as yours, is not an empirical entity. It may be expressed through physical apparatus, but it is, in itself, intangible and invisible. The only difference between atheists and theists, is that the latter believe that our consciousness (or spirit) is part of an objective reality, whereas, irrationally, atheists deny that, and, in effect, believe that that which is most fundamental to human existence is merely an emergent property (really a kind of illusion) of material reactions.]

      There is zero empirical evidence that a mind exists separately from the brain. There is zero empirical data supporting claims of spirits or souls. It is not intangible or invisible, it exists as chemical reactions, electrical impulses, and physical structure. You can see it light up an MRI.

      Emergent properties are a staple of chemistry, Allistair. It’s no surprise that certain structures give rise to novel properties. Consciousness exists due to the structure in the brain.

      [It seems rather ironic that an atheist should criticise theists for supposedly doing “things which have no purpose” – as if atheism has any meaning or purpose! If we really are nothing but bundles of chemicals somehow (no one knows how) thrown together by a totally mindless, materialistic universe, then there is clearly no ultimate purpose or meaning to anything.]

      But the “ultimate purpose” of your belief system is to serve a god for eternity. That’s some ultimate purpose. Live longer than a billion billion years, and the whole time spend it praising and worshiping and serving the god creature, that doesn’t even need your existence to survive or exist…

      Your god creature is quite the attention whore.

      [And if you should argue that we have to create our own meaning, then you have absolutely no grounds to criticise any other worldview, if you really think about it!]

      Except that, in the opinion of many atheists, your worldview is detrimental to the good of humanity. That doesn’t serve the selfish needs of each individual very well, does it. (It always comes back to selfish behavior, Allistair). So in fact atheists have every reason to criticize your worldview, if they see your worldview as hurting rather than helping them.

      [This is another example of the self-refuting nature of atheism, and, of course, any claim which is self-refuting is, by definition, false. No greater evidence can be adduced against any claim than that of self-refutation.]

      Since your self-refuting claim has been refuted, I guess we can all your statements false then…

  3. “I didn’t say everything Christians and Muslims do has no purpose outside of pleasing the deity and serving the religion, only that there are such actions: worship, prayer, fasting (and other unnecessary forebearance), tithing, proselytising and everything else done for your god and not your fellow man.”

    Your statement that actions which have some kind of spiritual basis have no purpose, is merely your opinion, given that you are an atheist, and thus subscribe to a materialistic worldview. So, of course, you would say this. But, as I say, this is an opinion, not a statement of fact, given that atheism is also an opinion and not a proven position of truth (it cannot be a proven truth, by definition, given that the idea of ‘truth’ itself must be entirely subjective if reason is merely an emergent property of chemical reactions, which is required by the philosophy of naturalism).

    “No one doubts the existence of consciousness, regardless of its origin, because each person experiences it for themselves. It is not just visible but undeniable in its presence. That’s streets ahead of any deity.”

    Consciousness itself is not visible, but is expressed through physical means. The relationship between consciousness and a deity is irrelevant to my point. The point I was making is that atheists have to acknowledge the existence of something invisible and intangible. If I were to meet you in person I could not empirically detect your consciousness, but I could see it expressed through your words and actions. Your sense of being ‘you’ and being awake and aware is experienced by you but is IN ITSELF not detectable by other people, because, of course, they do not experience actually being ‘you’. Through your words and actions they will infer that you are a conscious being, but it is an inference not an empirical proof. Now if atheism is ‘true’ (whatever ‘true’ actually means within philosophical naturalism) then this invisible and intangible experience of being ‘you’ and being ‘me’ is merely an emergent property of chemical reactions. In other words, it is a kind of illusion. Given that consciousness is the most basic fact of reality, and the starting point of all knowledge and perception, then it follows that atheism turns the whole of reality into a kind of illusion. Clearly consciousness must have some kind of definite objective existence engaging with matter, but not dependent on it. A spiritual world of a kind exists, in other words.

    “The meaning or purpose of an action does not have to be “ultimate”. It can simply work towards a goal, any goal. That said, there are many goals which are completely unproductive in practical terms (e.g. getting in one more game of Solitaire before starting work) and we try to avoid spending too much effort on those. Pleasing a deity that isn’t really there would be one of these unproductive goals, so belief or nonbelief in the deity makes a big difference: I think your big goal is unproductive even though you think it’s the most worthwhile goal there is.”

    You are absolutely right in saying that “belief or non-belief in the deity makes a big difference”. Of course, if there were no God, then seeking to please such a being would, in a sense, have no purpose, but strangely – according to YOUR worldview – it actually would. If reason is merely utilitarian (which it must be if nothing more than an emergent property of the natural selection of the brain), then even an idea which is ‘false’, but belief in which produces a benefit, has as much validity as an idea which is ‘true’. Utility is not the same as truth, and what other reason could there be for the emergence of human ideation within the naturalistic worldview than utility? So even an atheist cannot really say that an idea is without purpose or unproductive if it produces utility for the person thinking and believing it. Of course, I totally disagree with the claim that God does not exist, because I see overwhelming evidence for God (both intellectually and experientially) and I remain totally unconvinced as to how philosophical naturalism – the worldview undergirding atheism – explains the fundamentals of reality.

    “I never criticise a worldview for being meaningless because meaning is subjective, as described above. I criticise worldviews for being based on incredible claims for which there is no good evidence.”

    I also criticise worldviews based on incredible claims. The claim that mere matter (and energy) is sufficient to explain the fundamentals of reality (reason, free will, morality, complexity, meaning and consciousness) is truly incredible. Nothing about reality tells me that we are all nothing more than ultimately meaningless bundles of chemicals. My theism does not, of course, mean that I am pleased with all that goes on in the name of religion. Much religion (including Christian) disgusts me, to be honest.

  4. “Your statement that actions which have some kind of spiritual basis have no purpose…”
    Not quite right Allistair. Actions with a spiritual basis might well have a secular purpose, like helping others in the name of a god. There are certain actions, however, whose only purpose is to please a god. This is undeniably a purpose, though I judge it to be an unproductive purpose (apart from making you happy that you’re doing it) and I’m quite happy to say that’s merely a judgement on my part based on the fact that I don’t believe in any gods. You’re free to think they’re justified, but if you have a need to justify the actions to atheists then you either need to name an additional secular purpose for them or convert the atheists.

    “…atheists have to acknowledge the existence of something invisible and intangible.”
    Atheists have no more proof of the consciousness of others than anyone else. Most of us are happy to extrapolate from ourselves and assume that others are experiencing something similar to our own consciousness, as other members of the same species with the same kind of brains. This is not a precarious position in practical terms because even if one’s own consciousness is the only one that’s real, everyone else is functioning exactly as if they are also conscious, so everything works the same either way. The same benefit of the doubt is not warranted for a god because the world appears to be working exactly as it would be if a god were not present, until a miracle can be proven.

    “Nothing about reality tells me that we are all nothing more than ultimately meaningless bundles of chemicals.”
    If it’s true, it’s true, but as I said, meaning or purpose does not have to be “ultimate”. Ultimate absolute truth is unknown, we cobble together the best worldview we can based on what we learn and observe. Yours has a god in it based on doctrine and inference, mine doesn’t and it still hangs together pretty well.

  5. I don’t want to get into a long to and fro about the points I’ve raised, but I just want to reiterate that consciousness is not in itself empirically detected. And this is true of one’s own consciousness as well as that of other people. Of course, as I have stated, consciousness may be expressed through physical mechanisms, but my sense of being ‘me’ and my fundamental awareness of reality is not a ‘thing’ that can be observed by the empirical scientific method. And yet without consciousness no reality can be experienced, of course, and no knowledge is possible. Consciousness – along with reason – is nearer to me and you even than matter. Strictly speaking we infer the existence of matter, but ‘know’ for sure that we are aware of self. There is no reason to assume therefore that consciousness must be something material. How can it be since it cannot be detected by empirical means?

    Daniel Dennett, in his book ‘Consciousness Explained’, criticises dualism, because essentially there seems no way of explaining how mind affects brain and vice versa, if the mind (and consciousness) consists of some ‘substance’ other than matter. It does seem rather strange that an inability to know or understand some aspect of reality should drive anyone to such a dogmatic conclusion. All we can say is that we don’t know, and we have to suspend our judgment. If we cannot explain consciousness in an entirely material way, then we cannot dismiss dualism. That is just straightforward and honest logic. Do scientists absolutely fully understand what matter is at the most fundamental level? The deeper science digs, the weirder matter behaves. Don’t the problems of Quantum Physics (with the factor of the observer effect) support dualism, or at least force us to question the dogmas of reductionist materialism?

    While I don’t pretend to be able to explain what consciousness is “made of”, I don’t think it is unreasonable for dogmatic materialists to give us some indication as what it is that produces awareness and a sense of self. The nature of consciousness strongly indicates (i.e. is strong evidence for) the existence of a non-material aspect of reality, which nevertheless interacts with the material world. Why assume that consciousness must be something material? If naturalism cannot explain it, then that assumption is simply “materialism of the gaps” – or an argument from ignorance no different from those who fall back on “God of the gaps”. It’s exactly the same lazy methodology. Atheists may deride the idea of a person’s consciousness being their ‘spirit’ (spirit being understood here as a definite reality distinct from matter), but there is no reason why a materialistic explanation should be considered the only rational option. (In fact, I have never seen a convincing defence of the claim that materialism should be accepted as the ‘null hypothesis’).

    1. Quick reply on your last post.

      Materialism is an axiom in my opinion. It is self evident. When it is the starting point for answering questions and exploring phenomena, we get answers and explanations. We get engineers using those answers and explanations to build things that work and do what we want them to do. Can you say that about any other hypothesis? I think we both understand why naturalism is the “null hypothesis” as you call it.

      On consciousness, there are differing opinions as to what has and hasn’t been proven empirically. To state the obvious, consciousness has to exist in order for someone to ask about consciousness (sort of a Descartes I think, therefore I am philosophy). There is evidence of consciousness all over the place. Our conversation is empirical data, that can be viewed by anyone at anytime, of consciousness interacting with consciousness. Despite philosophical musings on the subject, no one has any data or evidence that shows that minds or consciousness exists outside the physical brain. In fact you try to have your cake and eat it too, stating that there is no empirical evidence that the mind is strictly connected to the physical, and therefore we should consider something else….despite the lack of empirical evidence for the something else.

      I also take note with your statement “And yet without consciousness no reality can be experienced”. Drop a rock onto another rock, and those molecules all experience reality when they collide. Every molecule in the universe experiences gravity. Consciousness is not necessary for things to experience other things.

  6. “Materialism is an axiom in my opinion. It is self evident. When it is the starting point for answering questions and exploring phenomena, we get answers and explanations. We get engineers using those answers and explanations to build things that work and do what we want them to do. Can you say that about any other hypothesis? I think we both understand why naturalism is the “null hypothesis” as you call it.”

    Well actually the hypothesis which is self-evident is the one which affirms the validity of the concept of intelligent causation. I must admit that I have never heard of any engineer using the principle of philosophical naturalism (i.e. the laws of nature doing their own thing without any intelligent interaction) to build, say, a bridge. Yes, it is true that the principle of “methodological naturalism” is employed, but that is not what we are talking about. Practical science – the kind of non-speculative science that actually provides real solutions in the world – is entirely dependent on intelligent interaction with matter. Of course, the intelligence that interacts with matter is human intelligence, but that is not the point. Nothing can succeed in the world of applied science if the laws of nature are just left to their own devices. This is the only kind of empirical evidence we have for the origin of complex systems. Therefore it is entirely rational (indeed the only rational hypothesis) to infer that the most complex systems of all – living systems – should also be the result of intelligent causation. It is anti-empirical and anti-rational to argue that such intricate and sophisticated systems MUST BE the result of the operation of the laws of nature alone. Therefore it is strange to claim that materialism (by which I assume you mean philosophical naturalism / reductionism materialism) is “self-evident”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Furthermore, the epistemological foundation of materialism is self-refuting. The only basis by which anyone could claim that “matter is all that exists” is through affirming strong empiricism: all knowledge comes through sense perception (“it is axiomatic that matter is all that exists, because matter is all that we can detect with our senses…” ). But that theory of knowledge is itself non-empirical, being an idea and not a physically detectable object. We are being asked to accept a concept which invalidates itself: we need to accept that a non-empirical thing (an idea) counts as knowledge, which tells us that knowledge is restricted to empirical things. This is a contradiction. So the materialist house of cards collapses under its own weight.

    As for consciousness: assuming that consciousness must be a material phenomenon and then concluding that it is so, is a classic case of begging the question. The truth is that we have no idea how matter could have produced consciousness. If material systems can generate consciousness, then that has profound implications for AI and robotics. Who knows, perhaps even this computer I am writing on has some basic form of consciousness?! If materialism is true, then why ever not? I don’t think so, somehow….

    1. [Well actually the hypothesis which is self-evident is the one which affirms the validity of the concept of intelligent causation.]

      Fascinating. How about listing it here and we can chit chat about how logical it is, because I can’t say for sure I know exactly what you are referring to, and I don’t want to guess and take time writing something that is not germane to what you mean.

      [I must admit that I have never heard of any engineer using the principle of philosophical naturalism (i.e. the laws of nature doing their own thing without any intelligent interaction) to build, say, a bridge.]

      We don’t, you misread my post. Please refer back to it.

      [Yes, it is true that the principle of “methodological naturalism” is employed, but that is not what we are talking about. Practical science – the kind of non-speculative science that actually provides real solutions in the world – is entirely dependent on intelligent interaction with matter.]

      By “real solutions”, do you mean everyday uses that help humanity’s existence? That’s not “practical science”. That’s engineering. Engineers use the knowledge gained by science to make useful things. (There seems to be a rash of creationists lately that are suddenly on the “practical science” bandwagon, and that don’t understand the difference between the science that discovers and explains phenomena and the engineering that takes advantage of that knowledge to create tools).

      [Nothing can succeed in the world of applied science if the laws of nature are just left to their own devices.]

      And nothing about the laws of nature needs a supernatural component or magic in order to happen, or be understood, or to be used when using those laws to design and build useful products.

      [This is the only kind of empirical evidence we have for the origin of complex systems.]

      The laws of chemistry are all the evidence you need for complex systems. There is nothing about any complex system that violates the laws of chemistry. There’s nothing about any complex system that violates the laws of physics, thermodynamics, or any other law for that matter.

      What is a complex system? The elementary particles in an atom? How about a molecule with two atoms? How about one with three atoms? How about one with 12 atoms? How about a molecule made out of two smaller molecules? How about a molecule made out of three smaller molecules? How about one with 12 smaller molecules? Take that all the way up the line. At what point does chemistry suddenly become a “complex system”? At some arbitrary line you want to draw in the sand apparently, even though it’s the same natural laws doing the same thing from an atom to a molecule to you or me.

      The origin of complex systems is the universe Allistair, and the scientific method already explains all of that. We don’t need god creatures added into the mix to understand all that.

      [Therefore it is entirely rational (indeed the only rational hypothesis) to infer that the most complex systems of all – living systems – should also be the result of intelligent causation.]

      I’m surprised you’ve fallen for such a false logic loop. This is a self defeating argument. If complex systems require intelligent causation, and intelligent causation comes from a complex system ( a god creature), that means the intelligent causation must therefore come from another complex system/intelligent causation. It’s a merry go round of nonsense. You can’t ever require a source of complexity in order for complexity to exist, Allistair. Surely you can see that. It’s not a rational position at all.

      [Therefore it is strange to claim that materialism (by which I assume you mean philosophical naturalism / reductionism materialism) is “self-evident”. Nothing could be further from the truth.]

      Yet the entire body of scientific work starts on the axiom of naturalism, and science continues to make discovery after discovery using naturalism as a starting point. Can you name any science that used intelligent causation or supernatural magic as the starting point for a valid scientific theory?

      You are making unjustified claims here I’m afraid.

      [Furthermore, the epistemological foundation of materialism is self-refuting. The only basis by which anyone could claim that “matter is all that exists” is through affirming strong empiricism: all knowledge comes through sense perception (“it is axiomatic that matter is all that exists, because matter is all that we can detect with our senses…” ). But that theory of knowledge is itself non-empirical, being an idea and not a physically detectable object. We are being asked to accept a concept which invalidates itself: we need to accept that a non-empirical thing (an idea) counts as knowledge, which tells us that knowledge is restricted to empirical things. This is a contradiction. So the materialist house of cards collapses under its own weight.]

      Not exactly accurate. It is an idea that is physically detectable, because it is the physically detectable that we test. It’s why it is an axiom. I’m sure you know what an axiom is, but for those that don’t:

      1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
      2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
      3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it

      Like I said above, it’s a starting point, and it works all the time. I fail to see why an idea cannot be an axiom of naturalism, anymore than the idea that x=x cannot be an axiom in mathematics.

      If materialism collapses under its own weight, then you will have to explain to everyone why it works all the time. I’m curious of your response to this…

      [As for consciousness: assuming that consciousness must be a material phenomenon and then concluding that it is so, is a classic case of begging the question. The truth is that we have no idea how matter could have produced consciousness. If material systems can generate consciousness, then that has profound implications for AI and robotics. Who knows, perhaps even this computer I am writing on has some basic form of consciousness?! If materialism is true, then why ever not? I don’t think so, somehow]

      It is not an assumption that consciousness is a material phenomena. That is what all the data and evidence suggests. There is NO proof that consciousness exists separately from the structure of living brains. I mean none. I’ll ask for the sake of courtesy if you have any evidence that disagrees with that, but I’m pretty confident what that answer is going to be. The AI question is actually quite the topic among some people these days by the way. The ethical conversations about it are quite interesting…

Leave a Reply to SmartLX Cancel reply

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