Possibly a charlatan and probably meet him with the same disbelief as yourself. — invicta

Ok, your scepticism wins again! Hallelujah!
So you will understand when many react to you as you would react to Charlie.

Does it negate it in any way shape or form? — invicta

Yes, you have no evidence!!!!!
I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BUT IT ABSOLUTELY IS, in the case of god.

Imagine if you had dropped dead there for a second — invicta

Oh I have went far further in my personal challenged to god when debating with theists.
I know some of them have been very tempted to try to make something happen via their own hands, in desperation to invent some evidence of a supernatural presence.
You can imagine all you like but god still demonstrates nothing but its absence.
Are you unable to get your 'experiences' to affect me in anyway?

I waited until 5 minutes showed on my previous post before sending you my 'hello' post.
Your 'experience' and God, has no power. But, that's because it has no existence, imo.
Do you have any other reason to show why your 'experience' or god could not even meet this simple test?

'hello'

So what would constitute proof to you then? It seems to me that nothing would as you’ve completely ruled out the existence of such a thing — invicta

Ok, that's very easy. God should appear on Earth and submit itself to scientific scrutiny.
OR, you can call on your 'experience' to stop me from posting my next response to you.
Can you demonstrate such?
I am now going to post this and wait 5 mins and then post the word 'hello' to you.
Let's see if your 'experiences' or any god, can stop me.

Sure, but what's your personal opinion of Charlie's claims?

Let me ask you a question to the sceptical aspect of your reasoning which I assume you do not preclude the existence of a diety or a higher power… — invicta

I absolutely do think that no deity or higher supernatural power exists. I just cant PROVE I am correct.

As a purely hypothetical scenario let’s say you decided to purchase a lottery ticket and said to yourself, your conscience whatever …if you do exist Mr God…let all these numbers that I’ve picked come up on the next draw…would you believe then or would you simply ascribe it to some freaky mathematical probability? — invicta

Would I believe god exists because I prayed to win the national lottery and then I won it that very day!
NO, I would not consider that evidence of the existence of god in any way whatsoever, would you?

Give me your opinion on this one.

I watch an atheist youtube call-in show ran by Jimmy Snow called 'the line.'
They used to get a regular caller who used the name 'Charlie.'
Charlie had many supernatural experiences and direct com with god.
He was very passionate about the validity of his experiences, and he kept saying that he was soon going to reveal 'some overwhelming truths,' to the world. He was still putting it all together, but would do the big reveal soon. Every time he phoned, and was asked for more details, and was 'ridiculed' by the hosts of the show, he would become more and more passionate, about how his big reveal would change the world, and would blow everyone's mind, and instantly convert all atheists to theists, and on and on he went.
He was eventually tolerated as an entertainment for a few more shows, and then the moderators of the show were told live, by Jimmy to not put him through any more, as he was obviously mentally ill, and should seek professional help. What do you think of Charlie?

Events btw which I could not dismiss as purely happening by accident alone. The freaky and somewhat surprising nature of such scenarios which have actually occurred in my life affirms in me the belief in something extraordinary for the things that happened and actually continue to happen are nothing short of that. — invicta

Do you feel anything? when people like me, think you are deluding yourself, and your experiences are not of the supernatural in any way, shape or form. They are merely of your own psyche.
Many will mock you and laugh at your suggestions, especially when you cannot demonstrate your experiences to them, or demonstrate any enhanced or unusual ability, or new knowledge, as a result of your 'experiences.'

Nevertheless, both religious and military institutions are still influential in politics. — Vera Mont

For a short time, through frustration, I was tempted to start suggesting, that no theist should be allowed to hold political office. I soon realised that this is the kind of 'extreme' response that can enter your head.
I soon rejected it, as it would probably have the exact opposite effect, as it would create a great deal of sympathy for those who could then be labelled as 'oppressed theists.'
Better to allow those who allow their religious beliefs to influence their political actions, be judged by their electorate accordingly.
There is a case in point happening now in Scotland. The leader of the governing parliment (Nicola Sturgeon) is standing down, and there are 3 candidates, vying to replace her. Two are religious.
One called Kate Forbes, is a Christian, she lost a lot of support based on the 5 min interview snippet below:

I wonder if she will lose the election based on what she said here.

Our species creates, or assigns, value on the basis of scarcity. "The chosen" of religion, and especially "the one god", not only polarizes "us and them" but also separates the "sacred" from the profane" within and between groups. Zerosum games & dominance hierarchies! Thus, "the divine right" of Kings, Brahmins, Pharoahs, Caesars, Popes, Fuhrers ... and Capital. — 180 Proof

Why can't theist's and their enablers/facilitators, understand the strength of your accurate summary above. Why should atheists accept that they MUST show a respectful deference, to any and all 'spiritual' belief's that individuals might hold deeply and dearly? This image of the nice elderly woman or man, who just wants to believe that a supernatural superhero has their best interests in mind and WILL care for them and maintain them for eternity, as long as they comply with the instructions in a particular book, HAS TO BE RESPECTED? And, if they wish to indoctrinate their children with the same BS, then EVERONE MUST RESPECT THIS, as sacred, holy, innocent, harmless, healthy activity. EVERYONE, especially atheists, MUST say, "Well ok, I respect your beliefs and I wont criticise you as an 'innocent true believer,' in an any way. But if you want to tell me, that because I don't follow your beliefs, I am dammed, my children are dammed and anyone who is an atheist, or believes in the words in a different 'holy' book, is dammed, then that's ok, I will RESPECT your right, to hold that opinion, about MY ULTIMATE FATE, even though it is a very very nasty opinion.

I say, no freaking way, is that a fair and balanced approach to creating the rules of debate around everyday discussions between theists and atheists.
Theists need to stop wearing their theism like it's a 'precious.' If you can't defend your theism sufficiently against all arguments, then don't cry about it and turn into an imbalanced nutjob! Find better ways to defend your position or stop being a theist!

Btw, Stanley Kubrick got it so right with that opening scene of two groups of proto-hominids fighting over a muddy pool (climaxing with a triumphal toss of that killing bone and the most famous jump-cut in cinema a million years to a satellite orbiting the Earth). — 180 Proof

Yep, a great depiction of "hey, I can even beat up that big scary hominid with this bad boy!"
"all I need to do after that is tell the rest of my tribe, that the sky lights told me how to use the big bone and maybe I can be the leader!!!" :party: :party: :strong:
I accept that he probably explained all this to his tribe, through grunts and gesticulations (rather than in English) and no doubt, via some demonstrations of what he could do with the big bone to that big strong hominid his tribe were scared of. So, yeah, I agree that Stanley imagined the beginnings of weaponry very well, the concept of the sky light god would have came soon after.

The empire of scarcity continues, and I think only if and when our species attains a sustainable post-scarcity civilization will we have a real opportunity to outgrow this atavistic commodity-fetishization (i.e. religiosity) of human existence. — 180 Proof

I hope not brother! I hope we don't need to be dangled over the precipice by our tippy toes for much longer, before we ALL, or enough of us, learn the errors of maintaining our current 'laws of the jungle,' approach to living the human experience, and we unite in common cause of improving, what it means to be human.

For me the issue that I have is with holy scripture especially ones that say only if you believe will you get eternal life regardless if you’re a good person.
So you can be an absolute helmet but as long as you believe you can still attain that.
Now that’s got to be something wrong there. — invicta

Good to read an example of the fact that your original scepticism is still present, and your ability to apply critical thinking to 'holy' scripture, results in your last sentence above. Only one more step, would allow you to move forward again, into atheism. There IS something very wrong with all holy scripture, and it is that it has nothing to do with god, and everything to do with the human tradition of satirical invention and storytelling.

That is all. I think the diety would kinda be proud of me for figuring it out myself instead of being handed out answers like a toddler. — invicta

What convinces you that 'the diety' has powers and abilities that you don't?

The other reason despite my experiences I still value doubt, rational and critical thinking — invicta

Good, then there is that, at least.

I am not comparing your 'experiences,' with the clip below. I just want to suggest that this dramatisation of the smeagol character defeating the 'gollum' manifestation from it's own psyche(if only temporarily), is a fun example of what can be achieved, when you decide to try to rid yourself of irrational thinking.

Well, if that's the story you tell yourself, invicta, why the angst expressed in your OP about "death" versus "eternal life"? — 180 Proof

Yep, especially if @invicta has had personal conformation of a supernatural existent.
Why the angst indeed?

I just needed some clarity. — invicta

I don't understand why your supernatural existent, is not able to resolve the issues raised in your OP, better than the members of TPF?

Religion remains one of the most convenient 'fit for purpose,' pre-packaged ways to tribalise a group, against everyone outside of that group. The term and concept of 'the chosen people,' is one of the most pernicious concepts ever established in the human psyche. It is 100% founded on the 'law of the jungle,' approach to survival. It simply substitutes the ability/right to survive by being the strongest and most able in the jungle, to obtaining the right to not only survive, but to rule, by divine right.
It remains sooooooooooo easy, to invent a god, create the instructions that best match the political and social controls you wish to achieve, and then label all those who comply, as 'the chosen ones,' who follow the only truth about the universe, that is, it was all made by, and is completely owned by 'OUR' god(s).
This creates a very convenient 'them' and 'us,' and allows for a very simple reason to slaughter those outside of 'the chosen people.' It was very simple in the early days of theism/religion. Join us, and comply to our rules and accept me as your king/god or your king sanctioned by god(s), or be slaughtered in the name of OUR king/god(s). It's a very simple way to set up and maintain a civilisation. :roll: :scream: :death:
Religion remains the biggest barrier, to human progress in existence today. It is based on simple manipulation of human primal fears, and it allows, and remains one of the best supports, that is used to justify, the rule of a rich, powerful, nefarious, tiny, global minority.
In my opinion, those who continue to downplay the toxicity of theism, simply help to hold our species down and force us backwards. That's a matter for their conscience and their legacy.

Why would these 'men' be green? Anyway, enjoy! Again, thanks for the exchange.

Yeah, I think I have read your disdain of Sam Harris before.
We can't all value the exact same people, in the exact same way, so , fair enough!
I personally think the presence and influence of atheists ( I don't value the term new atheists) and atheism on the internet, is increasing significantly.

I was merely trying to answer your question as to whether I can look at nature with the awe and wonder without invoking god which I believe I did. — invicta

I can't follow your rationale. Any awe and wonder you experience when viewing the flora and fauna of nature or the structures you can view in space via the Hubble images or the JWST, are surely not as awesome or wonderous as your 'supernatural 'experiences. Can you give me an example of any actual information that your esoteric 'experiences' have imparted to you?
What good are your esoteric experiences if they do not enable you to make much of a difference to the lives of others or perhaps even your own. I could even argue that such has harmed you, as it has caused you to take what I would consider backward steps into woo woo.

As the moment itself passed and faded into memory it would be only to easy to dismiss it as some sort of emotional anomaly. — invicta

I have heard many individuals describe such experiences, in great detail.
This kind of witnessing has almost zero value as evidence of god.
Why was your experience momentary instead of continuous?
If you don't provide the details of your experience then the first assumption is that you were probably wacked out on scooby snacks or something like it. If no such chemical circumstances were involved and you were not under some kind of mental trauma, then the chances are, that you are just misinterpreting an experience.
What's more likely? A deity chose to contact you alone, and allow only you to experience it's presence or it's ability to communicate with a human, and has never re-established contact with you since, or you misinterpreted an experience?
Or do you have these experiences regularly?

But by virtue of my religious experience at the time I remain grateful for that very experience which I guess changed my life forever. — invicta

To be honest, I am a little disappointed. If you surrendered your scepticism and your atheism, for the price of an experience you don't even feel comfortable enough, to publicly describe in detail, then I think you surrendered your atheism very cheaply.
Why would your story be any different to those who claim to have been abducted by aliens, experimented on and then returned to their lives? For that matter, how do you know it was not aliens who were involved in what you experienced?

Will expand on my own views to your quote later. — invicta

I would be much more interested in your views now than in Gödel's, Ramanujan's (watched the movie about his life), Newton's, Pascal's or Liebniz' theism. I remain in awe of their academic skills in science and I am willing to discuss why I think their particular individual flavours of theism were completely misguided, but perhaps that would require individual threads, to respect the details involved, for each name you have cited.

However I must state that I’m not a fan of militant atheism or theism when it comes to god. Although I’d like to add that the work and efforts of the above mentioned individuals far surpass those of any evangelical atheist such as Dawkins et al — invicta

I don't consider Richard Dawkins to be a 'militant' or 'evangelical' atheist. I consider him to be a very able scientist who's views on religion are very similar to my own. It's important to me that I don't seem to you other than I am.

Thanks for the exchange invicta, I enjoyed reading about your worldviews.

Part of me wants life to maintain its airy mystery and part of me wants it revealed — invicta

I find more wonder and awe in the natural world, than anything posited regarding the supernatural, so I have no need for the supernatural. This is of course also because my credence level towards a supernatural existent, is negligible. Are you not attracted to the complete and total ownership of your own wonder and awe? Why assign any credit for such to a god? Do you not diminish such, by placing it in the gift of a deity, rather than own it, as a manifestation of your own unique consciousness?

So why do I need God? Well I don’t …I’ve just come to my own personal conclusion that there is a higher power in the universe. The extent of his involvement in his creation is just another area of speculation or mystery if you like. — invicta

I am surprised you are not more attracted to a pantheism or a panpsychism.
I think many of the more ardent theists would not accept you as a theist. I assume you don't care about that.

Do I believe in him simply because I wish to live forever ? That would be awfully needy of me. — invicta

There is no shame, or reduction in status, due to the fact that all humans are 'needy' imo.
What is shameful and is a definite reduction in status and morality imo, is a god that is purported to be loving and caring, but demonstrates no convincing evidence that that claim is true.
The blood sacrifice, that Christians claim as a demonstration of their gods love, is very bizarre to me.
A son who was an incarnation of god, allows the Romans to kill it. How can you kill an immortal?
You can't, so the sacrifice is fake, null and void, as it came back to life again. That's cheating, and is no sacrifice AT ALL!

It’s not for lack of wanting to define God, it’s for my inability to articulate them with factual accuracy rather than anything. Sure I can throw around terms like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience etc. but where does that get me? In some circles these are a given in others they’re debatable…do they reflect Gods true nature ? Maybe, maybe not. Do they detract from him ? Again, maybe or maybe not if you’re looking for flaws or wish to put him in a pedestal. — invicta

So does this divine hiddenness of god not annoy you? If it has some of the answers you seek then why does it remain so hidden from you, even though you seem to try so hard to maintain your faith in it, as a real existent?

Perhaps in me wanting to define God I’m missing a point in the fact that I would at the very least anthropomorphise him with various human attributes such as morality to name a few. He’s all good and all loving etc but again I fall into the same trap that philosophers/theologians/atheists have encountered before me such as whence Evil? — invicta

As a thinker, I don't think you can separate evil from the responsibility of any god posit, but most ardent theists simply defend with suggestions such as 'well , how can god test you, if it cant present you with scenario's with opposite and very significant consequences.' I am paraphrasing here, by using a 'summary' statement, of the many ways the problem of evil has been defended by theists.
Of course I will respond with stuff like 'so your god allows babies to die to test their parents?' or 'locked in syndrome,' is a test from god? and they will respond with, 'so god may be testing YOU through what it allows to happen to others,' and then it just spirals! 'How dare your god manipulate innocent people like Job to prove a point to its own creation, lucifer, etc, etc.'
Perhaps it's more important, to consider why you personally need a god, what gap does it fill for you? or what function does it perform for you, when you are musing about your current dissatisfaction with your lifespan? Is it merely that you hope against hope, that your god might favour you, and extend your life? or reanimate you, in a different format/plane of existence, after you die?

The manner of my eventual demise be it peacefully or otherwise is of little relevance at this point. Of course I’d prefer the former rather than a long drawn out affair. — invicta

I think we all feel the same way, atheist or theist.

To myself sure I can muse on his attributes all day if I so wish but whether that has any correlation to his actual attributes is a different matter. — invicta

I agree but are you unwilling to share your musings and more importantly, those aspects of the god posit which you ascribe your highest credence levels to?

As an inquisitive human being my questions are perhaps unanswerable — invicta

Ok, but this seems to contradict one of the main 'tenets' of 'faith.' Surely theism proports that 'faith manages!' Do you not believe that your god has all the answers you don't?

I mean I have a hard time grasping eternity or eternal existence so an intelligence in orders of magnitude superior to mine would really have to simplify certain concepts for my human mind to understand. — invicta

Do you believe that such an existent, would have the ability to do so?

Think of the lay person’s understanding of Einstein and you have an idea what I’m talking about. — invicta

Yes, but I have faith that Einstein understood the academic details of Einstein's theories and so did others. They could DEMONSTRATE their understanding to the likes of me. Einstein in fact, is credited with the statement “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
Why do you not hold your god to the same standard that Einstein set for himself?

To deny my human limitations would serve me badly in my search for a better understanding of my own existence limited though it may be. — invicta

I think you should accept your limitations but not feel diminished by them. Again you have common ground here with every atheist in existence, including me. Keep searching for the answers or balance you seek. By doing so, YOU WILL extend the borders of what you currently call your limitations.
Consider Matt Dillahunty, talking in the 7 minute clip below, regarding his open heart surgery.

I will leave the nature of God to theologians as far as the issue can be addressed. — invicta

If you declare yourself a theist, do you not also inherit a responsibility to muse theologically, as in, be a theologian, even if it's one without paper qualifications on the academic side of the field?

If you don't then might you not be accused of believing in a god which you are unable to assign properties to, in an unambiguous manner?
You compel me to ask you 'why' you 'need' a god that you seem reluctant to clearly define.
Does your theism offer you any 'reinforcement,' or 'self-assuredness,' at all, regarding your dissatisfaction about your lack of control/choice, regarding when and how you will die?

My concern is not simply the extension of my human lifespan but eternal life/existence whatever shape or form that might be. — invicta

Does your theism not offer you any convincing scenario, that you believe, WILL happen, after you are dead, to continue your existence?

Sounds to me that you support some of the main tenets of humanism.

What really gets me as I previously stated is simply the recognition of everlasting existence or even that of a creator who is eternal contrasted to myself a mortal with a short time span in the scheme of things. — invicta

Do you believe your god is omnipotent?

I do not fear death it’s more of wanting more rather than the fear of perishing which to me is both justifiable and understandable. — invicta

Do you mean you fear the way you will die more than the fact you will die?
Do you believe your god could extend your lifespan if it chose to? It is claimed that the Abrahamic god, did this for some of it's early 'chosen ones.' Do you believe that's true?

Then I am confused about the form of your theism. Are you afraid of the judgement of your god?
Why do you fear oblivion after you die? When you have no memory of such fear, before you were born.

Are you not contented by the offer that if you stop typing your discontentment, regarding your gods plan for you and just comply with its scriptural instructions, then your death will become something to look forward to, as it will be the beginning of your everlasting entry into it's kingdom.

So, are you annoyed/frustrated/angry/deserved of such divine hiddenness?

The universe really does owe me an explanation for giving me the ability to recognise the fact that I came to be in it in this human form for such a limited amount of time when existence itself is an eternal phenomena…am I not worthy ? — invicta

What did your god say to you when you asked it about this issue you have?

Yep, and it's not like Jimmy boy is the only example of corrupt, nefarious individuals at the top of religious movements. Religious movements seem to be festooned with such characters.

I share the very serious concerns constantly raised by folks like Sam Harris, in snippets like this 12 minute offering below. We can't afford to be 'respectful,' to religious people, just because we might offend them or hurt their feelings. They have NO PROBLEM at all, attacking atheists and atheism, using every nasty insult their 'god fearin' brain can manifest. I have been on the receiving end of their ire too often to think differently. They will get very nasty indeed, when they totally fail to effectively answer the questions posed by atheists.

How do you know they’re not thoughts? — noAxioms

Well, if you think they are the 'thoughts' of chatGBT then you think it is sentient.
I don't think the song I posted, included chatGBT 'thoughts,' so I don't see the point of your question?
Here is chatGBT's response to the question 'can you think?'
As an AI language model, I do not have thoughts or consciousness like humans do. I am programmed to process and analyze text data to generate responses to questions and prompts. However, I can simulate human-like responses through natural language processing techniques and generate text that may appear to be the result of thought processes.

OK, I know a bit about how chatGPT works, and it really seems to be a glorified search engine, hardly something to slap the ‘AI’ sticker onto. — noAxioms

chatGBT partly agrees with you, based on it's response above.

you remind me of the food scenes in Hunger Games. Tell me if you’ve not seen that, but it pretty much depicted over-the-top bounty of food, far more than the people could eat, which didn’t stop them from doing it anyway. — noAxioms

Yes. I have watched the Hunger Games movies. I don't see their relevance to our discussion here, they were just a poor throwback to the Roman idea of gladiatorial combat, for the purpose of entertaining a audience of savage morons. Such practices helped to destroy that vile empire, imo.

But I bet the Russian abortions were pretty simple, perhaps just a pill in some cases. — noAxioms

No, there was no 'morning after' pill available. All abortions in Russia at that time involved surgery.

Was the woman taken in her sleep only to wake up in this situation without consent? — noAxioms

The idea was analogous to an unplanned, unwanted, unintended pregnancy, so I assume the consent of the woman to 'become pregnant'/ be connected to the violinist, was not secured.

What if the potential donor happens to be serving a life sentence in prison? Does that change the answer? Is a life sufficiently low value that it can be used to save multiple higher-value lives? At what point does logic kick in? — noAxioms

Depends on what kind of moral society you advocate for? Morally consistent or Morally consistent but there are exceptions. For me, this can only be a case-by-case basis. Moral consistency would be my personal priority.

OK, but what about the charge of murder for refusing it? Is it murder? — noAxioms

That's a legal question. If abortion was 'murder' under the law, then bodily autonomy would be lost. I would fight against any such law. If a person refused to donate their blood to save the life of another, when there is no other alternative available, in time to save the person, then you might have a low or even a very low opinion of the person who refused to help. BUT, I think you would have a very hard time indeed, getting that person convicted of murder under any judicial system I would value.

Religion:

a conspiracy cult-driven pyramid scheme that feeds on an inexhaustible supply of earnestly gullible dupes & their brats. — 180 Proof

:lol: :rofl:

To me the fact that the universe confers a being with self-aware existence then strips it away seems kinda cruel. Why give me a taste of eternity but do not grant me the full privilege? What’s that all about ? — invicta

If we had no problems to solve and no questions to answer then we would be as useless as an omnigod.

Imagine Thor is a primitive person who lives in a hut. Imagine hiding a wireless doorbell camera that has a speaker somewhere in Thor’s hut. Thor enters and hears a voice, “Thor. I am God. Fall on your knees.” Thor looks around, confused; he can’t believe his ears. “Thor. Stop looking around and fall on your knees.” Thor complies. Later, he swears to everyone that he had a supernatural experience, that God spoke to him. When we perfect 3D free-standing holograms, we could project an image for Thor. Now, Thor would swear he heard and saw God, too. — Art48

What do you envisage happened when Thor found the hidden camera/speaker combo? (why did you choose one with a doorbell?). Who planted the camera/speaker? Technically advanced aliens? A time traveller? Why did you choose to reduce the deity Thor to a primitive person? Why is it not just 'Fred,' the primitive person?
Do you think it's possible to fool all of the people all of the time?

I can't answer from a philosopher stance but I can from a 'being human' stance.
There are so many old adage's I am tempted to type, from:
"Only those who have a short existence can think that love is eternal.
One should glory in that magnificent illusion."
"Quality is much more important than quantity.'
"The most beautiful is missed most, because it lasts least."
etc

You were not 'granted existence,' your parents decided to have a child, that's all.
I am a fan of Carl Sagan's great demotions, so I try not to 'feel cheated,' by the 'circumstances of my existence,' and my impending demise.

Considering the issue from a purely practical angle. If you feel that your impending death and your current lifespan are 'unfair' or 'unsatisfying' or 'insufficient,' then you should support 100%, the efforts of all science and scientists, who are currently working towards increasing the lifespan and robustness of all humans. Transhumanism, cybernetics, genetic engineering, etc, etc.
You could even study and learn enough to become one of them.
Science is our ONLY route towards living as long as we choose to.
Praying for such an option or expecting immortality via god(s) AFTER YOU ARE DEAD, is a complete waste of thought energy.

If those are not thoughts, how did they become part of AI and why have you asked us to think about those words? — Athena

The song wrote by chatGBT, about the topic of this thread IS original. ChatGBT IS the author. I see little difference, in the way chatGBT consults the information it has stored, to produce such a song on such a topic, compared to the way a human writer of such a song, on such a topic would do it.
OKAY, I know chatGBT made no 'emotional' or 'intuitive' analysis of the topic of 'what is emergent in humans,' but I still did think the song it produced was ..... ok, and was actually better than many of the songs written by many pop bands/solo artists of today or yesteryear.

In my opinion chatGBT is incapable of passing the Turing test at the moment, buy I also think that each new AI system, that the scientists in the field are producing, are better are better.
You should set up an OpenAI account with chatGBT yourself at https://chat.openai.com/auth/login
Have a chat with it yourself, and see if you could be fooled into believing you were communicating with an intelligence.

That same AI had to be shut down because it crossed into the dark side and it had no feelings to make aware of the need to stop the direction in which it was going. — Athena

Not sure what you are referring to here Athena, a particular sci-fi movie perhaps?

Our feelings are in our body and I don't think I like life without a feeling body. "I think I am enjoying life" requires a body that can feel joy. How could consciousness without a feeling body be valuable? — Athena

Anesthetic, can remove all feeling from your body and you can remain awake. How is this possible if any aspect of consciousness or mind, exists outside of the brain? My brother in law, had a triple bypass operation, and he was awake all the way through the operation and asked to see his opened body and exposed heart, during the operation, this request was fulfilled. Why did Stephen Hawking continue with his life considering the lack of function/feeling he had in his body? Do you think he was less conscious or had less access to 'mind' due to the reduced state of his body? Why do people paralised from the neck down, still want to live? Christopher Reeves of superman fame for example?

In union Alkis, finding common cause is our best hope for a better future for all.