@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

I mean, he certainly has strong views and presents them forcefully. I can't say he's ever convinced me by his arguments, though, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "win".

Somewhere in my early 30s I guess. I was 32 when I got married, and around that time my mom started to have health issues. Notably, one time when she was visiting she was super short on breath and wound up having to go to the hospital because she couldn't breathe. I chalked it up to altitude sickness or something, but right before I got married she got a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. I guess in a sense there's not much to worry about, because her condition is what it is. Can't be fixed, only slowed. That was almost 9 years ago, and she was given 10 years by her doctor at the time, so yeah.

Similarly around that timeframe (though maybe a few years later), I started noticing my dad was having more and more health issues because he keeps pushing himself like he's a young man still. But he's not (he is 69 in three weeks), and his body frankly can't take the intense physical work of farming like it once could. He has had a torn bicep, injured his butt some kind of way I forget, and so on. But he's a stubborn Polack (just like me, hah) and he isn't likely to change. I just try to gently encourage him to sell the rest of his animals and pursue his hobbies, like woodworking (which has its possible injuries but isn't as hard on the body as the shit he gets up to now). Perhaps one day he'll listen.

100%, except for cases where it stops fitting (either because I get fatter or it shrinks in the wash). If I buy an article of clothing, it's because I like it enough to wear it.

No, I don't think those two things are in fact equivalent. For example, one could reasonably say that "nigger" is an offensive term for black people in America. The vast, vast majority of people in the nation would be greatly offended by using that word to describe people. By contrast, only a small (but vocal) minority considers "Gypsy" to be offensive. As such I don't think it merits saying the term is considered offensive at all, because unless you inhabit an extremely lefty bubble nobody is going to bat an eye of you say "Gypsy".

in America, "Gypsy" is a now-offensive term for the Romani.

Gypsy isn't offensive in America, unless you're talking to someone who goes out of their way to be offended by everything.

Seconded! I was skeptical about paying for search, but it's so much better than Google these days. I pretty quickly was convinced it was worth the monthly subscription.

I like watches in that I have a couple of nice watches I wear if I'm dressing up. Both of them were gifts from my wife: one is a quartz Fossil she gave me for our first anniversary, the other is a mechanical Tissot she got me for my birthday one year. I generally use the Tissot if I wear a watch, as it's both more comfortable and I enjoy the craftsmanship and engineering which goes into a mechanical watch. I also have a pocket watch I like, though that obviously doesn't get as much use as a wristwatch.

I definitely don't collect watches, though. The three I have are more than enough for me. And I would never in a hundred years get a Rolex. I'm not interested in paying obscene prices to play silly status symbol games. Heck I wouldn't have even bought the Tissot that I have - at $800 it is way more than I would spend on a watch, and I made my wife promise to skip giving me Christmas presents that year when I found out how much it cost. Needless to say a Rolex or other luxury watch brand isn't something I would ever consider buying.

I support breed specific bans, legislated at the local level. Pitbulls around small children is pants-on-head insane.

I think your proposals are reasonable except for this one. Pit bulls are fine in and of themselves. I've known more than one very chill, very friendly pit bull in my day who was that way because the owner cared and put in the work to teach the dog as a puppy. While it's certainly true that irresponsible dog owners disproportionately choose pit bulls, a bad owner can ruin any breed (as you yourself pointed out). The problem is not the breed, it is the owner, and I don't support outlawing something which responsible people handle perfectly fine just because a minority of people are irresponsible jerks.

A better proposal imo would be to strike this one altogether and let the revocation of someone's dog license do the work. If some underclass guy gets a pit because he wants to have a "tough" dog and he fucks it up, well, he won't have any dog any more. Sucks to suck.

Yeah that claim is insane. Men have an insanely high sex drive as teenagers and it goes down over time. It doesn't peak at 40, you finally start to get a reprieve at 40.

Great post. One thing you didn't mention: Protestant printings of the Bible did once have the deuterocanonical books. They were in a separate section, with a note that they were edifying reading but not the inspired word of God, but they were in there. Then in the 1800s publishers started to omit those books (to save costs), leading to the status quo where Protestant editions of the Bible don't have the deuterocanonical books.

Don't you find it a little odd that an organisation that is extremely sure about the existence of God, creation, the resurrection and about how the church is the only source for salvation suddenly starts admitting its own fallability on a topic that might offend modern audiences?

That doesn't even make sense as an argument. The Catholic Church is quite willing to hold firm on things that offend modern audiences a great deal more than hell. People aren't really that offended by hell, but they certainly are offended by the idea that no, gay people cannot legitimately marry, and no, a man cannot become a woman or vice versa, both of which the church stands firm on. Then there's the doctrine that women can't be priests, or the ban on contraception, which also offend modern audiences, though not nearly to the extent as the first two. Say what you will about the Catholic Church, but it isn't afraid to say "no, this is true" even if it's unpopular to do so.

If hell was real in the same way that the earth's molten core is real, people would look for evidence, run tests and experiments, apply lessons learned from similar fields. There would be a real answer. Instead we get an understanding of existence that is based purely on written and spoken words, and people can come to basically any conclusion they want.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, exactly. What do you want people to do here? The spiritual is not, as a rule, something we can explore empirically via physical measurements. Nobody denies this. It sounds like you're saying "people don't do experiments to prove hell is real, so that proves they don't believe in hell", but that's silly. If that's not what you mean, then I don't follow you at all.

Can you see how, to an outside observer, this might make it seem like you're not actually asking as if someone is listening?

Not at all. Certainly, I can understand if you say "this makes it seem like there's no God". You wouldn't be the first, nor the last. But I can't see any good argument to be made that unanswered prayers (or at the very least not answered in the way we might want) somehow reflect on my own sincerity.

Would I be right to think that the latter came before the former?

You would in fact be incorrect. The former preceded the latter by something like half a decade.

Applying wildly different standards to God that to the ones you apply to everyday life. I don't think any religious person believes in God in the same way that they believe that things fall down when you drop them or that the sun rises in the morning.

Again, your model is gravely mistaken. You would do well to abandon it and start fresh.

I actually would like to get you started on how the South is represented. I'm pretty unfamiliar with the culture down there, so I imagine it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Rule of thumb in life: don't say no for them. Maybe if you approach a woman she'll be put off by your height, but if you don't ask then you definitely won't get anywhere. Get out there and ask women for their numbers, king.

Right now, zero, but I think you're right that it should be nonzero. I'm going to start keeping some cash around, I think.

As a sidebar: you have misunderstood what Pope Francis said in the link you provided. He did not turn into an agnostic, nor go against Catholic doctrine. The Catholic church does not definitely say that anyone is in hell, nor does it prohibit the hope that all might be saved. What is prohibited is teaching that all will be saved. It is possible, but we do not know that it will be so, and the doctrine is that we must be open to the possibility that some might be in hell even as we hope for that to not be the case.

I am, and I will. But first...

People still get sad when their relatives die and are still scared of death themselves, even though they (supposedly) believe in heaven. They claim that God answers prayers but then don't ask for anything that couldn't happen in a Godless world (e.g. God ends all war and cures all disease tomorrow) because it might ruin the spell when it doesn't happen. Even the Pope himself suddenly turns into an agnostic on the topic of hell in spite of Catholic doctrine.

You are completely failing to understand people when you say stuff like this. People get sad when a relative dies because it hurts to not have them around now, even if you believe you'll see them again someday. People absolutely pray for an end to war and disease, it happens all the time. I personally pray for God to end wars at least once a week. You really, really do not understand the mindset of religious people based on what you've said here, and I strongly advise you to not draw inferences based on the very faulty premises you have laid out, because they will be completely invalid. Anyways, that aside...

I believe that the existence of a supernatural universe (not a specific deity) is pretty obvious based on simple logic. If we trace back the chain of events in our universe, at some point we must arrive at the thing that kicked it into motion - the uncaused cause, the prime mover, pick your term. There are two possible explanations for that: either the universe itself is eternal, having always existed, or else it was set in motion by something outside the universe which was eternal and has always existed. It seems obvious to me that the natural world itself cannot be supernatural, that would be ridiculous. Therefore, there must be a supernatural force which was the uncaused cause behind the chain of events that is our universe. Which is to say, it is obvious to me that we live in a supernatural universe. That is a limited insight - it doesn't tell us anything about what this supernatural force is like - but it does seem very clear to me that our reality is not materialistic.

I also believe in the existence of the Christian God not through logic, but through the personal experiences of a person whom I know very well. He's not lying, he's not hallucinating, the only possible explanation is that the things he experienced must have truly happened. I won't bother to relate them in detail because I know that "someone I know had supernatural experiences" isn't at all convincing. It wouldn't have convinced me if it wasn't someone I knew personally. But suffice it to say, I do believe it, though I think we have left the realm of the "I think it's obvious that..." behind.

I also believe that God intervenes in the world. Not always in the way we want him to, and not in ways that are undeniably divine intervention, but I do believe that it happens. I believe that I met my wife through such an occurrence. The circumstances in which we met were sufficiently improbable that I do not believe they could have occurred by random coincidence. Moreover, my wife has said that at the time she was praying to meet the man God intended for her, so I believe that our meeting was in answer to her prayer. Again, I don't think that this is something which would necessarily be obvious to anyone, but it seems very clear to me that this was the work of God in our lives.

All of which is to say: yes, intelligent people who are religious do in fact believe that God exists, that he answers prayers, and that he intervenes in the world. It isn't just compartmentalization and going along with the culture in which one grew up.

You don't know it's not.

You don't know it is. This is, ultimately, a matter solely of belief and not knowable fact. Personally, I find the belief that the natural world is itself supernatural (by always having existed) to be ridiculous, therefore I believe that there must exist something outside of the universe which set it in motion. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but I do think you have to concede that nobody can know what the uncaused cause truly is.

Seems like wishful thinking to assume something must be eternal to begin with. It's always possible that we just end with complete nothingness and there is no universe or god at the end.

I believe that @PyotrVerkhovensky was referring to the universe extending eternally backwards, not saying that it will have no end.

There is an actual South Park reference one could make. "I lost so much weight because I have AIDS! I want to give everyone AIDS, even kids!"

I genuinely struggle to understand intelligent people who do believe in God. I know intellectually it's compartmentalisation, but I can't put myself in that position. The world is so obviously not a supernatural one, prayer does nothing, there is no evidence of God exerting his will at either the small scale or the large one.

That... is not actually obvious in the way you say it, and I think your struggle to understand said people is downstream from that. I'll concede that it seems obvious to you, fair enough. But it is not obvious to everyone, and there are people equally as intelligent as you to whom it seems perfectly obvious that we live in a supernatural world, that prayer is effective, and that God exerts his will on the small and large scale. It has nothing to do with compartmentalization as you are (kind of uncharitably) assuming. Those people simply disagree with you.

I couldn't begin to tell you; I know nothing about secular accounts of history in the ancient near East. My point was more that, if you accept the Bible's accounts of those miracles as true, then you shouldn't necessarily envy the ancients for having been present for them. Because those accounts also talk about how even those who saw the miracles weren't necessarily convinced.

YHWH won. How much faith do you need to believe in that? Similarly, witnessing the lame man walk, or the blind man see, after being touched by Jesus wouldn't require much faith at all.

That is contradicted by the Bible in many different places. The Old Testament has the Israelites turning away from God time and time again, despite all the miraculous things they saw. The Gospels tell us that plenty of people (most notably Judas) doubted Jesus despite having seen him do miracles. So if the Bible is to be believed at all, even seeing miracles happen is not enough for everyone to believe.

See, this is why we should've kept all the bots and such from rdrama. You could have made it so that people have to put "I'm not self_made_human" in their posts, and it would be extremely funny for 5 minutes or so. Worth!

I would not say that "high school" means "went to a school campus and studied there", but rather it is a generic term for that level of education no matter where you get it. That is what I meant at any rate.

I did not fully flesh out my idea that success begets success etc, but what I meant was in terms of self confidence. When you succeed, you feel confident that you can do it again. Conversely, if you fail, you feel less confident that you will succeed in the future. And because people find confidence attractive, I believe that someone who gets off on a successful foot has a significant edge in terms of future success attracting mates, versus someone who gets off to a start with a couple of failures under his belt. I think that the guy who succeeds a time or two can more easily brush off future rejections, because he knows "I did it before so it's not impossible", whereas the guy who gets shot down a couple of times starts to believe "I guess I just can't do it", and that his lack of self confidence hinders his future prospects. In that way, it seems to me like romantic success and failure can be a vicious (or virtuous) cycle, where your past performance can influence your future performance. Obviously exceptions exist, but it seems like a decent general hypothesis to me.

I don't think homeschool would've been the death of you. It's not like you don't get to talk to girls. I saw plenty of young ladies my age when I was in high school, even if we weren't going to school together, after all. I do agree that it's a practice thing, the biggest problem in my experience was that in this arena, success begets success and failure begets failure. You need to go into that interaction with an easygoing self confidence, but at least for me that self confidence was destroyed by past rejections and it took me a long time to try to figure out how to build it up. I truly don't think anything would've been different for me in this regard if my school situation had been different.