@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 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.

I was also homeschooled. I think it depends very much on the child and the parents. I'm pretty smart and was capable of learning from just textbooks with no real input from my mom, as was my brother. All we needed was an adult to keep us from dicking around all day. My sister is also smart, but has dyslexia and I suspect a touch of autism, and she struggled hard even with my mom spending a lot of time trying to help her learn. It's hard to know if the public school would've helped her, as we lived in a small town which wouldn't have necessarily had tons of resources, but it's a distinct possibility. Other parents fail their kids by just checking out completely, and of course a child isn't going to care about learning on his own if the parents aren't making him. So I think that there's a minimum threshold of parent involvement, where you at least make sure the kids stay on task, and possibly take a more active hand in teaching if the kids aren't able to just absorb textbooks.

Socially, I think it's not as bad as people say but it's not a complete non issue either. I was pretty socially awkward until late high school, and even the start of college. But again, it's hard to know how much of that was due to my innate tendencies - I was in the local elementary school for first grade, and I was socially awkward and got picked on then too. I would say that it didn't give me any particular trouble when I was trying to date and marry, at least. I had issues in that regard but it was due more to being overweight (and self conscious about said same), so I had a real lack of confidence which is not an attractive quality. But I seriously doubt that I would've done any better had I been in the local high school. And, of course, it could've been worse - my wife has social anxiety that she has to fight to this day because she got bullied in school, so for some kids it's hard not to wonder if they wouldn't have done better outside the school system.

The more senior the dev, the more they tend to resist even trying out new tools or workflows.

That isn't true at all in my experience. But it is true that more senior devs are less impressed by "new and shiny", instead being very critical about "what problems does this solve better than my current tools do".

One of the things that annoys me about mandating LLMs is that, generally speaking, you have to hold tech guys back from adopting new stuff. They are notorious for going all in on things which have issues for the company (security and compliance flaws, etc) and have to get walked back. They will even set up shadow IT departments just to get stuff done better. If LLMs are truly as useful as the hype says, there's no need to mandate using them. The people for whom they solve problems will trip over themselves to try to use them.

Oh, I agree that almost by definition a great many people must be wrong about their religious beliefs. Whether that is a belief in a particular religion or even atheism, there are too many mutually exclusive positions for us all to be right. But it seemed to me that you were saying you doubted people's sincerity in how they arrived at their beliefs, which is quite a different matter. A person can be completely sincere in seeking the truth, genuinely set aside any biases or preconceived notions, and still be wildly wrong. Sincerity in seeking the truth is, unfortunately, no guarantee at all that one has indeed found it. I would therefore say that correctness and sincerity are orthogonal to each other.

Remember the COVID lockdowns, when billions of school children were confined to their rooms not so much because there was a reasonable suspicion that they were positive, or because they would be competing for ICU beds if infected, but frankly because their freedom was a price the adults were willing to pay to delay the spread of the disease a bit while keeping the economy going?

I don't, because that isn't what happened. Certainly, we shouldn't have closed down schools; I think it was an extremely irrational thing to do which will prove to have had lasting negative repercussions on a generation of children. But the reason we did so wasn't because of a cynical desire to boost the economy at all costs, but rather because people were panicking about the virus and were desperate that Something Be Done. Many, many people were completely unwilling to consider any course of action except for the maximally safe one, and so we closed down the schools even though I don't think there was ever a significant risk to leaving them open.

I understand that you cannot know for a fact how a person's mind works, and that it is certainly possible for a person to be lying to you, or even themselves, about the thought process they followed to get to where they are. But it sounds like you're skirting dangerously close to an unfalsifiable belief here, because it seems like you are alleging that even if someone isn't consciously doing confirmation bias rather than truth seeking, that just means they're unconsciously doing that. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that would be a pretty large claim to make, and also one which is quite unfalsifiable (and should be scrutinized very hard indeed as a result).

Well, it is fiction of course, and not meant to be taken as an authoritative view on hell. But I would say that my experience with human nature has left me quite convinced that people will not necessarily give up on a mistaken belief, even if it's causing them suffering. An imperfect analogy here would be addicts. My brother in law was an alcoholic, and an outside observer could see how much suffering his drinking was causing for him. Not just that he couldn't hold down a job and all that, but it ruined many of his relationships, left him being angry and bitter on a daily basis, and was destroying his body. Everyone around him, literally everyone, clearly saw that the bottle was destroying him and that he would be better off if he could give it up. But he never could admit that he needed to stop, not up until the day he died. I realize that a human lifetime's scale is very different from forever, and that's what makes the analogy imperfect. But my experience has shown me that the human mind has a great capacity to double down, even in the face of great suffering. So it isn't impossible for me to believe that someone might choose hell for all eternity.

I will say that I think the "eternal conscious torment" theory is bunk. Like you said, it simply does not fit with a supposedly loving God. But even an infinitely loving God can't (or rather won't) force people to love him, so I think that hell as a self-inflicted privation of good, rather than a punishment, makes sense. Beyond that, though, it's hard to say. Perhaps the "souls outside heaven will eventually be annihilated" people are correct, perhaps the "all will eventually choose to submit to God" people are correct, perhaps the "after we die we don't get to change our minds because spiritual beings can't change their minds" people are correct. I don't know, but thankfully it doesn't keep me up at night or anything.

Religious believers, in my experience, choose a priori what they want to believe (whether it is that their enemies will burn, or no one will burn) and fit scripture to match it.

For what it's worth, that is not what I do. Not on this topic, nor any other topic concerning faith. I've gone from being raised a non-denominational Christian, to agnostic, to being a Christian again, to being Catholic specifically, all on the basis of my ability to discern the truth as best I can. I try to remain open to new ideas or arguments, and not just confirm my biases. I'm not perfect, of course, but I am genuinely trying. So inasmuch as your experience in life includes me (not much, sure, but not zero either), you at least know some religious believers who don't do what you have observed.

rae was a little harsh...

I think that "a little harsh" doesn't quite cover it. Rae came in here purely to vent his spleen in a way that was unproductive and frankly a real dick move. I didn't bother to get into it with him because there's no point arguing with someone that angry about the topic that they will go out of their way to shit on someone else's beliefs, but it was a really crappy thing to post.

I am fond of the CS Lewis formulation of hell (as I am with many other topics in Christian thought): people in hell are there by choice, not because God bars them from heaven. The suffering of hell, then, is not a divine punishment, but ultimately self-inflicted (since God is the source of all good things, by choosing to set yourself apart from him one chooses to forego good things and only suffering can be left). I think that Lewis illustrates this interpretation of hell quite nicely in The Great Divorce, where he envisions hell as a dreary gray town where most people are insistent on staying, even though they hate it there, because they believe that the bus that takes one up to heaven is some manner of trick and that they are better off where they are. But for those who do choose to go, they find in the end that hell was really purgatory for them, once they left it behind.

As far as the topic of universalism goes, I can't say I really know one way or the other. I certainly hope that all will be saved, and I like Bishop Barron's phrasing of "we may hope that hell is empty". And I must confess that the victory of Jesus over sin feels somewhat hollow if, in the end, there are those who will not be saved, even if it be by their own choice. However, I do believe that God respects our free will, even if we choose to be apart from him, even if we never come to our senses and realize that we made a bad choice by remaining apart from him. And given human nature, it is difficult to imagine that every single human will ultimately choose to humble his heart and say to God "thy will be done". So it is therefore hard to imagine that hell will be empty, in the end. But I do hope it will be, even though I doubt if I'll ever have certainty in this life.

Why are you even in this thread if you don't believe in God? If you don't, the entire topic is moot so you can ignore it and go about your day.

Fair, I didn't encounter players who just wanted a feel good ending but I'm not surprised that some existed. And yeah it's a lot more text, but if there's one thing the Internet doesn't have enough of, it's nerds spewing words about Mass Effect. ;)

Yeah video game development has slowed to a crawl. It's genuinely bad; I would much much rather have games that look 50% as good (still very good!) and take only a year or two to develop instead of the status quo where they take a decade.

Yeah, it seems like some game devs like to treat the player as a sucker for... playing the game that they bought. When the player is railroaded (as he basically always in video games, with varying degrees of success in hiding the rails), and you shove the player's face in "haha look how awful it is when you did the things we forced you to", the player is going to resent that.