sun_the_second
No bio...
User ID: 2725
What's ugly about it is that Americans who are not sufficiently white don't like the idea that their white coworker or whoever is basically fine with them being seized and deported to El Salvador just because they're a bit too far on his circles of concern.
I reckon it'll be more like "sanitize your speech in phone calls in real time 20 years before you pass".
Wouldn't deducing any moral code after reading Nietzsche by definition not be "on your own, not through mimetism" etc?
Strange to assume that I'd say "gravity can kill you" implying that I approve of it, but no, I meant that it is capable of killing you.
How so? It seems to work pretty well against a wide variety of Gods that purportedly intervene in notable and noticeable ways into human life.
Humans are curious, we want to discover things. Want to discover the truth. I think we're interested in more than just utility.
So am I, yet religions are notoriously opaque to truth-discovery. "The ways of God are inscrutable" and all that. If you are saying they are inscrutable, why would I bother searching for the truth the way you told me, rather than my way (which tells me you are likely to just be a meme carrier)? It appears to me that for most people religion's function is to stop curiosity at certain points where it can't actually explain things further, not foster it. Meanwhile the "religious scientists", the way I see it, just do science the regular materialist way and resort to God when outside of their sphere of knowledge.
I mean, a lot of searching for truth had been prompted by one-off events. But searching for truth doesn't mean one must accept the religious premise ("it was a divine miracle") on face when one begins.
I do not think I am determined not to believe. I think there is simply more evidence and more reliable evidence, on the level of "gravity can kill you", in favor of a world that has no God.
I do think I am somewhat determined to not be faithful, even (especially?) if I was convinced by some arrangement of miracles that (a) God existed.
So if something cannot be experimentally tested, is it an invalid hypothesis?
I'm told that's what the principle of falsefiability is, but again, I'm a layman. All hypotheses I create in daily life could be tested by attempting to write code and seeing if it works.
What is science supposed to do for "one-offs"?
Shrug, say "that's very cool but can we make use of it again?" and continue on? At least we spare the energy and time of praying that way.
As for the rest, I'm not sure we even are at a disagreement, I've lost track of the argument.
Theories prove themselves insufficient and new theories are created to fill the gap. "God did it" proves itself insufficient compared to scientific (or rather, materialist) theories, and retreats to ever-shrinking gaps.
With all this being said, if I do encounter something extraordinary* that seems to be the direct result of prayer I will certainly consider reporting it to the Motte.
Please also report extraordinary events that did not seem to be the direct result of prayers.
Because that's the thing about miracles, even if I watched you regrow a limb before my own eyes and you told me God personally spoke to you and told you it was because you prayed for it, it would move my needle on spontaneous limb regrowth a lot, but not so much on God. I've heard of many, many people praying and receiving fuck all.
My layman's understanding is that dark matter was invented to explain the otherwise unusual expansion of the universe, has never been observed, and conveniently (like miracles) is believed by its nature to be difficult to observe because of the way it does (or doesn't) interact with regular matter.
Yes, that's how it works. When something works in a way that doesn't fit the rules we've observed so far, we can put forth new hypothetical sets of rules that would explain the observations and can also be hypothetically tested.
I bet the "invention" of gravity has attracted similar comments once upon a time. It's so convenient that gravity can make things both go down and spin around other things, isn't it?
The difference between "scientists invent things" and "priests invent things" appears to my layman's understanding to be that while scientists put forth a considerable amount of effort to hypothesize the things they invent, priests already have a ready-made Source (God) of all things that they defer to without any insight into the mechanisms.
What you wrote looked like you meant to write Russians are proud of being conquered by Poles, not of kicking the Poles out.
In that case, I can assure you there is definitely less pointlessness in Pale.
I wouldn't call Worm too grimderp, but Pale is definitely much brighter. Maybe 25%? The most grim elements of the setting that were on full display in Pact, the other work in the Otherverse, are pretty much out of the way.
That being said, if you dislike a few horrific displays of torture and violence sprinkled here and there, those do exist in Pale. As I said, there is slavery and the associated mechanisms of suppression.
Reverend Insanity does have plenty of flowering descriptions, the issue I find with it is that the narration is about 99% tell, 1% show. It will explain at every moment what a side character's inner thoughts and motivation were and why they acted like they did, as well as every intricacy in the magical system that facilitated a difference in power between two characters.
The people who get invested into moving beyond Earth seem to generally not be the kind of people who trust Elon to do anything about that. Anymore, at least.
This reads like modern neogender theory.
Yes, there's been definition fuzziness/creep between "a UFO is, literally, a Flying Thing we, the general public, are Not Sure What It Is" and "a UFO is an alien encounter".
Of course. If Bigfoot and UFOs were both real and capturable on camera, I'd hear about it from CNN and the like, not no-name Youtube channels.
This still leaves the "it's faked from one level above them" out, as you've noted.
Once again I'll trot out Pale by Wildbow. I think it captures both "anti-slavery campaign" and "slavery does not instantly disappear".
I think you're vastly overestimating the consideration the average aggressor gives to the "but they will go to prison if they attack me" thing.
Being intimidating works because most people will not cold-bloodedly evaluate the costs and benefits of you actually using your offensive capability.
I don't see how "you can carry a weapon" would come off as significantly less civilized to Canadians than "police can beat you up because they deem you a socially acceptable target (and socially acceptable targets include the homeless)".
I think you are taking someone obliquely implying you picked your namesake for his cuckoldry entirely too seriously. This is an internet forum for witches, not the UFC ringside. Profuse defense of masculine honor looks out of place here, IMVHO.
I know my arguments sound dreary, but just because I think I know why I have certain beliefs and preferences doesn't mean I don't have them, or that I wish to be rid of all of them - merely some. Conversely, many religious people who have achieved the supposedly most fulfilling things in life look quite sad to me.
It is a common misconception to think nihilists are worse off than you just because they're less uncritical of their feelings, or perhaps less evolutionarily fit.
- Prev
- Next
No, it's the other way around: if you will, you'll have followed the advice.
More options
Context Copy link