It doesn’t make sense at first, but your brain has to rationalize it so it comes up with a plausible explanation. It doesn’t have the context to know if that’s the right explanation, so while you’re driving to work and going about your day it’s still trying to process this in the background, quietly pushing you toward an aneurism years later.
4H doesn’t really make sense if you’re from an area where it’s a big thing, but I’ve known a fair number of people who only went to school because of their 4H livestock. Got a buddy who’s a doctor debt free because of a steer.
This includes deaths from covid-induced pneumonia, and influenza has higher seasonality. Including deaths from influenza-induced pneumonia, not cherry picking a summer month, and using a per capita statistic shows that covid is more deadly than the flu, but only about twice as deadly, not almost 24 times more deadly as your comment implies. Further, if you are under 50, the mortality rates for influenza are roughly equal or lower than covid depending on your age. Flu is much more likely to be disastrous for young children than covid.
There’s something endearing about a young person trying to look cool by being edgy, completely oblivious to the fact that everyone sees through their facade. When a middle aged man is still trying to look cool by being edgy it’s decidedly less endearing.
There’s something endearing about a young person trying to look cool by being edgy, completely oblivious to the fact that everyone sees through their facade.
Religion is ignorance and refusal to face reality.
As long as people behave, treat others, and vote according to the sacred scriptures written by a crackhead thousands of years ago, and their influence shapes the world around me and puts a limit to my freedom, then there will be no distinction between religion and extremism. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian skepticist, who has not once tried to convert anyone and votes for far left parties. Please enlighten me how I’m inherently ignorant and taking your freedom.
Despite millenia of disproven lies about a non existing almighty being, you still believe this being indeed does exist and indeed is almighty without ever having any measurable effect on the world whatsoever.
How is that not ignorant?
and taking your freedom.
I don’t support the statement that you personally take away anyones freedom.
But organized churches have a long standing tradition of suppression and if you are part of one you support that at least indirectly.
Corporations have been stealing ever since the dawn of time, anyone working under a big company willingly is not the one to blame, and also what’s with this ‘I know everything’ stuff in the comments section? Is your only basis of hating 90% of the world’s population is that they believe in a god? If anyone can tell for a fact that God doesn’t exist, go on, but everyone knows its a matter of choice and you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist
But I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and reply to your specific points.
Corporations have been stealing ever since the dawn of time, anyone working under a big company willingly is not the one to blame
That is a strawman argument.
In most societies people are more or less forced to work for some employer, so I think it is hard to blame a worker for the company he works for.
And additionally I think one can blame a worker if they choose to work for the ethically worst companies.
Is your only basis of hating 90% of the world’s population is that they believe in a god?
That is very insulting.
I don’t hate religious people, my mother is deeply religious and I truly love her.
But she is misguided and gives time, effort, believe and most of all money to an organization that still to this day promotes homophobia, suppresses women and staunchly defends child rapists.
I don’t like that and I won’t stop criticizing it.
but everyone knows its a matter of choice and you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist
Off course it is your prerogative to believe in god.
I wouldn’t ever want to ban you from believing in whatever you want.
But you shouldn’t be surprised if people put you in the same category with people believing in a flat earth or something like that.
If you just choose to believe random stuff without evidence than it is only natural that your opinion is not taken seriously.
It is not like there are two equally valid theories about what to believe.
One group believes in things if there is proof and one group believes in things because some dude from the bronze ages wrote it down.
I am gonna make an apology for the fact that I am getting a little bit excited, which might be becoming apparent, religion is a complex subject and discussing so much matter is a bit complex and no one here in the comments seems to be interested in having a discussion but rather spouting nonsense against 90% of the world
But I will agree that I am also against giving money to organizations that promotes hate, whether it’s affiliated with religion or not, that money is better spent on a better cause, and I also respect the fact that you don’t hate religious people, but also there are lots of institutions affiliated with religion that work for a good cause, a lot of churches and mosque provide shelter, gurudwaras are famous for providing food, atleast where I live
The thing is I don’t think a person should be judged for their beliefs but rather they should be judged based on their actions, a person kills someone, it should be condemned, no matter if he is a priest or the pope, a person donates money to the charity and helps someone, that should be praised, no matter what he believes personally about god
Me believing in a flat earth is me disbelieving in a proven fact, you would be right to call me dumb, but there is no study that disproves the existence of god, so if anyone believes in one, you can’t call him/her dumb because it’s not against any proven fact, it’s just that he thinks that life around him is enough evidence that someone out there exists, and there is nothing unscientific or unreasonable about that, and spouting hate comments against them and claiming they are dumb, banning them for wearing a piece of clothing is just wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Nobody is saying that people should be judged by their religion. People here are saying Religion itself encourages anti-science and bigoted views.
Secondly, it’s absolutely unscientific to believe that the lack of disproof is sufficient evidence for belief. This is fundamentally unreasonable and is just as much proof as saying that pigs can fly when nobody observes them.
No, religious people are not morally wrong for being religious, and they are not to blame. Religion itself is.
Listen everyone! According to cowbee, we should make sure that from now on, nobody will ever put out any hypothesis ever again! It’s absolutely unscientific! Any claim should be absolutely 100% correct and if not, we should leave it at there!
Believing firmly in a hypothesis without confirmation of said hypothesis is not sound. Again, pigs flying when nobody can see them, and firmly believing in it.
This gets additionally dicey when religion is used as a tool to restrict women’s rights, and uphold homophobia, transphobia, and racism.
The scientific method works by creating a hypothesis, and testing it to verify. It does not work by creating a hypothesis and firmly believing in it until its disproven. You take an agnostic approach until confirmed one way or the other.
Hey first and foremost, thanks for the good faith discussion.
I want you to be reassured that I don’t hate you for your religion.
And I don’t think you or any religious person is necessarily dumb.
We just happen to fundamentally disagree on certain points that seem to hold at least some value for both our lives.
And I will gladly admit that believing in god has the fundamental difference to believing in a flat earth that you described. The flat earth is soundly disproven and the existence of god is not.
I would in reply try to refine my point to saying that I think believing in god is comparable to believing in the easter bunny or the often quoted flying spaghetti monster (that I purposefully didn’t want to invoke earlier).
Yes you are absolutely free to believe in any of those things.
I would fight to defend your right to believe in them.
But I cannot ever accept it as truth or even an educated opinion to hold without any proof pointing specifically towards the existence of any god.
And not to end on a negative note.
I love life around me, I love nature, I love animals.
I think the world is a wonder.
I do not believe any god made it the way it is.
I have no reason to believe that.
I just love it for itself.
Despite millenia of disproven lies about a non existing almighty being, you still believe this being indeed does exist
There is a whole area in Philosophy called Philosophy of Religion that would really like your disproof of the existence of such a being. They have atheists and theists alike.
I don’t have to proof something doesn’t exist, someone that wants to be taken seriously has to proof why they would believe something does positively exist.
If you are claiming something doesn’t exist you should prove it. Why should I take your argument seriously without proof? You see how this goes both ways?
If something exists it should be easy to prove. There should be some form of sign of it.
This is absolutely not true. Things can exist without being accessible to you directly in a manner that makes it easy to prove their existence.
On the other hand it is hard to disprove the existence of anything at all. How do we know there is not some teapot in outer space?
Proving non-existence is not always hard. If we were arguing about the food in your fridge and I were claiming you had food in your fridge when you did not you could easily prove me wrong by just showing me the contents of your fridge.
More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof? Seems like you are artificially constructing rules here solely because they benefit your position.
We can’t. But that is no reason to believe there is one.
The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in “outerspace” in some sense.
I agree with your points. I just want to add that what OP was talking about is that the existence of a deity or higher power is not falsifiable and thus is impossible to logically disprove. I’m sure many, many, many people have tried on both sides.
My favorite proof against any higher power is from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Edit: changes “logically prove” to “logically disprove” as that’s why the concept of a higher power cannot be disproven.
My issue here is with what I perceive as bad argumentation, double standards and general ignorance to the field of study where these sorts of questions are applicable on the part of the person I am replying to.
Edit: I want to be clear that I’m not saying you are doing that. I am referring to the other people I have been replying to.
More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof?
It doesn’t. But, “God doesn’t exist” is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim “God exists”. The very concept of a higher power didn’t even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it’s been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.
The counter-claim of “God doesn’t exist” needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of “God exists” actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the “evidence” if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so… I’m not too worried.
ETA:
The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in “outerspace” in some sense.
The other person you replied to worded this bit poorly. The original analogy is trying to convince people on Earth to believe that there is a teapot(which is too small to see with a telescope) orbiting the Sun independently somewhere in between Earth’s and Mars’ orbits. It’s completely illogical to believe seeing as humans haven’t sent anything without scientific value beyond maybe the moon, and there’s no evidence aliens have visited our solar system let alone left a teapot in orbit. But since it can’t be proven there isn’t a teapot orbiting by itself, does that mean you should believe there is? No, of course not.
It doesn’t. But, “God doesn’t exist” is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim “God exists”.
I’d agree that at least sometimes it is a counter claim, but I don’t agree that counter claims aren’t claims themselves. The wording “counter claim” seems to me to indicate that “counter claims” are just claims of a particular type?
“God doesn’t exist” is surely a statement right? If I tell you “god doesn’t exist” (in response or not to something you’ve said), this feels like I am claiming the statement “god doesn’t exist” is true.
The very concept of a higher power didn’t even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it’s been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.
I absolutely agree with you on this point.
The counter-claim of “God doesn’t exist” needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of “God exists” actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the “evidence” if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so… I’m not too worried.
I don’t think we need proof to reject a claim like “god exists”. There’s no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.
But, there is to me a difference between rejecting the truth of a claim vs excepting the truth of its denial. So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn’t say X too.
“God doesn’t exist” is surely a statement right? If I tell you “god doesn’t exist” (in response or not to something you’ve said), this feels like I am claiming the statement “god doesn’t exist” is true.
This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word “God” as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you’re not responding “God doesn’t exist” directly to someone who said “God exists”, you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.
As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it’s simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself.
I don’t think we need proof to reject a claim like “god exists”. There’s no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.
I absolutely agree. That was kinda my point. If the claim ever did get some actually noteworthy evidence, then it would certainly need to be properly proven or disproven… but I don’t think that will ever happen.
So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn’t say X too.
The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God’s existence, that’s impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was “God exists”, that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.
This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word “God” as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you’re not responding “God doesn’t exist” directly to someone who said “God exists”, you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.
If I say god doesn’t exist to you I feel like I’m making a true or false factual claim to YOU rather than to a bunch of old dead people or some greater historical/cultural context. The history of the word/definition might be relevant for deciding what the word means, but the claim is aimed at YOU. The actual truth status of the claim (even if we call it a counter-claim) that I might be making is either true or false (assuming we subscribe to bivalence like that) regardless of the history or culture that lead us to the discussion.
As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it’s simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself
It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.
For example, if you say “2+2 is 4” and my response is “NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH”, not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.
The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God’s existence, that’s impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was “God exists”, that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.
The fact that you can look up tax code is not really a problem for my hypothetical example. It is not particularly hard to come up with hypotheticals where you just can’t easily obtain the answer. We could rephrase the context, perhaps we are stranded on a desert island? We could rephrase the question, perhaps it is about what some obscure historical figure had in their pockets on the day they died?
To be clear, I’m not trying to argue for or against the existence of god. My issue is that there should be a burden of proof for the CLAIMS “god exists” and “god does not exist” if somebody is claiming either is true. I don’t think there’s any kind of burden for believing some random claim without proof, but I think it’s silly to commit to the negation of a claim without proof unless you have a reason to believe the negation. You can always just not commit and say you don’t know in such a case, rather than believing the claim or its negation.
It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.
Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.
For example, if you say “2+2 is 4” and my response is “NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH”, not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.
You wouldn’t have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I’d think you’re really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.
Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.
That’s not what I’m claiming. I’m saying the claim AND counter-claim should provide evidence/proof before either one is accepted. Blindly believing not B because you can’t prove B is just as bad in my opinion as believing B itself with no proof.
You wouldn’t have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I’d think you’re really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.
A lack of evidence or proof for some claim B is not sufficient proof for not B. It doesn’t really matter what claim we assign to B here.
For example, you might not have evidence/proof that it will rain today (i.e. B is the statement “it will rain today”), that doesn’t give you sufficient evidence/proof to now claim that it will not rain today. You just don’t know either way.
I said there are millenia worth of disproven lies.
Which there are.
Like that the whole world was flooded and repopulated by one single family, which is disproven by DNA samples.
Or that it is gods will that priest stay unmarried, which is historically agreed that it was a measure to keep wealth inside the church organization.
Or so so many more.
I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist.
And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.
I see where I misunderstood. To reframe, you’re saying that claims made by various religions/churches, which are presented as evidence of God, have been disproven, not that God has been disproven.
Obviously, the fact of whether or not there is a creator cant really be disproven, but I would say that any of the gods conjured up by humans have a pretty substantial amount of evidence going against their existence.
If there is a creator of some kind, it is so far beyond our comprehension that it is pretty much useless to ponder on.
Also, I’m not the person you were going back and forth with. I apologize for jumping in the conversation at a strange point.
I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist. And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.
You also said: “A nonexistent almighty being”. Did you mean no gods exist, or did you mean all the gods people claim to exist so far have been debunked?
More importantly, for the claim “no god exists” specifically, I disagree that no proof is required in general. There needs to be an actual proof as much as there needs to be a proof of the negation, that “a god exists”, for either to be worth accepting. If neither can be proved, why commit to believing the truth of either?
Additionally, disproving particular examples doesn’t prove the general rule. Having no documented sign pointing to the existence of a god does not confirm the absence of a god anymore than having no documented signs of a gas leak in your home confirms the absence of a gas leak in your home. Perhaps the detector you are using is broken, perhaps the type of gas leaking in your home is not detectable by your detector.
It would also be incredibly hard to design any kind of empirical test to confirm or disconfirm the existence of gods in general (not just the christian flavored ones).
“Academic philosopher Michael V. Antony (2010) argued that despite the use of Hitchens’s razor to reject religious belief and to support atheism, applying the razor to atheism itself would seem to imply that atheism is epistemically unjustified. According to Antony, the New Atheists (to whom Hitchens also belonged) invoke a number of special arguments purporting to show that atheism can in fact be asserted without evidence.”
If only you could read, maybe you’d be more tolerant, but I doubt it, sigh.
The sheer arrogance to post a philosophical minority opinion paired with an insult and then end it with a sigh.
And while I am not particularly familiar with Mr. Antony’s work I can tell you that he either didn’t understand or purposefully misused Hitchen’s Razor insofar as you indeed can not apply it to Atheism the same way you can apply it to christianity.
The reason for that being that there is no particular thing at all you have to believe to be an atheist.
Atheism in and of itself doesn’t assert anything at all.
So there is nothing that could be dismissed.
Atheism says there is no reason to believe in god.
How does Hitchen’s Razor dismiss that? It doesn’t.
Not to mention your quote still is no argument towards the positive existence of god.
And if you don’t show me how I am supposed to be intolerant, I will take it as the baseless insult that it is and will no longer discuss with you.
Atheism says gods doesn’t exist. So yes, it very much goes both way.
Stop moving the goal post. You’re just an intolerant cunt that freely bash on people, insisting that any form of belief is bad, because you can’t conceive a good one in your defective brain.
I’m not trying to prove that gods exist, as unlike you, I’m not saying gods exist, because I don’t care about proving or disproving either way. I don’t feel so egocentric that I need others people to feel like I do.
It helps some people, and the only viable and truly defensible position is agnosticism. And like everything with humans, yes, it is sometimes used for evil. If that’s your argument, you’re against everything a human can ever use and you should become an hermit.
A cunty intolerant hermit, when you think about it, which would prolly help people more than the stupid points you’re trying to make.
PS : You’ve already proven your incredibly limited view by stating before that religion = Christianity basically.
It seems like you should understand my point/position before you reply to me if you want this conversation to be productive? Why is understanding those things irrelevant to you?
Why is understanding those things irrelevant to you?
Because philosophy, debate and logic were part of the basic school curriculum when I was a kid, and as a result I understand your particular subjective perpective is irrelevant to this conversation…
I’m “oh-so-focused” on that because you’re “oh-so-focused” on telling me about “empirical investigations” that disprove the existence of gods, which have literally nothing at all to do with my point.
The lack of reading comprehension here is definitely on your end.
Me (sans-snarkyness) in the original comment you replied to: “Hey, the field of philosophy where this stuff is studied is called philosophy of religion. Proofs for and against the existence of a god have been critiqued to shit there. You should read about it.”
You: “Oh yeah! Well I can disprove any god you like.”
Congrats? Do you want a gold star or something?
Go study philosophy of religion. These kinds of proofs and disproofs are part of that field along with their critiques. That’s the point I’m making in the comment you originally replied to. Nothing about my point is subjective.
Sorry for getting your panties in a twist over paraphrasing your totally irrelevant point. Please understand, I don’t give a shit about what you think you can prove or disprove.
Any supernatural phenomenon, upon rigorous delineation, becomes provably false
Great point, one of the MAJOR challenges with arguments about whether a god does or does not exist is that the whole notion of a god is incredibly vague and not “rigorously delineated” in a general sense. Literally any introductory course in philosophy of religion would point this out.
Great point, one of the MAJOR challenges with arguments about whether a god does or does not exist is that the whole notion of a god is incredibly vague and not “rigorously delineated” in a general sense. Literally any introductory course in philosophy of religion would point this out.
So not only are you functionally illiterate, but you’re also largely ignorant of the field you claim to have some sort of knowledge on. Great going, chief. Just a little headsup - philosophy isn’t short for “we talk about shit while holding a beer”.
Have you studied philosophy of religion? Sounds a lot like you haven’t. Maybe reading up on it will help you? You can fix your reading comprehension and also learn not to say the dumbest shit possible on topics of religion. It’s really a win-win for you.
I think you understand neither what a skepticist is, nor how religion or free churches work. And by your logic I assume you have to be an anarchist, since every government that ever existed - or society for that matter - has exercised some form of suppression.
I think your overgeneralizing, intollerant way of thinking is sickening and hardly better than that of a racist or sexist.
And please don’t tell me what my beliefs are. That’s pretty church-y of you.
I think you understand neither what a skepticist is, nor how religion or free churches work.
Well you’re wrong in both, but I am curious why you would think that.
And by your logic I assume you have to be an anarchist,
Hilariously wrong here.
since every government that ever existed - or society for that matter - has exercised some form of suppression.
Care to explain what that has to do with anything I said in this thread?
I think your overgeneralizing, intollerant way of thinking is sickening and hardly better than that of a racist or sexist.
And I think you resort to personal insults because you have no valid arguments against my positions.
But please humor me and tell me how I am intolerant in an comparable way to a racist or sexist.
And please don’t tell me what my beliefs are. That’s pretty church-y of you.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian
Are you kidding me? You told about your beliefs yourself.
And it’s especially rich after your whole post made assumptions about me.
Well you’re wrong in both, but I am curious why you would think that.
You claim I believe in an almighty being, yet this is a key point where a skepticist might disagree with your average Christian. Moreover you claim I am supporting oppression, yet you don’t even have the slightest idea what church I’m in and what they do or ever did. So you seem to have either huge misconceptions or you are prejudiced to a point where you are dismissive of anything that doesn’t fit your narrative.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian
Are you kidding me? You told about your beliefs yourself.
This just shows how you don’t view Christians as individuals at all. Claiming to know exactly what I believe in based on that sole statement is exactly as silly as me claiming: ‘I know what you believe, because your are an atheist.’ Acting like you know a strangers beliefs for certain is arrogant to say the least.
Care to explain what that has to do with anything I said in this thread?
Well, you judge churches based on the fact that some where oppressive in the past (and yes, I know some are still today). Based on that you either have to hate pretty much all governments, since it obviously doesn’t matter whether anything have changed, or you have double standards.
And I think you resort to personal insults because you have no valid arguments against my positions.
If you feel attacked by me calling out your intolerant and overgeneralizing way of thinking, that’s just because you are unable to defend yourself against a fact. Your words leave no other conclusion than that your are extremely prejudiced against Christians. You might have expressed yourself badly once, but you doubled down on your hate and ignorance. You might have good reasons for it, but would you excuse someone being racist for having had bad encounters with an ethnic group? Just as you probably wouldn’t, neither do I excuse your statements about Christians.
I didn’t want to reply at all because it is starting to get ridiculous and noone else keeps reading this.
But please just for the sake of being honest, show me where I am intolerant or hateful?
I replied to other comments in this thread as well, there should be plenty to pick from.
Show me my intolerance, show me my hate.
I even make it easier for you.
I think religion is a cancer to society.
I think all religions are basically cults.
Make a straightforward argument how my statements are either hateful or intolerant.
Because while those statements are my honest opinion, I am still strongly in favour of freedom of religion.
I would never forbid anyone from practicing their religion as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights in doing so.
I don’t hate anyone for being religious. There are wonderful religious people.
Still I think they are wonderful despite their religion, not because of it.
I don’t even hate you, despite your ongoing insults towards me.
I just think you are very wrong on a fundamental level and haven’t yet learned to deal with being told so.
Care to back your statement that ‘religion’ is ignorant? No one has any Idea what happens after death or are you enlightened enough to know and which case I would like you to tell us, which religion is taking away your freedom? You have the choice, you can follow any religion or leave it
What happens after is that brain stops functioning, as a result of that, your body starts to rot. Nothing else happens. Your brain, that I argue is the real you, stops functioning.
which religion is taking away your freedom?
My parents circumcised my penis when I didn’t know what they were doing, they permanently stole a part of me; and as a result of that crap, my sex life is ruined forever. They took away my freedom because of you shitheads who are ruining our world by influencing people into accepting religion. You guys have the audacity to claim that people have a choice after indoctrinating children of religions so that once they are adult they follow your religion.
If you are so about choices, then make sure your kids don’t get to know about superstitious beliefs until they are an adult and only then tell them about your fantasies that you believe that a bearded man is watching us from the sky. I bet your kid is going to think you’ve gone crazy.
Unfortunately I don’t think you will be able to actually getting anything from them. They clearly already look down on you for believing what you believe.
I don’t get what your sexuality has to do with anything, but anyhow.
Why do you have to be {insert cult-membership here} if you believe in something? Don’t dare to believe {whatever} for yourself? Do you need to be told what to believe and how? You don’t make it sound like that, yet you are christian, hence member of said cult? I don’t get the correlation. Why does one rarely hear people say “i believe in some god, but I’m not a member of blahblah”?
I’m not IT, just a college instructor, but you’d be amazed at how many Gen Z students have told me that they can’t log into their email because they don’t know their own password. Not even forgot; they don’t even know it in the first place because every device remembers everything for them.
Ease of syncing across devices has me using an internet-based password manager (Bitwarden), but I keep a second local-only password manager (Keepass) that only stores my Bitwarden password. Just in case.
Hey that’s real smart but what if you forget the Keepass password when trying to retrieve the Bitwarden password you forgot lol?
I use Bitwarden myself and love them. Great software great organization it seems. They didn’t even send any bullshit marketing “noooo come back YOULL LOSE EVERYTHING” emails companies love to send when you downgrade from paid to free tier and that right away bumps them up in my mind.
My wife and I also keep our Keepass passwords in each other’s Bitwarden vaults.
So to lose access we’d both have to simultaneously forget our Bitwarden passwords AND be locked out of any biometric login. I consider that sufficiently unlikely.
I’ll be honest as an IT professional of 25 plus years I don’t know .y passwords either but that’s because I let a password manager deal with it for me.
I have had people older than me complain the comp forgot the pass in my desktop days.
There was also it’s cousin. I am definitely meeting the complexity requirements why isn’t it saving
My favorite are the services that keep rejecting the randomized passwords so I have to manually think of a password. I ain’t creative enough on the spot for that! Just accept my /dev/urandom output dammit!
To be fair that is basically what we are trying to get people to do though. Use a good password vault with a single strong password and two factor authentication. All other passwords should be a uniquely generated password for that application.
Like others have said they’re probably using Google as a password manager. When you’re making an account for anything while in the Chrome browser it recommends strong passwords for you such as UjafUif&i$ureT6hj9gzq5hvc$tcgo0be3. Would you memorize it?
I get it, but I also don’t understand the idea of letting Google suggest a random secure password for me. Probably just the Genx/Millenial in me, but I subscribe to the xkcd school of random password generation (password generator), which makes it really easy to have secure passwords that meet complexity requirements and are also easy to memorize.
Yeah, I have my own password generation scheme. Not the most secure thing in the world but I’m at least able to log in to my accounts from other people’s computers. One of these days I’ll get around to using a password manager but I just can’t be bothered.
Definitely. I don’t really do anything that is particularly sensitive, so I only have 3-4 standard passwords (that meet the most common complexity criteria) that I separate by how sensitive the information/service is, but if I truly needed more, I would absolutely be using a 3rd party password vault. I just don’t have the need right now, so I haven’t bothered.
What gets me is the people that don’t know their own passwords, don’t know how/where to look them up, and don’t even understand how to reset their passwords (because they can’t log into their own email). I don’t even know how they function in modern society.
What gets me is the people that don’t know their own passwords, don’t know how/where to look them up, and don’t even understand how to reset their passwords
I worked support for a phone manufacturer for a while and helped a lot of poor lost souls struggle to get back into their Google accounts on their new and replacement devices. I got a lot of them in, but some may have never gotten out of authentication hell
Caring about that has been beaten out of them by increasingly absurd password requirements over dozens of systems. They won’t memorize it, won’t write it down physically, and use the web browser to save it.
“But my system is different, I…”
Nobody cares. The password is just a speed bump in doing the thing they actually want to do.
My kid sister is the same way. Bought her a quest 3 for her bday. Took 3 days to get up and running because a) she had no idea what her meta account passwords were… had always just logged in on her phone… and b) none of the forgot password functions worked because she never cleared her Gmail mailbox so it had filled up and bounced previous facebook emails landing her on their internal do not send list.
ironically I think tech literacy is going down with future gens thanks to so many functions getting automated. Kids aren’t learning how their computers work because it does all of work for them
It’s like that with everything isn’t it? The problems have been off-loaded. In my company for example we used to make our own motors, now we buy them. I doubt there is anyone left who knows how to build one where I work.
I hate to be a “kids these days” person, but you’re absolutely right. My Gen Z students don’t even understand how folder/file structure works; they just download everything onto their desktop and use the search function to find what they need later. If they can’t remember what something was called, they’re SOL.
Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of faith in Gen Z and Alpha, but their strengths are definitely not the strengths of Millenials or Gen X.
My girlfriend (millenial) is like that as well and it is infuriating. I tell her time and time again, just use a password manager that isn’t the browser’s password manager and you are golden. You just need to remember one “complicated” password, i.e. something with more than 8 characters and that’s it.
The many times she doesn’t know her password to important account is mind boggling.
Tip for anyone using Google Chrome password manager they can access it from any other device by going to passwords.google.com in the browser and logging in (probably best in incognito if not your device).
Unethical life pro tip: want to kill yourself but left something for your family? Buy a life insurance policy, call the suicide prevention hotline and wait for the cops to kill you. Isn’t technically suicide, so the life insurer can’t deny your family claim!!
For those that are genuinely confused, there’s two very important things you must know. The coroner is the job title for the guy who writes up what caused you to die. They do things like autopsies (when required), and they’re basically a doctor for dead people.
The other thing is the English idiom of “paying [someone] off”, which is basically a common way to not so subtley say that you’re bribing them.
So in plain language: there is an extremely good chance that my uncle bribed the coroner to ignore whatever he found on my uncle when he died and say he perished from natural causes. This normally implies something about self deletion and insurance, since insurance basically never pays out if you die by your own hands.
Is anyone still confused? Please let me know if you are and I can address any part of this that might not be crystal clear.
It’s not quite about clearness, but if your uncle did that all by himself that means he must have trusted the coroner a lot. Which is a bit surprising with regard to bribing one, to my mind.
He had fallen in with some questionable types throughout his life, partly due to his work. I won’t get into many details here, I don’t want it to be traced back to his family or anything; but due to the circumstances he found himself in, bluntly, he was worth more dead, than alive. He would only be worth anything if he died “naturally” or something, since life insurance is kind of a stickler for that sort of thing.
All I was told was that he had made arrangements for his body to be found, and around what was going to be done afterwards to ensure that insurance paid out so his family would be taken care of.
The circumstances were kinda BS too, it wasn’t his fault, but he was liable and there was little he could do to change that. He knew what the outcomes were and to him, death was the better option. I’m not saying I agree with his choices. I had no real part in them, I was too young at the time to really grasp what was happening, and appropriately, I was not aware of, nor involved in any of it, and heard most of what I know through my older siblings and from my father (his brother). He apparently sent my dad a note the night before he was found dead basically summarizing what was about to happen, so it was very clearly planned. As far as I’m aware, everything went according to plan and though I don’t have much contact with that part of my family, I believe they’re doing just fine.
Just a touch more detail on the circumstances, it was some legal issue he found himself kind of “holding the bag” for (so to speak) so his outcomes were: (extremely unlikely) he would be found innocent, and allowed to return to his “normal” life - obviously he didn’t think this was possible at all. (most likely) he would be found guilty and sentenced to many years in prison. Being a convict would ruin his chosen vocation as there’s a lot of trust required in what he does and a conviction would basically exclude him from working in his field. (alternatively) he dies, insurance pays out, his family gets a big wad of cash, and he would be just as useless as if he was found guilty; but now with a pretty significant amount of money given to his family.
I don’t hold it against him. I don’t have any strong feelings on the matter. It’s just something that happened.
Cops will still claim it was suicide-by-cop. Which is some top-tier copaganda, because it’s just another way of them saying “if you call us while in distress, there’s a good chance we’ll kill you then blame you for it.”
I kinda legit want to check the conditions of my current life insurance policies regarding suicide. Not because I want to off myself today, but because I do want to off myself if I get the stage four diagnosis or some such thing.
For those that live in apartments, there are VESA stands that mount to the back of your furniture, and others that use a clamp for tables, so you don’t have to put holes in your walls. I use one on my desk for a fairly wide monitor.
If you’re unfamiliar with VESA mounts, just take note of which of the two standards your device uses. These are going to be either 75x75mm or 100x100mm. Verify with a ruler, don’t rely on the literature to be accurate.
If you wanna be mega-bougie about it, you can get just the mounting plate, and there is couple hardware available to pair it with aluminum extrusion, if you really like that 2040/2080 extrusion.
I wish higher end TVs had the option to buy without the stand. They always have beefy center stands in the box even though everyone mounts high end TVs.
Now I’m just stuck with a 50lbs stand that I have no use for.
Afterall, “Your PC needs to be backed up and connected to a few more Microsoft services to help you work more easily and securely across all your devices.”.
Try to uncheck “Suggest ways I can finish setting up my device to get the most out of Windows”/“Show me the Windows welcome experience after updates and occasionally when I sign in to highlight what’s new and suggested” in Settings -> System -> Notification & actions (Windows 10) or “Offer suggestions on how I can set up my device” in Settings -> System -> Notifications (Windows 11)
Idk, I talked with a bartender once who said he thought it would be amazing to drive one, and I said I didn’t think I could stomach it because of Musk, and he said I shouldn’t get political over a car. Well, they don’t interest me enough to ignore the Elon part.
I rented one in California. I was never been so frustrated with a car before in my life. There are no knobs, for ANYTHING. Everything is done through the touchscreen. Try navigating the A/C system in traffic. Or as the sun goes down and the screen brightness doesn’t dim, blinding you as you drive. I will never buy a Tesla, and it starts with the UI of the car. Elon is just the icing on that shit cake.
I watched a friend of mine try to parallel park hers once and just about died laughing at how shit the autopark was. She said it kept determining that the right lane was actually the curb, so it would go through all of the motions of parking and then just stop in the middle of the street. Every time I read about or interact with a Tesla, I feel like I find out about something else they added because it looks or sounds cool but doesn’t actually work.
This is one of the criticisms of the car that hits home for me. People are now replacing old Teslas which they bought ‘full self driving’ for without ever receiving the feature.
The UI is not the worst I’ve ever had in a car, it sacrifices a lot in favor of simplicity and/or software but a lot of simple tasks can be done through voice or happen automatically.
Wipers are auto, headlights are auto, but if you need to adjust them without using a voice command, you’re gonna say “why can’t this just be like a normal car”
You do get used to a lot of the quirks pretty quick. But there are a lot of quirks to get used to.
Not an Elon fan, just got one for a steal of a deal through a family member.
Same exact story. The whole first 2 hours I’m constantly having my kids Google Google how to lock the car, how do we adjust the mirrors, how do we turn it on, how do we change the radio station, how do we turn on the air, etc etc etc. On the third day my daughter is just trying to open the door and she yells “why is this car so fucking annoying?!”
It’s obvious it was designed by a child trying to look cool to the other kids.
Honestly, why? Their “no harsh edges, flowing contours” looked good in 2010 but is now completely played out and ugly. Coupled with the fact that no Tesla has had a facelift in nearly a decade, I think they’re the ugliest cars on the road rn.
the cabin height being a giant bubble is what i dislike. they pretend to be smaller cars than they are. a small tesla next to a normal crossover vehicle is a good way to remind yourself how big they actually are.
One man’s “all look similar” is another man’s “strong design language”. I think BMW kidney grills are played out 30 years ago, but some people love them. Lambo wedges are played out. Jeep boxes are played out. Etc.
I personally like the no-harsh-edges look. I don’t think it’d look especially out of place if it was released this year.
To me that’s kind of just the design language. Like how all BMWs look similar, or all Mazda’s look similar. Etc. Typically a strong recognizable brand is considered good, even in the auto industry.
And really idgaf if they all look the same. Model s, smaller model s (3), bigass model s(x), medium size Model s(y). That’s fine. I don’t need a single brand to offer everything, I can go to other brands for variety.
I’m not a car guy, I just don’t pay close attention. I drove a delivery van when the Tesla cars were gaining popularity, and I straight up had the thought one day how weird it was that there were a lot of '90s Ford Taurus sedans still on the road.
I won’t go so far to say they’re timeless, obviously, but I think the design has holding power. Their design language isn’t especially bold but it’s not out of place compared to newly released models from competitors. It’s disappointing that they haven’t made any bold changes, but I don’t think that means they’re dated.
I don’t doubt it can last 20 years, but I doubt any Tesla will last as long as an average Toyota. We know batteries have limited cycles. When an engine takes a shit it’s a few grand. When batteries take a shit, you’ll never even consider replacing them because they’re 5x-10x more expensive than the car is worth. So off to the landfill. Definitely saving the planet or much money buying a higher end model Tesla.
I think it becomes economical sensible for a lowest priced model 3 if you qualify for all the rebates (state and federal), otherwise it’s an early adopter tech toy.
Ya that would be difficult for a Tesla fan. Easier just to make a baseless claim and pretend you could but simply don’t want to refute anything with facts.
Then why even reply… Waste of time and space. It’s ok to just move on.
Lithium batteries are very expensive(20k) and don’t last 250-300k miles. That’s an undeniable fact.
Engine swaps are not even close to that. You can swap 5 engines for the cost of a full battery swap.
And EVs aren’t saving the world. They’re saving a few people some money on gas. Which is much less than the extra cost of the cars unless you drive a lot, or live somewhere with expensive gas.
20% battery degradation after 100k miles is not a small issue. It’s extremely significant to the equation of value.
These aren’t “opinions.” They’re facts that are well addressed and talked about routinely. There’s no secret information about the limits of lithium batteries. They’re literally 18650 batteries. The same batteries consumers used for over a decade. We’re all aware of battery degradation.
First of all, only 1% of gas cars make it to 200k miles. So even if we accept your contention about battery loss, 99% of EVs will last as long as gas cars.
Second, EVs lose experience about 10% capacity loss per 100k miles. Some a little more, some a little less. So at 200k miles they’ll still have somewhere around 80% of their initial range. Your 20% estimate is wrong, except maybe for Nissan Leaf which had poor heat management. My Chevy bolt had 50k miles on it with no appreciable capacity loss.
Third, battery replacement on a tesla is around $13k which is not 5-10 times the cost of the car. Battery prices are also decreasing as more of them are made, so the cost will be lower in the future.
I don’t expect any of this will change your mind, since it’s based on Fox News talking points, but I don’t want other people misled.
First of all I have never owned a car that got less than 250k. But every car I’ve ever had was made in Japan and maintained properly. That statistic is meaningless because 1) many cars aren’t maintained 2) many cars are “totaled” for no good reason 3) cars are resold to people who refuse to or can afford to maintain them.
I didn’t say 10-15x the *original cost * of the car. By the time a car has let’s say 150k+ on it it’s not very valuable. It’s 17k for a full replacement on their smallest vehicle. So a $20k+ battery on midsized car (the actual cost of a full battery replacement, not according to Elon) won’t get replaced at all. The car will be totaled.
Replacing a full battery is not $13k. You are citing the average cost which includes if only one cell needs replacement. Replacing an transmission or a engine is much more affordable than a full battery replacement.
It’s not fox news. It’s fox news talking points that pretend EVs are good enough to save the world, and we can keep on feeling fine with an unsustainable “solutions” instead of dealing with the real issues.
Very misleading arguments you are making. EVs will make no meaningful changes to saving your wallet, the environment, or resolving climate change. And definitely won’t lessen the amount of waste headed to landfills in 15 years.
lemmy.world
Top