Technically, yes, everything is political if you make it political. But you have to make it political first. Petting your cat isn't inherently political unless you bring up the government policies and economical structures that allow you to own the cat in the first place, or compare your attitude towards the cat to a political stance, or something else of that ilk.
In the same way, everything is scientific if you study it scientifically, and everything is theological if you consider it from a theological perspective. It's technically true, but that doesn't make it useful. It says more about the way you think than the nature of reality, especially as politics are a social construct.
That's true to an extent. It's more about avoiding arguments, though, and less about whether the view is orthodox.
For example, some views are so out there and unaligned that people will just think it's a joke and not fault you unless you start seriously arguing for it, like if you say murder should be legal.
On the other hand, some orthodox views would still get restricted because they're contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that's something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn't be political. But it's going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it'd be restricted.
So basically, it either has to be so out there that people won't think you're serious, or so commonplace that people won't even consider that it could result in arguments.
The thing that gets people up in arms is that you can't see the shape of tree nearly as easily* as you can see the height of the ladders, so the "equality" solution may just look like giving an advantage to your favorite group.
*Yes, we have ways to see the shape of the tree, but that's through studies and trusting experts, whereas you can see the height of the ladders plainly.
Or… they can make a theater mix of the audio (full dynamic range) and a streaming/dvd mix (normalized volume levels) so that everyone gets the best experience.
Well, LLMs are, at least. But also, autocomplete is already AI, so really LLMs are just glorified AI. And that checks out, they are the ones that get all the glory*. Everything else is just spooky algorithms.
I googled it, there is an option to sync it to your Microsoft account, but I can't say whether that's on by default when you turn on clipboard history because I skipped adding a Microsoft account. But if it is, you can turn it off in Settings -> System -> Clipboard.
'Round where I'm at (college campus,) it's common for answers to be like "stressed" or "tired" or "...I'm alive."
I appreciate the honesty, and I want to be there to listen. I like encouraging people to be honest, so I used to respond to the dismissive "good" answers with "how are you really doing?" But there's also something to be said against encouraging people to look at the negative, because in the same situation, perspective can make a huge difference.
I've been through (some of) the worst of it, and I was able to get through it, but I don't know how much of a toll it would have taken if I was actively stressing myself out over how busy I was. The highlights of my weeks really helped.
Can confirm. I pedest, and it's more useful for me to know how long it will take to get somewhere than how far away that somewhere is. One effects my time of departure, the other is just a fun fact.
After success with my senior project, developing a real game with a team of 15 that we're releasing on Steam, which I feel really good about, I crave the experience of working in a team to develop a game. But of course, my hobby project is a nonprofit endeavor so I can only expect volunteers, and even though I feel I can get the coding down mostly on my own, I feel like I might be asking too much by hoping for an artist or few to join with me... maybe I just need to change up my approach, and offer equal shares of creative control, that way it's not "help me make my game" so much as "join me and we'll make our game."
Sorry for the late reply, I've been too busy with school to set aside a block of time to address this yesterday.
I understand that you want a high standard for proof, and I agree that, if it's available, you definitely want the highest quality proof available before you make a commitment that's going to alter your life and eternal destiny. But if all you have is medium-low quality proof for a god and a "we can't be sure" for there being no god, it doesn't make strictly logical sense to default to no god. I know Pascal's wager isn't going to save souls, but if the risk of getting it wrong is being tortured by some other deity, then it's better to take n-1 risks of eternal torment than n risks, especially if the only evidence available points towards a god. For a mundane comparison, if you're in a burning building and a helicopter lowers a rope ladder to get you out, while the burden of proof would be on them to demonstrate that the ladder is strong enough to hold you, if all they can offer you is a "Billy said it should work," you're still better off taking the ladder (with a risk of falling back into the fire and dying) than staying in the fire and certainly burning to death.
If I were you, I would have made the case about life on Earth instead, because when it's about choosing your lifestyle, there's little risk of the ultimate bad time in the equation, so it makes more sense to be picky about the quality of evidence. You're not going to commit 10% of your income, half a day a week, and obligate yourself to study a book just for a "Billy said it's true."
If you do want to make the case about life on Earth, I'd be happy to meet you on that front, but I don't want to put words in your mouth and then immediately punch them back out without waiting for you to respond. I mean, I'm not planning on throwing punches anyways, I'm more just talking about fair debate principles.
It's historically confirmed that Jesus existed at least as a human. The disciples were, at least after Acts, prominent enough that if one of them made a statement that they never actually saw Jesus resurrected, word would have gotten around and been recorded somewhere. To me, that means there are one of three possibilities:
The disciples really saw Jesus resurrected. Impossible if God isn't real (unless time traveling aliens or something,) but we don't know that.
The disciples conspired to fabricate Jesus' resurrection. It doesn't seem far fetched for 11 people to make something up for clout. There are far more people than that who claim to have seen aliens. But there are three key differences here:
It was a singular event, and everyone present was in agreement. That puts it above most alien sightings, but not all. I'm sure somewhere a group of 20 alien fanatics got together to claim an alien sighting.
The disciples were prominent figures who were subject to investigation and much persecution, pressuring them to concede that Jesus was not the real deal for most of their lives. The scope of that far exceeds any other conspiracies I know about. 5 professional liars couldn't keep Watergate under wraps for even a few years.
Prior to the resurrection, the disciples believed that lying was a sin, and they continued to teach it afterwards. It's not out of the question that a few of them could have reasoned that getting the Gospel out was more important than telling the truth, but for all 11 of them to unanimously decide on that, and not one of them lets it slip in a moment of guilt at any time? These people weren't chosen for their commitment to the cause or their ability to keep a secret.
The disciples hallucinated Jesus' resurrection. It's a known phenomenon that sometimes happens to widows. The person I originally talked about this with told me that 30-60% of widows have this hallucination. I think that number looks a bit too high, but I took 60% for a generous estimate. For all 11 disciples to hallucinate Jesus' return would be 0.6^11 = 0.36% chance tops. Even if 60% is accurate, the chance would still be lower, because they'd all have to hallucinate him in the same place at the same time.
Yeah, I agree Pascal's wager isn't a good way to frame your life. I was just using it as a counterpoint to your explanation on why the standards for proof are so high. If it is because you're trying to avoid the risks of a bad afterlife, you're already doing Pascal's wager, just with the wrong approach. The only way I can see that being the best approach is if you're actively evaluating all the known religions to weigh the odds of each against how bad their hells are. But then there also better be reason to suspect that the ideal religion might gatekeep you for having once been part of a different religion, yet not gatekeep you for having been an atheist or for going in with the motivation of Pascal's wager. Otherwise you might as well sign up with the best you know of right now and keep looking. But don't do that because the wager is not a good : )
When I mentioned life on Earth, I was referring to having high standards because it's going to affect your mortal life, rather than because of the risks of a bad afterlife. I think that's a more sensible approach because it doesn't require you to start from the assumption that an afterlife is possible, and the costs can be empirically measured instead of going off whatever the holy texts claim (outside of miracles, of course.) If the cost is 10% of your money and a day a week, then yeah, you probably want to be pretty sure before you commit, but if there are clear benefits, it might be worth it even without a rock-solid proof of a deity. Does that make sense?
Yes, I see what you mean about using the Bible to prove itself. I hadn't noticed that the earliest manuscripts of Mark's gospel didn't have the account of Jesus appearing to the disciples, so that raises the possibility that when Mark (or whomever wrote that) was collecting notes of the stories around Jesus to spin a narrative, he decided to fabricate the idea of Christ appearing to all 11 at once in order to make it seem more credible.
The gospel of Mark is believed by scholars to have been written around 65-73 AD^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#Table_IV:_New_Testament], predating the other gospels, but it's not the first book of the New Testament to have been written. 1 Corinthians, which scholars are sure was written by Paul, is believed to have been written around 53-57 AD, and it explicitly says that Christ appeared to the twelve disciples^[https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1CO.15.5.NIV].
Now it's not exactly clear how many of the disciples were still alive by then, and at least one of them had died, but there were still some of them around. Seeing as they were still kicking, it wouldn't make sense for Paul to make up an eyewitness testimony on their behalf, and if he did, they would have heard about it. His letters weren't exactly kept secret. So even though we don't have a direct claim from the (probably illiterate) disciples that they saw Jesus resurrected, it's safe to conclude that they did make that claim.
EDIT: Though I suppose this brings up a fourth possibility (or fifth if you count aliens) that Paul was a chessmaster who made up the appearance to the twelve, and arranged to have any disciples who disagreed with his plan executed before he wrote about it... I think that's pretty far-fetched.
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, which is why I'm citing historical analysis of the Bible. Most scholars don't think King Arthur was real, and if he was, the stories weren't written when he was alive, so you can't put any stock in the story because no witnesses were around to verify nor dispute it. On the other hand, even if you believe the Bible is a book of myths, there are still historical facts that have been independently verified, like:
There was a guy named Jesus who got crucified^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus]
The disciples were real people^[https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qn6r4/are_there_any_historical_proof_that_all_12/]
Paul's letters (or at least most of them) were written by Paul while he and at least some of the disciples were still around^[As previously cited]
The early church was significant and persecuted^[Tacitus again]
Because the early church was significant and the disciples were real people, I conclude that they were famous.
Because they were famous, I conclude that if they said anything surprising, word would have gotten around.
Because Paul's letters were written while the disciples were around, and the disciples were famous, I conclude that if he said anything surprising about the disciples, they would have heard about it.
If the disciples heard a story about them that never happened, they would have confirmed it, denied it, or evaded the question.
If they confirmed a story, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but it does mean they wanted people to believe it's true.
If they denied a story, that would have been surprising, and word would have gotten around, so there would have been some mention somewhere.
If they evaded commenting on a story, that means they wanted people to believe it's true (and hints that it was untrue, but that part doesn't really matter for my purposes here.)
Thus, if Paul wrote something about the disciples while they were around, and there's no mention anywhere of them denying it, that indicates that the disciples wanted people to believe it's true.
Paul wrote about Jesus appearing to the disciples after resurrection, and there's no mention of them denying it. This doesn't necessarily mean that the resurrection was true, but it does mean that the disciples were at least complicit and refused to deny it even in the face of persecution. As for conclusions from there, see my earlier comment.
Is that line of thinking solid enough, depending on historically verified facts instead of taking the Bible as an accurate account at face value?
Also, something that bugged me about your earlier comment: You say you make no claim as to whether a god exists, you just aren't convinced. And you say there's no proof for a lack of a god. Yet you also said that you think aliens causing the resurrection (or appearance thereof) is more plausible than a god existing.
Aliens having the technology, knowledge, and motivation to cosplay as God is already highly unlikely, whether in a world with a real god or not. Jesus being the real deal is fairly likely if in a world with God, but impossible if in a world with no god.
So if you're telling me that Jesus being the real deal is less likely than aliens cosplaying God, that tells me you think there being no god is significantly more likely than God existing. In the absence of evidence in either direction, they should be treated as equally plausible (though not equally valid, as burden of proof is still a thing.) The fact that you don't tells me you actually do lean towards the lack of a god.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm definitely biased towards God existing. I'd just like you to introspect and examine your bias so you're aware of it. Though I'd also appreciate it if you adjusted your parameters and leaned a little more this way ; )
Makes sense. I guess I'm not so much demonstrating that the resurrection is true as that, if it's not true, the accounts surrounding it are still very extraordinary and probably worth looking into.
We had an r/place at my engineering school ( jlai.lu )
Free time [Mr. Lovenstein] ( lemmy.world )
https://mrlovenstein.com/
hippocampus ( mander.xyz )
Home economics ( lemmy.world )
Don't ( lemmy.zip )
Don't you hate it? ( lemmy.world )
No notes ( media.mstdn.social )
Image description: Gravestone for an English teacher that reads: Here lies (not "lays") Billee Woody Robbins Reed...
A Cool Guide on Inequality v. Equality v. Equity v. Justice ( i.redd.it )
https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/1csdlrz/a_cool_guide_on_inequality_v_equality_v_equity_v/...
"LiNuX uSeR iNsTaLlInG A BrOwSeR haha" meanwhile : ( lemmy.world )
Terminal > Windows Registry.
Break all the rules ( substackcdn.com )
Source
Tattoos ( mander.xyz )
The Sound and the Fury ( files.mastodon.social )
Whisper and Explosion 2 is even better. The whispers and explosions happen at the SAME TIME!...
Ripperonis ( mander.xyz )
Fly ( lemmynsfw.com )
AI Suggestions ( programming.dev )
I still don't get buffers ( programming.dev )
The exchange. ( files.mastodon.online )
https://mastodon.social/@Chrishallbeck
Seems legit ( lemmy.today )
StackGPT ( jlai.lu )
Tactical move ( lemmy.world )
heresy shmeresy i wanna be a dinosaur ( lemmy.blahaj.zone )
"Yeah, yeah, I totally know what a lion looks like, just give me the brush" ( lemmy.world )
Always happens ( lemmy.world )
Oxygen ( mander.xyz )
i don't get you ( lemmy.ml )
this picture is 27kb ( lemmy.world )
Death rolls ( slrpnk.net )
Any Volunteers ( programming.dev )
Internet comments ( mander.xyz )
What did you get told as a child that you realised was a lie as you got older?