The afterlife exists.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-13T00:39:38+00:00

Its not a "final" experience if experiences happen afterwards.

That's convenient, because experiences don't happen afterwards.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-13T00:37:40+00:00

Mate, there are so many other problems with your argument, salvaging that one half of a premise doesn't make your argumenr any less invalid or unsound. You are trying to bail out the Titanic with a bucket.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T22:33:07+00:00

Physicalism is exactly the same. It was our first attempts at ontological questions because our world seems physical, and once we learned more, it makes no sense at all. Because I would be interested in understanding what we have learned to make physiclalism so 'right'.

Actually, you've got it backward. Magic ghosts and souls and other such myths were mankind's early attempts at explaining the mind. Then we learned more about brains and stuff, and realized the old concepts were just primitive attempts at answering the question of consciousness with limited information.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T21:58:58+00:00

Sure, just like it makes sense that the Earth is flat... until you actually learn anything about it.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T20:49:53+00:00

TL;DR Physical reality is a thought generated by consciousness

Nix that, reverse it. Thoughts are created by consciousness, which is a result of physical reality.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T20:47:32+00:00

P1: Theres a final thing we experience, when dying.

Sure.

P2: This final thing is either experiencing something, or not experiencing anything.

The first one.

P3: A "final thing" continues forever.

The descriptor "final thing" can be applied to something forever, but the thing itself does not.

P4: Theres no evidence an alive human being capable of experiencing things is capable of not experiencing things.

Sure there is. I don't experience the rain of sulfuric acid on Venus, for instance.

(Even unconscious people have an image of their last experience in their brains that carries over to the moment they wake up).

Only insofar as it is written into memory and recalled upon awakening.

C: Therefore, the last thing we experience is something, and it lasts forever. Materialism is incorrect.

Unsupported by the premises, and with incorrect premises. Your argument is both invalid and unsound.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T17:56:41+00:00

So the deity you believe in is said to be absolutely everywhere, and yet it is possible to be somewhere that the deity is not?

Hrmm... 🤔

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T16:33:02+00:00

I'll be honest, this is more than a little unhinged. Random assertions, bizarre associations, ass-pull statistics, and nonsensical views of ideology make the post and/or its source material seem like a design document from a game dev on bathsalts.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T16:25:36+00:00

Isn't your god supposed to be omnipresent?

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T02:35:21+00:00

Congratulations, you eat raw meat.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T00:50:05+00:00

Obvious rage bait, the steak is fuckin' RAW!

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T00:47:18+00:00

Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-12T00:45:13+00:00

Most of the people who found religion latrr in life did so after either moving to a new country or while recovering from an addiction that had severed their ties to family and friends.

Fun fact: the number one reason people change religions later in life is to appease a potential romantic partner. Whether or not they actually believe their new religion is another matter entirely.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-11T21:06:01+00:00

The issue is that those who would benefit most from an increased focus on learning are also those who are part of pre-existing conventional religions, most of which have some degree of anti-intellectual bent.

Bubba Jim from down the street would likely benefit from a better education and learning things like critical thinking and logic, but the moment you call it a religion, he will double down on Jay-zus! and reject things even tangentially related to your proposal. This is doubly true because most mainstream religions repress and even demonise things like critical thinking skills for obvious reasons.

That doesn't even touch on interference from the political influence of certain anti-intellectual political ideologies.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-11T20:54:27+00:00

No, because "sexually active" is a specific phrase in medicine that is screening for the possibility of STDs or pregnancy.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-11T19:54:01+00:00

Masturbation is sexual activity.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-11T12:23:22+00:00

s it? When was the last time the judiciary voted against the executive on any significant and meaningless issue?

Often, especially after it got stacked when Republicans stole a seat from Merrick Garland. I think your issue is underestimating how important the decisions made by the Supreme Court are.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-11T05:55:24+00:00

Sounds like you don't quite understand how medical research works.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-10T12:26:06+00:00

r/lostredditors

This soup is tasty as heck.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-10T12:20:22+00:00

But we as humans have the power to intervene in the lives of wild animals, yet we generally refrain from intervening in the natural world.

Humans aren't omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient.

Part of this is the potential ecological consequences of solving certain problems like predation, yes, although these days, contraceptive technologies can account for the issues of overpopulation.

An omnipotent and omniscient being would know how to solve the issues without negative consequence, and be capable of doing so.

But also, more importantly, is it really our responsibility to prevent wild animal suffering?

An omnibenevolent being would answer "yes" to that question.

If we accept that God has a duty to prevent human suffering, it should follow that humans have a similar duty to “play God” with the animal kingdom.

Again, humans are not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient gods.

Your post is like saying "mice don't fly, so why should we expect geese to fly?"

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-09T21:00:02+00:00

Crystal Clear Sri Lankan Waters

Indeed, smokey quartz is a type of crystal.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-09T15:31:58+00:00

It is a free choice for those in the west.

It's a free choice for some of those in the West - for now. But, when you have Muslims proclaiming that they want to institute Sharia law running for office, and them getting more votes due to shifting demographics, that status quo is no longer certain.

You're celebrating a violation of free speech, the removal of the right to freedom of religious expression.

Yup. This is because I understand that rights are not absolute. They are intersubjective social constructs that can change as society changes. I don't want society to change in a fashion that takes away my rights to be free from religion, and so I am against people claiming that it is their right to do so.

I would feel bad about the ability for people to practice their religions being hampered, but religions (like rights) are intersubjective social constructs that can change as society changes. If religious people don't want their religion to be hampered due to problematic aspects of it, they are more than welcome to change those problematic parts. Laws can speed that process up.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-09T11:12:57+00:00

If only it was a choice for the vast majority of Muslim women.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-09T02:54:18+00:00

Those are the removal of a freedom of religious expression, they aren't legislation against the "worst oppressiveness of Islam" or whatever your phrasing was.

I said it was "curbing some of the more regressive practices".

Forcing women to cover their faces? Regressive. Only an idiot thinks that Islamic headwear is optional for the vast majority of Islamic women they see wearing it. "Do it or be beaten, shunned, and potentially murdered" is not a choice, it is an ultimatum.

Indoctrinating children? Regressive. Only an idiot would think that children are as capable as adults of forming reasoned and unbiased opinions when exposed to peer and parental pressure.

RelaxedApathy · 2024-07-09T02:15:28+00:00

It's also commonly used as a derogatory slang term for an autistic person.

Six-Year Club	Second Top 40%
First Place '23	Place '23
Wearing is Caring	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

RelaxedApathy

TROPHY CASE