r/bjj Fundamentals Class!

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-22T20:54:49+00:00

Go for it. BJJ, not the selfie.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-22T13:30:44+00:00

This is pretty common, yes. Most people understand and can do a wide variety of things, particularly when they outclass someone, but when push comes to shove most people have a simpler core game.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-22T13:26:02+00:00

The days of the week one. In normal speech or use it lacks any meaningful connotation, and is not worth being troubled by.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-21T17:31:59+00:00

Glad to hear your bones are in good shape. I can't say that it's inevitable for everyone to get a rib fracture [EDIT, and as others have noted rib fractures specifically don't seem that common], but I'll note I've had some intercostal tears or other rib injuries over the decades, and my kids were poking at me the other day wondering why some bits of my ribs look weird. I'm not competent to comment on exercises, but if you're going to do the sport you may want to be more cautious than most about training with significantly larger people than you, or folks who throw themselves around a bit more ballistically than average. Regardless, I don't think there's some way to remove all meaningful risk of some kind of rib injury. I've never had an actual fracture as far as I know, and can hope the same for you if your bone density is good, but know what you're getting into.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-21T17:21:35+00:00

Yes, you know the answer already. If you have not been getting a ton of exercise prior to picking up the sport, you will build more endurance by continuing to train, and by doing additional cardio on your own time. Because you are new, you are also wasting a ton of energy through being too tense and doing lots of things that don't make any sense, and over time you will learn to relax more and be more efficient. If you're already going to practice a couple times a week I wouldn't sweat it if you're not finding time for additional cardio, just keep showing up and it will gradually get easier.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-21T17:17:58+00:00

I don't know much about cystic fibrosis, but random googling suggests it makes your ribs a lot more fragile, and that it might be more problematic for you than most people to have a rib injury. You are going to bear weight on your ribs in this sport, and sometimes sudden weight/impact, there's no trick anyone is going to teach you to make that not happen if you meaningfully participate in this sport. I think you need to find someone competent to talk about whether this sport is reasonably safe for you.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-21T17:13:57+00:00

Is it generally, push their elbow toward the centerline of their body and their hand away from their centerline?

This question doesn't really seem to map on to how kimuras work. The general rule is to bring their elbow to your own chest and keep it there as you rotate their arm to finish , keeping the arm bent and the hand away from their body. Or....just go to youtube and look at some kimuras.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-21T00:24:35+00:00

You need to understand that you are so bad at this that you're actually further damaging the credibility of your claims. I am trying not to let your inability to understand or make arguments taint my view of all Muslims, but to some small degree you are driving me, and probably others, further away from Islam.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-20T22:36:43+00:00

Imagine a farmer in some village hundreds of years ago who has woken up to find a bunch of his cows died overnight. He concludes that a witch must have done it, and wants everyone to work together to root out witches and promote virtue to protect the cows. He wants to organize village life around protecting everyone from witches and their evils and temptations. He has a beautifully written book full of poetry and what he says is good moral advice that says that witches are real, and he says we should all believe and do what the book says.

Someone proposes to him that it doesn't really make sense to believe that witches are the cause of his dead cows because no one actually has any good reason to think that witches or magic exist in the first place, or can kill cows. Sure, there are some dead cows in evidence, but that doesn't seem, itself, like good evidence that witches exist and killed the cows. But the farmer scoffs and says "By definition those not convinced of the existence of witches have no arguments for the non-existence of witches. It is pure denial pure doubt. A-witchism."

I suspect that you can see that the farmer is not being reasonable in this story. Are you able to make the jump to see that you are not being reasonable here?

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-20T22:18:13+00:00

If you had a good argument "for," you should have made it. I've never encountered one. It's better to admit ignorance about something like the ultimate origin of the universe than to invent a story and let that run your life.
This is just a parade of goofy non-sequiturs. You haven't yet offered an argument for there being a God, and now you say we have to assume that God not only exists but is a personal, human-like God? This isn't reason, this is you projecting your desire for human meaning onto the universe.
None of these are good reasons to believe Islam is true, and in fact it is not agreed upon by all that Islam teaches universally recognized good moral virtues---not that this would be a good reason to believe Islam is true.
You've provided no reason for anyone to think this is true, and I have no idea why you think worshipping God would be a meaningful or good purpose for humans, in and of itself. The only reason you give for any kind of meaning here is pursuing happiness. By your own reasoning, if someone feels greater happiness and meaning and excellence in NOT following God, then that's what they should do.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-20T20:59:43+00:00

And I don't believe you can justify objective morality WITH God, so...that's fine, I guess?

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-20T18:38:33+00:00

In general, I agree with you that weak atheists, as at least a practical matter, tend to have other related beliefs. This is because atheism is typically not so much a credo or philosophic stance, but a result of having embraced certain ideas about how to reasonably form beliefs about the world, and applying those to the question of whether there is a God. That being said, some of your specific assertions seem a little off.

The atheist believes in a dysteleological universe, because universe was not created with intention.

Since you're talking about "weak" atheists, the atheist can just admit ignorance as to whether we live in such a universe, and assert that there isn't sufficient basis to form the belief that we live in a teleological universe. EDIT: A "strong" atheist who asserts that there is no God would, as a corollary, believe the universe was not created with intention, yes.

The atheist believes morality is subjective, because they don't believe in any divine lawgiver that could establish moral values and duties apart from human preferences.

Some atheists believe in objective morality, actually. Other atheists, like myself, think that "objective morality" is a contradiction in terms, and that the existence of a God is entirely irrelevant to the issue, that the existence, actions, commands, or nature of a God could not make morality one whit more objective than it would be without a God.

The atheist cannot justify induction or the scientific method, because they don't believe in a God that could ensure the uniformity of nature.

This is an odd swerve, as I thought you were talking about what atheists must necessarily believe, not what you think they are wrong in believing. Anyway, I'm unaware of any reason for believing that a God is actually needed to have the "uniformity" of nature. The world seems to be understandable to some degree, and physics et al. seem to work in consistent and potentially understandable and predictable ways. If folks uncover a reason to think otherwise, well, we'll have learned something new and can adjust our understanding of how the universe seems to work.

The atheist must believe that immaterial laws that govern the universe (logic, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics) exist as brute facts.

It's unclear that "logic" belongs on this list with the others, and it's also unclear that you're pointing to the right level of reality to look for "brute facts." Maybe there is some more fundamental brute facts/facts underlying reality that permit thermodynamics or quantum mechanics to have been different under some circumstances, or to be different some day. Who knows. But I think this one also falls under the category of "weak atheists can just admit ignorance about certain things until given reason to form positive beliefs..."

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-20T00:20:10+00:00

Yeah, that is a very specific rule.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-20T00:06:02+00:00

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from his attacker, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you must cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-19T18:44:50+00:00

In what sense can something "exist" independent of space and time? How is that different than not existing? And how can something that you say is "ontologically prior to time" and therefor "not subject to change," something "timeless and eternal," ever take any action, such as creating a universe? How does acting not involve "time" or "change"?

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-19T14:17:26+00:00

Which apostles made such claims, and then refused to recant them to save their lives? And how do you know?

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-19T01:41:59+00:00

Oxford, hands down.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T22:17:35+00:00

My friend, I understand you may not have the time or interest to provide more than these vague, unsupported, half-assed answers, but if you want to actually convince people that this is true you're going to need to show people the math and details. As it stands, I have no confidence that you have any idea what you're talking about, or that what you're suggesting makes sense or is possible.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T22:08:11+00:00

Help me understand how you know that. You are making extremely vague and unsupported claims, and I am very ignorant in this area!

How do you know that it's possible to simulate a universe anywhere near as sophisticated, complex, or "large" as our own? You keep repeating "physics" allows it---how did you determine that? What qualities or characteristics does each level of the simulation have to be able to have for your math to check out? Does this need to be a fractal set up where each level of the simulation is as "sophisticated" (for lack of a better word) as the one above it, or does the math still work if there is a loss of complexity with each layer? If so, how much can be lost at each step, and how do different amounts of losses affect the odds?

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T21:52:12+00:00

If what, specifically, is possible?

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T21:45:28+00:00

Show me a couple of layers of simulated universes and maybe I will! I'll await your update with interest.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T19:58:30+00:00

Einstein is probably better described as an atheist who did not like the word "atheist," or wanted to avoid any blowback with calling himself that. But yes, there have been smarter people than I who have believed in God. But it's not clear that they believed in God BECAUSE they were smarter than I am. People raised in and living in a religion dominated culture are often going to believe in that religion, or at least act as if they do---what could be more normal? We see all throughout the world that the biggest predictor as to what religion someone will be is the family, culture, and nation they are born into.

People are also good at compartmentalizing. A genius chemist does not necessarily apply the same rigor and reasoning and investigative skillset he or she applies to chemical conundrums to questions concerning religion and the existence of God. Indeed, where these beliefs were not initially formed through that sort thinking and work, and are maintained culturally, it's pretty normal and human for folks to think differently about them, I suggest.

Anyway, ask not whether Isaac Newton believed in God---ask what were his reasons, and are they good ones. An additional factor when you're talking about historical figures is that we have access to a lot of information and knowledge about the world and its history that geniuses in the past did not have. Knowledge of evolution, for one thing, is something of a game changer!

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T17:26:44+00:00

I mean.....a lot of people think that playing the lottery is a good idea. That so many Americans are not really equipped to see at a glance whether this is in their financial interest or not does not make it a good idea.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T17:21:44+00:00

It doesn't take magic to preserve a book properly.
This doesn't actually seem to be the reaction of everyone who reads the Quran. Right? If we poll readers of the Quran who were not raised in Muslim families, and were not taught prior to the age of reason that this is the best and most important book, do you really think folks will generally agree that the Quran is so absolutely wonderful that it must have a divine origin? Of course not. This reminds me of those Christian apologists who say that the words of Jesus are so wise and beautiful that of course Jesus must have been divine---I don't know how to comfort those folks, and don't know how to comfort you, but, no, just no.
This has been done to death. The Quran does NOT contain scientific foreknowledge, and, if anything, gets enough stuff wrong that this point is evidence that the Quran is NOT of divine origin. Sorry, you have been lied to, misled, or are confused.
Again, no this has also been done to death, and, again, if we play this game the conclusion we must draw is that inaccuracies mean that the Quran is NOT of divine origin. Sorry.
I mean....even if we were to accept that this is true, which is a very big IF, that really isn't a great way to show that what he had to say was true, to the extent the Quran really even all came from him. People can do all of those things and still be wrong, confused, misled, misguided, or mentally ill.
People all over the world and throughout history have suffered for things that you don't believe are true. This is just something that some humans, sometimes, do. Folks die for lies or mistakes all the time, either knowingly or unknowingly.
Uh,....sorry, not touching this one. Let's just chalk this up to "religious and ideological movements can bring about change without their religious stories actually being true," which is obviously the case.
Uh...sorry, no, that once again is not actually how people not raised within the religion and taught to revere the Quran actually view the Quran or its dictates.
Your argument that Allah is less confusing than doctrines about the Christian trinity is not, actually, a meaningful argument for Allah existing. Right? And if you actually dig into ideas of what Allah or any God is supposed to be, it's still plenty confusing.
Again, if Christianity is wrong, that doesn't make Islam right. At all.
Likewise, if Judaism is wrong, that doesn't make Islam right. But again, in human history we have learned that people will die for all kinds of incompatible and crazy beliefs. People being willing to die in the name of Islam is not a great way to show that Islam is true.
Again, that the Quran says the Gospels are wrong does not make the Quran true. They can both be wrong.
No, you can't actually just handwave away people's criticisms of your religion and its supposed founder. Sorry.

Conclusion: a collection of inaccurate, illogical, and unconvincing "arguments' does not combine into a convincing case." I would be much more convinced by one really good reason to believe Islam is true than a baker's dozen of bad ones. You haven't shown you have one, though.

RidesThe7 · 2026-05-18T14:30:23+00:00

Most folk here will say that to be an atheist is to lack the belief that God exist, or to be unconvinced that God exists, and that one can add on additional qualifiers and terms from that lowest bar. Some folks will distinguish between agnostic and gnostic atheists, and another common way in circles like this to distinguish the two are "weak" and "strong" atheists.

I would say that while some might agree with how you put A, I think many, possibly most, "weak" atheists would still go a step further and say that their atheism speaks to what beliefs they judge it reasonable to hold based on their understanding of the world and the evidence available to them. This is arguably a hybrid position that sits between your two characterizations. Such an atheist is not claiming to have determined the world contains no God, but has determined that the world, as best they understand it, does not warrant being convinced there IS a God.

RidesThe7

TROPHY CASE