I could not possibly have described the experience better. That's exactly how my relationship with them has evolved. Poetic. And your comment naturally took on David Mitchell's voice in my head.
theilleists
joined 5 months ago
I was like this when I was younger. Absolutely hated them. Then my taste receptor that made them disgusting just kind of switched off gradually over time. Apparently this can happen from middle age onward. Maybe wait a while and try again someday. They're also better with salt.
Please do bring facts. Then, cite your sources. You have sources, right?
... right?
Predicated on the factually false hypothetical that the god of the bible were real, I would be upset that they allow suffering. I would not be upset that they don't give people godlike power (where did you get those words you put in my mouth?). I would prefer that god restricted the consequences of people's choices to prevent those choices from causing harm to others. If god is so enamored of free will, they could still allow free choices, but restrict the consequences of those choices. I.e., I can make the choice to breathe water. "Freely" choose it. But the consequence is that I will fail and die. That's the kind of restriction we already live with. The kind you must believe to have been god's choice. So god could choose to enact more similar restrictions on consequences while preserving free choice.
No conscious entity convinced me that free will is not real. I trust the evidence of my eyes and ears, in combination with the experimental method. That's something you are explicitly told not to do. If god were real, and they were a tyrannical psychopath, would they not want to convince you to trust them by faith instead of using your own common sense to judge their actions? Something to think about.
From my perspective, free will has only ever been an illusion, so it's certainly possible to live life without it (everyone who ever existed did), and, without any trace of doubt, the preservation of this illusion is absolutely not a benefit which justifies the cost of suffering.
But let's pretend free will is magically real and the bible is literally true. The god of the bible could use their omnipotence to allow people to make whatever choices they wanted, but to prevent those choices from actually hurting anyone else. Free will does not equal free action. People cannot choose to fly. Therefore, more similar constraints on people's actions could prevent suffering without eliminating free will. The omnipotent god chooses not to take this route. Therefore, god just has an aesthetic appreciation for suffering. I.e., god is into BDSM.
Yeah, if I were God, I would just skip the whole suffering thing. It's a weird aesthetic. Any deities out there who aren't into BDSM?
Lick more boots.
Looks like it's a very lengthy process if you're really doing it by the book...
You have made me curious - I tried to find what you were talking about, but all I could find on novel Japanese suicide methods was a trend of "detergent suicide" around 2008, i.e. hydrogen sulfide gas poisoning. Is that what you meant? If so, it can endanger first responders and inconvenience neighbors with evacuation. Inert gas is equally painless and much more socially responsible.
You could always go for the Peace prize. If war criminals can get them, anybody's got a shot.
And since when is reality governed by majority opinion?
Anyway, maybe Copenhagen is right, and God does play dice. But if Many Worlds is right (and it seems more reasonable to me that "a bomb really does explode elsewhere in the wavefunction" has an observable effect on an experiment than "a bomb might have exploded but randomly decided not to" has any observable effect), then that's a nail in the coffin for the simulation hypothesis.
Not in the slightest. At least for me. I'm somehow into either older chubby women with body hair or younger fit smooth men. Why? No idea, ask my dick.