Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B

Brainsploosh

@ Brainsploosh @lemmy.world

Posts
2
Comments
78
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • US government spends $51 million to thank Trump

    Jump

  • That's at least 204 federal full time employee wages

  • Why do we keep measuring the value of things with something that constantly loses value over time?

    Jump

  • What if inflation isn't about the money losing value, but you having access to more money and thus spending it more frivolously?

  • [OC] Phobia names are ironic

    Jump

  • I just learnt the difference, an em-dash is as long as an m and used for other things than the shorter en-dash (as long as an n).

    Em-dashes are more common in literature, which a lot of AI is trained on, rather than online speak where it's annoying and difficult to notice the difference between - and — (and not to be confused with –).

  • [OC] Memes are losing their meaning

    Jump

  • And yet, plenty of memes to be had, shared, created, evolved and enjoyed.

    Seems a skill issue?

  • Has anyone else noticed how dead most bars/clubs are now?

    Jump

  • Bird

    Jump

  • Wow, this is an exemplary explanation. Being clear with several levels of cultural knowledge as well as the emotional load behind several meanings and juxtapositions, and still comes across with the humor unscathed.

    I dream to one day attain such mastery.

  • When a Christian Makes Contact with an Atheist

    Jump

  • Thank you for the clarification.

    I'd say the semantics arguments come from countering religions' manipulative perversion of language.

    Many religions use tricky language to confuse, conflate and abuse. One such example is that Christian apologists have conflated atheist with heretic for the better part of two millennia. Which is of course absurd, as most Christians are atheist towards Hindu gods, and are thus definitionally more atheist than Hindus.

    Yet atheist/heretic/apostate remains as a dirty label, and includes judgement of character, and in many parts of the world persecution or lesser worth.

    Reclaiming the word serves in part to actually give it usefulness beyond a boogeyman, to allow for discussions on fundamentals of belief, epistemology, and the contrast of belief vs reasons vs knowableness.

    It also helps bridge some of the damage religion has done. When religious people get some nuance to the boogeyman term, they typically are more open to seeing the human cost of stereotyping and shunning people because of that label.

    Other perverted terms common to religious trauma are gnosticism (ofc), but also love, grief, acceptance, morality and righteousness.

    Things that us having to break free from religion all had to relearn the hard way, and typically while hiding from our still religious close ones.

  • When a Christian Makes Contact with an Atheist

    Jump

  • Thank you for your generous answer.

    Your perspective on what your religion views as up for question is very interesting, although it gives rise to many follow up questions (how does proclamation work when obviously contradicted by lower clergy? Who gets to question which parts of the dogma? If everything is up for question, what is the commonality of the religion?) I'm afraid we'll have to leave for another time if we're to get anywhere on the primary topic.

    You cite Collins:

    "If someone converts you, they persuade you to change your religious or political beliefs. You can also say that someone converts to a different religion."

    I'll give you that it's the weakest of the lot, but I read "converts to a different religion" as having you leave the first to then adhere to another.

    As we previously established atheism isn't a religion I find it hard to see that you could have been converted.

    If we look at the usage for beliefs, Collins isn't very clear if the definition includes "into another belief", luckily the other three are and include the new belief in their descriptions.

    So, I seem to find that the lexical definition for conversion does indeed include another positive end belief, in contrast to what you claimed the dictionary people were about. I was curious if there were subtle differences in world view behind this, but currently I understand this more as a difference in how we understand definitions rather than how we view questioning.

  • When a Christian Makes Contact with an Atheist

    Jump

  • According to the first page of my search the Cambridge, Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins dictionaries all imply conversion needs also adopting a new belief/opinion/religion.

    I feel it's a commonly propagated lie within certain religions that atheism is a belief, which of course it's not (it's the lack of belief, like most people have about fairies, flat Earth or the Mayan end of the world). I don't know if your mention of this statement is that you agree or not, but if you do - how do you arrive at the position that questioning is being the same as (lexical) conversion?

    I get that a large part of Abrahamitic religions in particular is to obey and not question, as well as theism being necessary to be accepted in the religion (and not a heretic); is it that the questioning positions you outside of the religion and thus deconverts? Is that how you arrive at the "change"?

    I apologise for the clumsy phrasing, but if we're reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, I must assume we're using words differently and would need to backtrack to find our last point of common understanding.

  • Then they will ask why nobody wants to use their payment cards

    Jump

  • When a Christian Makes Contact with an Atheist

    Jump

  • That is precisely the point, well spotted.

  • When a Christian Makes Contact with an Atheist

    Jump

  • Your description was clear, our experiences seem to differ.

    In case you're worried we have different frames of reference: The way you're trying to implicate Islam in denigrating terms is not respectful. In analogous phrasing, the Christian denominations are based around glorifying human sacrifice.

  • When a Christian Makes Contact with an Atheist

    Jump

  • My experience is the opposite, it's always Christians bringing it up, often by judging others' actions out loud.

    Never had any of the other Abrahamitic denominations try to convert me, although I was approached by a Hare Krishna recruiter once.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Not only does it spread aggressively through its roots, but it also grafts onto almost anything. The roots connect to other plants and create new hybrid mints.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • 60 cm is the actual number, which makes it much too real for me...

  • Billionaire Sunjay Kapur has died after swallowing a bee at a polo match

    Jump

  • Some things don't change

    Jump

  • You're still viewing it from today's perspective. We distinguish natural philosophy from chemistry, physics, etc. - they did not.

    They did however call natural philosophy "Physics". From their perspective all our fields fit under physics, except for applied science which fits under crafting (as natural philosophy devalued empiricism).

  • Some things don't change

    Jump

  • The Greek very much had a concept of Physics.

    The word physics comes from the Latin physica ('study of nature'), which itself is a borrowing of the Greek φυσική (phusikḗ 'natural science'), a term derived from φύσις (phúsis 'origin, nature, property') (Wikipedia)

    Also note that Aristotelian physics was the dominant paradigm in Europe almost until Newton.

    There's an argument to be had that engineering didn't exist as a science until recently. Several of the more famous engineering treatises name it as crafting.

  • Some things don't change

    Jump

  • That's very revisionist of you.

    What we call physics today wouldn't qualify as physics in Ancient Greece, where they described how the world actually works, and not bothering with this empiricism nonsense.