“Girls desire a knight in shining armor to come sweep them off their feet!” — my pastor
For the longest time, I struggled because I was told all my life what a “woman’s purpose” was, and my desires never lined up with that. Felt like a freak because I never desired romance, sex, or partnership with a man. If that was my purpose, was I supposed to will myself to want that for myself? Was I doomed to be alone forever? Was I wrong to want to pursue adventure and things that I wanted?
If my desire ≠ God’s desire (which was apparently union with a man at some point in the future), then my desires were… wrong. Maybe/probably even evil.
So I fucked up my life trying to follow that and fit into that mold. I did things I never wanted to do because it was the “right thing” to do in the eyes of God.
After I escaped, I never really recovered. But… I discovered a lot about myself.
I did bearded dragon rescues & fostering, I got into cosplay, learned how to sew stuffed animals, got some mental health care, rekindled my love for nature… all by myself. I learned to love me and not base my worth on what other folks believe I should do or how I should behave. I don’t have a partner who gets to dictate my personality. I got to grow on my own.
I’m still coming to terms with… a lot of things about myself, but now I’m able to grow freely instead of being confined to such a small pot.
Don’t let people define who or what you are, or what your purpose is in life. Only you get to do that. It’s both terrifying and freeing, but you can do this.
Even for those us who fit into the straight/white/cis mould, learning how to create purpose and meaning for yourself is a really hard battle against expectations imposed growing up. Thanks for sharing a really wholesome story :)
If you work hard you’ll have a successful life
See also: “get good grades in university and you’ll be flooded with job offers!”
That wasn’t a lie, exactly, it was just Baby Boomers not realizing how much the world changed since they were in school. It used to happen that way. My mother got her first job out of school when the employer came to campus to recruit through a job fair.
It’s just an overly positive way of saying, “If you don’t get good grades in uni, many HRs will de-list you before looking at your resume”.
I literally have never come across a job posting that asked for GPA. Unless it’s like an academic internship or something. Get the degree, and nobody cares about your grades.
I don’t know if they still do, but Epic Systems (the medical records company) asked for GPA when I looked at their job applications. I’m not sure if they care about the GPA, per se, so much as using it as a way to practice their notorious (but hard to prove) age discrimination.
Relevant quote:
If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire
-George Monbiot
I don’t think it’s a lie, just outdated and obsolete advice.
We’re laughing will Ferrell.gif
Sitting in a hot tub as a kid will make you infertile.
Totally an old wive’s tale. I looked it up when I was an adult and found out I had been deprived of tons of hours of hot tub time.
the hot tube temperature lowers the current batch of sperm’s motility and count, alter the DNA and general quality. your balls cannot extend far enough to escape the hot tub. its not permanent. if you want to conceive, stop boiling your nuts.
Well you assumed my sex, but regardless, that claim is still disputed. Some research indicates that it does temporarily lower sperm counts.
None of that is particularly relevant though, because my family was claiming it would permanently cause me to become infertile.
That was them actually believing it, right? Or were they in fact using a deliberate lie to limit your bath tub time for some other reason?
Unclear, my grandma was a nurse. I thought she should have known better, but then again, maybe back in the day that was considered accurate advice medically.
Everything’s gonna be ok.
Trust me, I know what I’m doing.
You’ll understand when you’re older.
As a parent, sometimes it’s a hope, not a lie.
God exists and watches everything you do and loves you while threatening you with eternal damnation.
And he’s terrible with money! He needs more money!
George Carlin, how we miss thee.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/QZ8hefESt7c?si=I5xZByn7o1UWcsbv
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You’re allowed to be atheist of course, but do you have any more proof that there are no gods than they have that gods exist?
That’s not really how it works though. If I tell you there’s an invisible dragon living under your bed who will burn your house down at some time in the future if you don’t give me $10. You can’t disprove it, but because I’m the one making the claim that the dragon exists the burden of proof is on me.
The burden of proof tennis is quite tricky here because it’s not about whether you claim something exists, it’s whether you claim something that goes against what’s generally accepted. If I claim quantum mechanics don’t exist, it’s not on you to prove they do.
And that’s before we get into the fact that there isn’t a general consensus on whether God (or any gods) exist.
So if everyone believed in the invisible dragon under your bed, would that shift the burden of proof to you? I don’t see what the general consensus has to do with anything.
The people who say quantum mechanics exists don’t just claim it, they can demonstrate it through peer reviewed evidence. Quantum mechanics is also a theory based on observable facts intended to propose testable mechanisms by which those facts can be explained. My claim of a dragon under your bed has no such backing.
As smarter people than me have said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Yeah, if everyone believes there’s an invisible dragon under my bed, then that means the burden of proof is on me to claim there isn’t. And I’d probably address that with a stick.
As for assertion without evidence, how do you feel about eyewitness accounts of miracles? Or sociological reasoning on the odds of the disciples keeping a conspiracy for their whole lives? Or how about the origin of the universe - we had all the matter in the universe condensed into a single point, complete with laws that would lead to such interesting things as nuclear fusion, complex planetary orbits, and even pockets of life. Do you take it as a given that it’s far more likely for that to have come out of nowhere than for a higher power to exist and have arranged it as such?
You’re free to discount the evidence (though I’d be happy to debate it with you,) and dismiss the claims because it doesn’t align with your experiences. But note that the idea that all this happened without God is as absurd to me as the existence of God is to you, and equally unsubstantiated.
so, you can get around the burden of proof by getting enough people to perpetrate the lie?
Much like every good con or pyramid scheme.
No no a stick won’t work, the invisible dragon is very small and agile and would easily dodge your stick. It only makes itself known when it wants to.
I feel the same about eyewitness accounts of miracles. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence. It could be a good place to start to investigate miraculous claims but that’s all.
I’m not dismissing claims because it doesn’t align with my experiences, but because there is no reliable evidence. In fact depending on the type of diety you propose I think many claims can be shown to be false because they a contradictory with reality.
I’d be interested to hear the evidence you have for sure. I’m open to changing my views. I’m not scholar but my understanding is that the best we have is a collection of anonymously written books which isn’t enough for me to accept such a huge claim.
I don’t know about the origin of the universe but I don’t think anyone claims things came from nothing, we simply don’t know what was before the big bang. Not knowing the answer to me isn’t a good enough reason to assume a divine entity is responsible.
Eyewitness testimony isn’t evidence, eh? Before I get too invested in this, I want to know what you do consider to be evidence. Suppose that, hypothetically, I run a study where I recruit 1000 people off the street. I tell them that at some point over the next 10 days, I’m going to pray for them to experience peace. For each person, I roll a 10 sided die to choose which day to pray on, do so, and record the result. Then at the end of the 10 days, I bring them all back and ask them to indicate on which day they felt the most peace. ~600 of them say the same day that I rolled for them, ~150 of them are one day off, and ~100 can’t give an answer. If this were to happen (solely hypothetical, ignoring any arguments about whether God would play along for a study,) would that count as evidence?
Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof for quantum mechanics is on the people claiming they exist. They provided those proofs, which is why people believe in them. I haven’t studied quantum mechanics, but if you asked somebody who does, they could offer proof or evidence. And if they couldn’t, then your claim it doesn’t exist (until proof was proffered) would be correct.
It was on them until society generally accepted it. Now if I claim it doesn’t exist, the burden is on me.
Or how about this: if I claim dinosaurs never existed and thus the fossils didn’t come from them, it’s not on you to prove they did.
You’re missing the point. It’s not a one time thing. Evidence existed, that evidence was found, and that’s what made it change to being accepted.
That evidence still exists, so if you claim dinosaurs don’t exist, we can just point to the evidence that still exists. That evidence didn’t get spirited away like golden plates to heaven. We’re still finding dinosaur bones.
If you claim dinosaurs don’t exist, I would point to the wealth of evidence that they do. If you were raised in some religious cult that never taught anything about dinosaurs and taught that the Earth was 6000 years old, and therefore didn’t think giant creatures existed hundreds of millions of years ago, it would absolutely be on the person claiming they exist to show you dinosaur bones. Which is evidence.
Don’t argue with idiots.
I see your point, but the idea here is that, since I’m starting from the assumption that dinosaurs don’t exist, I conclude that the fossils came from some source other than dinosaurs, so they can’t be used as pro-dinosaur evidence. But at the same time I don’t offer an alternative explanation on where they came from.
Not really though? Non-existence of anything is the default. Existence of something puts the burden of proof on whoever claims this something exists. “Quantum mechanics” is a bad example, it’s a set of theories, not a single theory (like “a god exists”). Depending on what is being claimed, you can easily show people papers, such as this one which shows experimental observable proof of principles of quantum theory.
At one point, quantum mechanics didn’t exist and wasn’t generally accepted. Physicists like Heisenberg took upon them the burden of proof and provided it.
General acceptance is how it is treated since then, by non-physicists, but it is simply possible to follow the proof of it if you really wanted to. There are experiments that have been performed and that can be performed again that create observable evidence of the principles of quantum mechanics.
The burden of proof still lies on proponents of quantum mechanics. What you’re talking about is more of a societal shortcut, accepting that the burden of proof has been verified by other people, not by yourself, as it’s impossible to go deep enough into every subject to actually verify every proof you come across. That’s why specialization exists.
The difference is that 99% of physicists confirm the proof of quantum mechanics. Specialists on religion are all very much divided on which god(s) or whether at all one exists, and no proof exists for any religious theories.
The default position is that we don’t know if a specified thing exists. To prove or disprove it, you need evidence. I can prove that the Christian God doesn’t exist, as it is logically impossible, but it’s possible that some other version of a god might exist, I don’t know. I don’t have evidence either way.
How can you prove the Christian God doesn’t exist?
It’s logically impossible, it has contradictory aspects.
You made a typo in your original comment
I can prove that the Christian God doesn’t exist
I don’t see any typo, where do you think there is one?
Ah sorry I misunderstood your comment
Yes, you said that, but what exactly?
It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of something. It’s on those who believe in god to prove its existence.
And the Bible doesn’t count as sufficient evidence because that would be like believing Harry Potter exists because JK Rowling says so.
Unless you claim, as OP did, that you can actually disprove it.
I agree that the Bible is not sufficient in the sense that it proves anything or sews up their arguments, but to suggest its historical value as evidence is the same as modern day fiction is absurd.
For example, omnipotence is a self-contradictory term, as you have a dilemma - if a being is all powerful enough to give itself limits, it is not omnipotent as it wouldn’t be able to do the things it limited itself to do. Whereas if it can’t self-impose limits, it’s also not omnipotent as it isn’t able to self-impose limits. Another example is that suffering exists in the world, which would be a contradiction if an all-powerful being that wanted to end suffering existed, since it should, but it isn’t.
And these are just contradictions within God’s character. If you want to look at the things he actually claims to have done, you’ll find numerous more in the Bible. Just as one example, Jesus’s last words are different in almost every gospel.
None of this is new or hasn’t been thought about, written about and deflated for centuries. I doubt you have any theologians shaking in their boots.
The meaning of omnipotence as it translates to Good has always been nuanced. There have always been things God can’t do - sin being the obvious example. You could debate whether he can, but just never would because of his character, but it amounts to the same thing and has been orthodoxy for centuries.
The apparent contradictions on the Gospels (especially synoptic) have been done to death. Debated and answered more times than you’ve had hot dinners. There is no serious theologian or biblical scholar who would hear that argument and be at all concerned by it.
Honestly the same applies to the idea of a good god and suffering.
I’m not against religion, but that’s not how evidence and proof works. Do you have any proof that tiny invisible pink elephants aren’t hiding in your fridge?
that’s not how evidence and proof works.
Proof of a negative is common in science and mathematics.
No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist. You can sometimes prove something that contradicts the existence of something, but that’s not proving that the thing itself doesn’t exist, because it’s epistemologically not possible
No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.
Science, philosophy, and mathematics say otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
Then why did you dodge the request to prove there are no tiny invisible pink elephants in your fridge, wise guy? lmao
If you’re claiming my fridge has no tiny invisible pink elephants you are welcome to provide evidence.
I will make no claims on the matter and thus have to provide no evidence either way.
Edit: I think you’re confusing me for the other guy.
Not one person has provided proof that there is no Higher Power. Grow up…
Because that’s not the atheist position. You’re wrestling with a claim nobody is making.
Atheism doesn’t claim there is no “Higher Power”, it’s just a disbelief in theistic claims.
Let’s start with clarifying an element of the question:
Which characteristics define a god? Do these characteristics violate the laws of physics and/or internal logic? If these characteristics do not violate the laws of physics, then what aspects distinguish a god from a mundane or natural entity?
Careful, many online atheists don’t understand that they have to prove a negative. That they have to prove the assertion: “There is no god.”
The default position is that there is yet insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.
This guy eats babies
prove me wrong
You have made the assertion, thus you have the burden of proof.
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” QED
…Do you not realize that the same goes for god?
I wasn’t arguing for the existence of god.
Let me break this down:
- “There is a god.” --> Burden of proof
- “There is no god.” --> Burden of proof
- “Hey, man. I don’t know.” —> No burden of proof
The second one is wrong, there is no god is not a claim that requires evidence in the same way there are no fairies in my fridge doesn’t require evidence
Are you implying that a negative categorically cannot be proven?
No. A negative can be proven. It’s done all the time in science and mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
Ok, just verifying that that fallacy wasn’t the crux of your argument
You should familiarize yourself with the concept called Burden of Proof. They (those who believe in God, and claim he exists and created all things, etc) are the ones where the burden lies. It is not for the rest of us to prove their beliefs for them, or you.
Nothing good happens after midnight.
That becomes true again once you turn 40
If you have kids, you’ll get a second wind when they’re gone. Our adult son was staying with us for a while. We came in about 3:00 a.m. and scared the shit out of him because he thought we were upstairs asleep.
Followed by “You were conceived at 12:01”
Basically everything my mother ever said. I repeat a lot of it back to her now, and she always asks, “where did you hear such absurdities?”
“that’s not what I remember” “That’s not how I remember it” “You must be remembering it wrong” “I would never say that”
Ohhhhhhh how good that must feel.
“I never said that!”
The axe forgets, the stump remembers
That talking to strangers was bad.
That strangers are bad and cops are good.
That there isn’t good and bad of each.
When I was a little kid, I asked my grandfather what the bumps in the middle of the road (the reflectors) were for. He told me that it was so blind people could drive. It made perfect sense to me, and I believed that for longer than I should have!
Your grandfather sounds rad
They’re called Bott’s dots! Most places where it snows don’t have them because they don’t survive ploughing.
-
interesting, never thought of that before. Las Vegas Nevada (never snows there!) has excellent road infrastructure and these dots are everywhere. You can tell casino dollars and tax dollars are well used in Las Vegas. The roads are very nice.
-
Bott’s dots – first thing that came to mind was like Dippin’ Dots
-
That I’d never have a calculator in my pocket
That I’d get more conservative as I grew older
People who aren’t liberal when they’re young have no heart.
People who aren’t conservative when they’re old have no money.
There are multiple things wrong with this, the most glaring of which is that a conservative with money would lack a heart as well. Conservatism is incompatible with having a heart.
I didn’t get more conservative as I grew older. At least I don’t think I did. What happened is that the definition of conservative changed.
Criticizing censorship and restrictions on free speech didn’t use to be a conservative cause, it is now, so I grew “more conservative” without any of my beliefs changing.
People who gain/have a lot of wealth over their life do tend to want to lock that wealth in by being Conservative I think. Wouldn’t want to shake things up!
That saying holds more truth if you’re using the “non-political” definitions of conservative – i.e. moderate, cautious, or resistant to change.
Moreso “set in your ways” as the world changes around you.
I suppose this is true, but remaining set in your ways while the world changes, taken to it’s logical conclusion is political conservatism/fascism
- all colors can be made from red, yellow, and blue
- how an airfoil works
- language is immutable
- you won’t always have a calculator in your pocket
- infinite growth is sustainable
The first one seems OK as it’s the basis of CMYK colour printing? Obviously missing black of course though.
Cyan is not blue and magenta is not red.
Black in CMYK is not strictly necessary, you can absolutely make black out of CMY, but the separate ink gets added since black is such a regular occurence it’s simply cheaper to not mix it out of the other colors.
I see you’ve been tricked by their lies. Blue is sorta close to cyan, and red is kinda close to magenta, but they’re not the same.
If someone tells you that you can make any other color from RYB, ask them to make magenta. Doesn’t work.
In CMY (printing) you get black by adding them all. In RGB (lighting) you get white
The color people will tell you that cyan and magenta do not equal red and blue. My university advisor tricked me into taking a 400 level class from the college of art and design on color theory. Really interesting class but an insane amount of work. Very early on the professor told us to throw out any book that identified red, yellow, and blue as the primary colors. It’s red, green, blue for light or cyan, magenta, yellow for pigment.
Yes, additive colour theory is based on red, green and blue (RGB). These are the colours you see if you look at your TV screen very closely.
Subtractive colour theory uses cyan, magenta and yellow. In printing black, abbreviated ‘K’, is added for contrast—CMYK. These are the inks used to print the dots you see if you look closely at a magazine photo.
I think people are confused by this because they’re taught a bastardised version of subtractive colour theory, using red, blue and yellow, at a very early age.
Red/yellow/blue are the primary colors for paints (as distinct from dyes/pigments, that’s CMY(k) and as distinct from light, that’s RGB).
Why would paints have a different primary palette than dyes or pigments? They’re all subtractive, so the primary colors are CMY.
The red/yellow/blue is a lie!
Are you asking me why is paint the way it is? I don’t know, take it up with nature, but stop spreading misinformation.
I’m saying that, with respect to color reproduction, paints work exactly the same as dyes and pigments. You can’t make magenta paint from red, blue, and yellow. So the “primary colors” of paint are actually CMY.
Yeah it’s just historically been very difficult to make magenta and cyan paints so ryb has stood in for cmy
- language is immutable
No, it changes with what’s popular. It’s so fetch.
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
Aside from the; obvious bullahit of relegion that you can figure out for yourself quite early … not to be a bully to get what you want. It’s near ubiquitous, from police to government, to wealthy people, business owners etc anyone with an asymmetric relationship gets what they want that way. As a boss, do what I want or I fire you and you starve etc etc.
I still see them pedaling the same lies to children today, bullying and cowexison are linked to inextricably liked to what we call success we are fine with it, the weird part is the denial and lieing to kids about not being a bully .
get a good education and work hard and you will be rewarded.
In Catholic school in the nineties and early 2000’s, we were all told that the sex abuse scandal was serious but that it was also “a small number of incidents.” That we needed to pray for the victims and the souls of the perpetrators.
Then I went to college. Come to find out not only was the child rape widespread, not only did the church actively hide monsters from legal scrutiny, not only was this all directly effecting the local arch diocese (not my school specifically, but church leaders were forced to quickly rename another high school when allegations against a dead bishop proved too numerous to ignore)… not only all that but that it’s still going on, just not in first world countries with robust networks of journalists and legal systems. That an alleged pedophile was (while I was in college) living in the Vatican, being directly sheltered from extradition by South American authorities.
I guess the lie was that it was all over. That it was a small problem. That the church was a safe place people could turn to. I left the church at 18 over it, became an atheist by 19, and that’s where I’m at now at 35.
I think the opposite list would be shorter
