darkraven said:Look, losing consciousness can definitely be a byproduct of a stroke or cardiac arrest. There are a million ways that brain activity—which is obviously required for you to be "aware"—can get shut down or messed up. So yeah, an unconscious state is a totally normal consequence of those events.
But none of that counts as death... not by any actual definition of the word. In medicine, they don't even consider someone dead until brain death occurs; before that, it's just "clinical death." Clinical death used to be the end of the line back when things were irreversible and we didn't have the tech to bring someone back once their heart stopped. But nowadays, thanks to things like defibrillators, cardiac arrest isn't necessarily a permanent fatality. Or at least, it isn't immediately. If it goes on too long, then sure, you hit brain death because the brain can't survive without oxygen for long.
If we're discussing an unconscious state as being synonymous with death, these philosophical approaches regarding the death of the "higher brain" are probably the closest thing to what you're getting at. They argue that a person dies when there is an irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, or when the very essence of being human is lost because that capacity is gone.
Based on that, your temporary blackout clearly doesn't meet the criteria of permanence, irreversibility, or the total loss of capacity.
So, bottom line: you didn't die.
The rest of the stuff you rambled about doesn't really matter for this debate.
If we assume that a temporary suspension of certain brain functions leads to total erasure—essentially wiping the slate clean—then logically, wouldn't a permanent loss of all brain function result in something entirely different? It’s a question of causality and consequence—if the "glitch" causes nothingness, why would the "shutdown" lead to anything else?
Amy Bennett said:I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.
"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.
If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.
I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?
I am.
Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.
It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.
I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.
Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.
There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.
Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.
Not really. 🤷
Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.
So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?
Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.
Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says: It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.
Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.
A naturalist perspective doesn't imply that everything is just pure, unadulterated chaos. There are physical laws in place—matter exists in specific structures governed by those very laws—and then there is our shared perception of those structures, which allows us to evaluate them. I don't need a deity to conclude that the material form allowing me to exist as a human being requires a heart that pumps blood efficiently; I don't need a god to recognize that my existence is a state I prefer over non-existence (whether that preference stems from raw evolutionary instinct or more complex philosophical drives), and therefore, any condition that diminishes my heart's ability to pump blood is objectively undesirable.
Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, you can totally be a Christian and still feel like the Church, as an institution right now, has completely lost its way. When someone says "too much politics in the church," they could mean a lot of things... but if it's because the church hierarchy and the government are essentially intertwined—even if not legally—then we've got a massive problem for the church, the country, society, and anyone actually trying to maintain their faith.
But let's be real: practicing faith enters the public sphere—it was never *just* a private matter. We have to draw a line between the public square (civil society) and actual government institutions.
Could you elaborate on that a bit? What exactly would constitute bringing religious practice into the public sphere?
Jeffrey Chase442 said:I’ve got my donor card, but honestly, what a joke... because here in the States, the laws aren't even properly set up yet, so I was told that regardless of what's on my card, if I pass away, they'd still go out and hunt down some family member to ask for permission anyway. It feels so stupid, because the whole point of having the card is that I made the call about my own organs, not that anyone else gets to step in and decide for me...
Well, thank you for having a donor card in the first place, 🙂
I agree with you—if someone explicitly states that they want to donate their organs, that choice should be respected just as much as any other part of a person's final will.
bluepuma9 said:Christian morality... what even is that? 😁
It’s basically just stone-throwing at anyone who doesn't fit in—whether it's the LGBTQ+ community, kids who won't follow orders, or even just people out gathering firewood on a Saturday...
Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.
My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.
It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?
I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?
Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.
Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.
Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁
No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.
I run into this nonsense all the time—it’s honestly exhausting. What is that supposed to actually mean? By that logic, would total passivity be considered ultimate evil? Does sitting alone in a dark room just meditating suddenly make me a bad person? Wtf?
Nathan Doyle said:I honestly can't help but wonder if life feels just a little bit lighter and more straightforward for people who don't believe... like, imagine seeing the world without that whole heavy construction of original sin, pure evil, and this endless cycle of reward and punishment hanging over everything... it probably makes everything seem so much simpler and more beautiful...
You didn't even touch on that post I was talking about... So, here’s the thing I’ve been chewing on... if God actually wants people to know Him and show some respect, why doesn't He just make Himself known to everyone on an individual basis? Like, why would He expect people living in the 21st century to just take these inconsistent, totally unreliable, and honestly pretty primitive ancient texts at face value—especially when they've been edited and tweaked by who-knows-who countless times over the centuries... If He really is all-powerful, it wouldn't cost Him a dime to just prove He exists once and for all. Is the whole point just that we're supposed to respect God and try to be "good" (because, let's be real, everyone would follow His lead if He just made His presence undeniable and clearly laid out the rules)... 🤷...or is he just testing how naive we really are, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it pure stupidity...
Does this whole life thing feel like some kind of competition among you believers to see who can be the biggest fool by just blindly following along...
So, what happens to the Roosters and Asians? Does their Islam, Shintoism, or whatever else they’re into actually count as much as Christianity, or are they just destined to burn in hell because that "almighty" God somehow missed them... maybe He just didn't realize how many billions of people ended up on the other side of the world...
I don't think you get it. God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly just—so naturally, He has to test humanity by only revealing His existence through ancient, vaguely written little books that require belief in things that contradict the very laws of logic He supposedly set for the world. And then, those who don't pass the test suffer eternally in hell.
electrictiger86 said:I can't quite remember where I stumbled upon this, but I read somewhere a few years back that the family actually has to foot the bill for the organ transport. So, basically, if you want to be a donor, you have to pay up.
That only applies if you're donating through the USPS. If the family decides to just go pick up the organ themselves, then it’s free.
Look, honestly, forget those cheap little workarounds if you aren't absolutely forced into using them for some reason.
If your hardware has been cutting out on you like this, there’s a very high probability that it’s at least partially responsible for the issue. In my opinion—and I say this sincerely—it would be much smarter to find someone who actually knows their stuff, pay them a couple hundred bucks to run a proper diagnostic, and get a clear answer on what needs replacing. If you just keep guessing, you're going to end up throwing a ton of money down the drain on parts you don't even need.
I don't know—I remember reading The Sorrows of Young Hamlet, and honestly, I hated every single page. I ended up writing this massive, exhaustive report detailing everything I loathed about that book, basically arguing why it was total garbage that should be burned and erased from the collective memory of the human race. I actually walked away with an A grade for it. I took the exact same approach when I tore apart Emma Bovary. These days, I’d go as far as to say I’ve mastered the art of being able to articulately trash things I dislike—and frankly, that has been an incredibly useful life skill for me more times than I can count. Required reading often feels outdated, and I think plenty of classic texts ought to be updated, but I also believe kids should occasionally be forced to tackle assignments they find miserable. They should be encouraged to speak up and provide a reasoned, well-argued defense of why a particular task just didn't work for them.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if people used characters from fairy tales, fables, religious myths, and other works of fiction as a basis for making moral judgments—even without actually believing those stories are true.
I don't have a massive amount of experience with this, but I am currently using it. Look, it isn't some kind of miracle cure—it's not like that—but if you are under the care of a solid specialist who stays on top of regular checkups, things should be just fine.
melloworca6 said:It wasn't a dog attack or a bite—it was just a scratch from a cat. And honestly, even if a dog does bite you, there isn't necessarily a need for shots if the dog is up to date on its vaccinations; you can easily verify that by asking the owner to see their vet records.
Come on, please—take a second to actually read the post I’m replying to. 🙂
Maria Gray45 said:Honestly, what kind of fury are we even talking about? I’ve been scratched by stray cats more times than I can count—leaving deep marks that stayed visible for days And then there was that massive 80-pound mixed breed—part Shepherd, part something else entirely—that lunged at me right in the middle of the street I'm still standing, and I've never had any issues from it
Brava. My uncle drives 120 mph through downtown Chicago and he's never been in an accident, so clearly, speeding through city streets is a brilliant life choice.
If a random dog attacks and bites you, there's a legitimate risk involved, and you really ought to get vaccinated.
Betty Ross6 said:Alright, look, does anyone here actually know what counts as plagiarism? I mean, seriously, can't a person just "plagiarize" themselves? Does anyone here even have a degree or deal with grad school theses? I always cited my sources whenever it made sense, and if I'm following this logic correctly, apparently citing your own previous work is now considered plagiarism... Give me a break. It’s just enough to make a guy lose his mind 😵
There is actually a specific term for this: self-plagiarism. It happens when someone takes their own previously published work and attempts to pass it off as an entirely new, original piece. In this case, the individual wasn't just mentioning their past research—their earlier work actually constitutes a significant portion of the material being presented as part of this doctoral dissertation, all without any mention that it was being cited from their own prior publications.
Greed is actually the bedrock of a thriving economy. On the flip side, laziness—believe it or not—is the true driver behind innovation. In my view, both are essentially human virtues.
wiredotter14 said:I’ve got five fans running in my old Corsair Airflow series case.
Intake: one up front, one down by the PSU. Exhaust: two at the top, one in the rear.
I keep them all hovering around 700-750rpm, except for one that stays at 1000rpm because it won't go any lower. It actually performs better than just running two fans at max speed—plus, it's way quieter since noise is basically dictated by your loudest fan.
But honestly, this only works if you’re actually tweaking individual speeds to keep things quiet. Running three or more fans at full blast (1200+rpm) is just overkill and obnoxious.
When I crank them all to the limit, my GPU temps drop by maybe 5 degrees under full load. It's pointless, though. At those speeds, the GPU fans barely even ramp up from their minimum (around 33%), making the whole rig louder for zero actual gain compared to just letting the GPU fan run at 45%.
Hmm, is your GPU venting heat out of the case or just circulating it inside? In my experience, three fans are plenty to run silently while still dropping temperatures by maybe a degree or so even at their maximum speed.