That’s completely irrelevant. You can be working hard towards something and achieve it while there is someone always trying to sabotage you. I am asking about the saboteur
Persepctive is extremely relevant. For example if you live under a government and things are going great for you, you will more likely think the government is good than someone that is in poverty and under attack by the government.
What in your life is not going so great that you are unhappy? Writing someone might actually help.
Your adding the baseless implication that there is something wrong in their life. I’m not a 10 year old being murdered by Israels missles, or a Ukrainian forced to go to war, or a toddler dying of leukemia, but those things exist in this world. Whether they affect me or not they exist, hence ur making the assumption this is a complaint on their own life.
I am making that assumption and it is probably accurate. I could be wrong but probably not, happy people dont tend to rail against how terrible life is.
Full stop, you did it. You do not know a single thing about this person but believe ur assumptions to be truth based on personal experience, such that now you believe it’s ok for you to make public accusations about their mental health, that is ignorant, you are a clown.
We make assumptions every hour of everyday, and I didnt say anything about his mental health, I just know they are probably very unhappy and have lived a life that needs changed.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator. As long as the initial cause is not determined it’s all hypothetical. It’s like arguing between Copenhagen interpretation and Many worlds. All arguments are moot without data.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator.
I said “most likely”. If you have material, objective, reproducible evidence that skeptics can examine proving the existence of a god, please present it. And win a Nobel prize.
The real question is why do you feel so angry and upset about your life? I would start focusing on the good things not just the bad ones.
That’s completely irrelevant. You can be working hard towards something and achieve it while there is someone always trying to sabotage you. I am asking about the saboteur
Persepctive is extremely relevant. For example if you live under a government and things are going great for you, you will more likely think the government is good than someone that is in poverty and under attack by the government.
What in your life is not going so great that you are unhappy? Writing someone might actually help.
Your adding the baseless implication that there is something wrong in their life. I’m not a 10 year old being murdered by Israels missles, or a Ukrainian forced to go to war, or a toddler dying of leukemia, but those things exist in this world. Whether they affect me or not they exist, hence ur making the assumption this is a complaint on their own life.
I am making that assumption and it is probably accurate. I could be wrong but probably not, happy people dont tend to rail against how terrible life is.
“I am making assumptions”
Full stop, you did it. You do not know a single thing about this person but believe ur assumptions to be truth based on personal experience, such that now you believe it’s ok for you to make public accusations about their mental health, that is ignorant, you are a clown.
We make assumptions every hour of everyday, and I didnt say anything about his mental health, I just know they are probably very unhappy and have lived a life that needs changed.
Most likely the saboteur doesn’t exist and you’re having bias reviewing your life.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator. As long as the initial cause is not determined it’s all hypothetical. It’s like arguing between Copenhagen interpretation and Many worlds. All arguments are moot without data.
I have changed my mind about how much we should bet on the fucker actually existing. The dude who sent the Carl Sagan video… You da mvp
I said “most likely”. If you have material, objective, reproducible evidence that skeptics can examine proving the existence of a god, please present it. And win a Nobel prize.
What I mean is that we don’t have any data to even comment on the likelihood. You can’t say most likely.
And in that situation, the safest bet is to say no. See: the invisible dragon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage