Initiateofthevoid

Thank you!

But, the beautiful thing about hitting rock bottom is that the only way to go from there is up. All of that to say that maybe (yes, I’m being optimistic) Trump is what this country needs to hit rock bottom, do some self reflection, and pull ourselves back up to a better place. The biggest takeaway I learned way back when is that no matter how bad things get, the world keeps spinning

These are unfortunately contradictory ideas. It sounds like you had a positive journey in the end, but there are many individuals - especially people struggling with addiction - who will tell you that there is no rock bottom. The world does keep on spinning. And as long as you are alive, you can go lower. There is no point where you go so low that you hit bedrock and the world stops spinning.

Plenty of people think they hit rock bottom and later discover that what they thought of as their lowest point eventually became a time they now think of as "the good days".

There is nothing inevitable or guaranteed about hitting rock bottom and climbing your way back up. It is hard work, and it sounds like you know that personally. Whatever comes next will be a terrible struggle for all of us, and there is no guarantee of success. But we do have to try anyway.

That's very interesting. Do you know where I could learn more about that decision? I tried searching but its 2025 and any phrases I could think of just returned websites offering nearly identical collections of flag emojis...

As much as theists would claim that their morals were handed down from divinity, ultimately an athiest would understand those morals to be originally handed down from humans, and therefore humanistic.

Doesn't mean they're good morals of course, especially when corrupted by motives of power, but bad morals can be handed down by secular sources as well. The point being that theistic origins do not necessarily mean the morals themselves are flawed.

In any case, fundamentally the ethics of AA's 12 steps are technically theistic in origin and nomenclature but humanistic in nature, in that they appear to really dig down into the psychology of humans in a way that deviates significantly from their christian roots.

According to Mercadante, however, the AA concept of powerlessness over alcohol departs significantly from Oxford Group belief. In AA, the bondage of an addictive disease cannot be cured, and the Oxford Group stressed the possibility of complete victory over sin.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous

The original christian prayer group believed that through God, addiction could be cured. AA has maintained from the beginning that addiction cannot be cured - a recovering alcoholic is and always will be a recovering alcoholic. Faith in God alone will not deliver salvation because addiction is not sin, it is illness, and should be treated by more than just prayer.

They want to use military planes because they can hide the cost of this program in the "whoops it's too big to audit" defense budget. The cost of civilian contractors would be publically disclosed.

This person's outright sadistic blindness or trolling aside, anyone reading this comment with good faith and not immediately having an aneurysm should remember that the once and current president once said, and I quote:

I like taking guns away early. Take the guns first, go through due process second.

I never said that, nor did I ever think that. But you have made clear that this discussion is unwanted, and I will respect that and say no more on it. Farewell.

Did you? To me? Where?

I already told you what I didn’t agree with and why I didn’t agree with it several times

I didn't and still don't see any explanations for why you disagree, other than "being athiest" which I do not believe is sufficient explanation in and of itself. There are plenty of athiests who find reasons to agree or disagree on this topic beyond that single belief.

I apologize if my approach seems insistent that you need to agree with me. I only wanted to explore the topic further, and am happy to discontinue that if the desire is not reciprocated. Farewell.

I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.

... All they’re really doing is using their imagination to simulate a being greater than themselves and then asking “what would that being want for my life?”

This is a secular interpretation of "improve our conscious contact with God" that doesn't actually involve "communicating with a God"

Is there something about this interpretation that you don't understand or disagree with?

I have no idea how to interpret “improve our conscious contact with God” any other way.

Then you're not experiencing any empathy for them. You're not actively putting yourself in their perspective, their world. You're accepting what they say, not extrapolating from that to understand what they think.

Religious people generally don't hear voices in their head. We know God doesn't talk to them. They know God doesn't talk to them. They might believe in signs or whatever, but they don't hear a voice when they pray, and they certainly don't expect to.

From the outside perspective of an athiest, you should be able to see that all they're really doing is using their imagination to simulate a being greater than themselves and then asking "what would that being want for my life?"

This is not very functionally different from asking ourselves "if I was a better person, what would I want for my life?"

The theistic process could be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a deity would want, sure. But the athiestic process could also be corrupted by malformed ideas about the things a good person would want.

If the user was going to message someone off platform they’d still be sending them an unencrypted message anyways if they have to switch apps to SMS.

It sounds like they don't want to take responsibility for that user choice or be connected to anything that happens because of that choice.

It would still be an insecure choice, even with obvious UX distinctions. It would only be a matter of time before headlines muddy the waters with "intercepted Signal messages reveal..." or "Judge rules in favor of subpeona for unencrypted Signal messages..."