Instead of answering me, it would be much more helpful to come up with an counter argument to mentioned arguments.

We may debate, it wont resolve something. Time will reveal what is needed to be known or to be accepted. So go on have fun, scroll through lemmy.

It is just that, you are lazy so you dont debate and instead you shout out hate. If you are not going to debate and express the opposing side that they are wrong; you are simply an asshole, waste of resources(from my pov of course, it all is relative).

Have a nice day, btw I am an evolutionist(not that it changes sth).

Why the fuck people did downvote you?!

Many of evolutionists blame those who are against or suspicious about evolution with zealotry but when they come up with real arguments and questions, you become the zealots. You fucking hypocrites

Its working for me

Use gboards with a firewall blocking any traffic from it.

This will be last 🥲

Dotfiles pls

I appreciate every single second you spent on this, I hope more people will benefit

Can you suggest some resources to learn eww

https://adspthepodcast.com/

I think what "god" does mean for me, you and others are different. Also same goes for "believe" and "you". I believe, these kinds of topics are way out of our minds' league and even we could comprehend and discuss those things(god, reality, logic etc.) we still would be using wrong tools like language and our current logic system. So both the tools we use, and our intelligence is not enough to answer this question.

But still, if you want a yes or no answer; I would say no without hesitation.

Recommendation algorithm does not only consider your watch history. There are other factors.

This is the most interesting thing I realize(thanks to you) this week so far

You really do understand me. I mean I couldn't find anyone out there, in flesh to speak about these but here I am discussing it with a complete stranger on internet. I really appreciate your effort, thanks again.

Actually, some of us didnt

https://www.engadget.com/protonmail-climate-activist-ip-swiss-french-authorities-233004304.html

Europol requested it. Even though you think your service is not under 14 eyes there still is gonna be many other problems.

You can always find problems with the service itself.

Just because of this I have got in the habit of holding phone 45 angles when I open it, and this really puts me in weird situations in morning around people

If all federated communities could decide upon to regulate same rules, every one of them could be moderated by their own moderators. But the problem I see here is the things that's being federated is in reality server itself which means it would be impossible(not sure but at least not necessary) to do such a thing. But anyone can easily build an app to collect posts from same communities, it does not require to play with activitypub, just lemmy api.

They have no idea what they are down voting. They do it just because it is against sync. You are just stating we should support foss devs. They literally are just bunch of fucking idiots that probably came here just by following others. It would be awesome if they could just fuck off from fediverse and go lurk in reddit.

I am using tildes, and compared to lemmy it's community is small. But I love it because of this. Since community is small I feel like I really am a significant part of the community.

For every single way that you may be using to reach out the internet, there will always going to be an exit node which won't be able to hide out itself. You may still use ssl or whatever you want (cant think of anything else that widely used) to encrypt the connection, as you normally do on your computer every time like you try to reach out a server with https. But I still take some actions that are not being encrypted between me and other side which I don't want to be related with me. So basically, I don't want some of my traffic to be exposed to ISP or any possible other threat. In order to provide that, I find a vps provider which has enough internet traffic to not use ISP to access internet(like many big tech companies do), and buy a vps from there anonymously(of course my ip is being exposed here but it is also being exposed on other vpn services and I am not doing something that important to make my ip so much important to hide). Afterwards I setup a wireguard or openvpn (depends on your needs) server and connect it from my pc. Which basically works like a vpn service that many people subscribe.

As far as I can see(if I am not mistaken somewhere), if you have a problem with this kind of protocol, then you have a problem with vpn services itself. And if you have a problem with that, and need more anonymity, you can connect to a public wifi and then a vpn and then a distributed network like tor.

My mistake, sorry. I should have also said on a vps.

No one is more hated than he who speaks truth

There is a continuous decrease in number. That incident should be seen as a reverse spike.

Self hosted

I really don't understand why skepticism take this much discredit. It just asks question, it just does what we do to reach knowledge. Isn't the whole point of philosophy is asking questions and trying to find answer.

Thanks for your reply

You really put effort in this, I don't know how to thank. Simply put, you are awesome.

Firstly, I would like to ask a question about self reference. I hope this won't sound stupid, but we use language to give the verdict that states "We do not know anything". And this results in contradiction as you mentioned but can't this be caused by the limit of our language or our definition and understanding of those words and concepts. I mean when we use the word "anything" how do we ensure "knowledge", the thing we define by our own language create by use, is included in this set. It is like that everything is so abstract that you miss some things that lead you to see the statement as a contradiction. One way it came to my mind is that: while you are stating "We do not know anything" it is not knowledge. It is nothing that will become knowledge when it has been stated. So when you say "anything" you refer to things that you name "knowledge" but not the all other things that labeled as knowledge. Let me give you an another example from other self-reference paradoxes: "This sentence is a lie." when we say "this" there is nothing to refer which means this is not a paradox, this is just nonsense since this does not refer to anything:

1. You should have something that can be referred when you want to refer something
2. To be able to create a self-reference paradox, you should a have a conclusion that gives a verdict about itself(and possibly some other things or some other conclusion/conclusions that gives a verdict about it).
3. Let us take an example like "This sentence is a lie."
4. The part that refers to something is "this sentence" and it refers to "This sentence is a lie."
5. But when you call out "this sentence", the thing that's being referred does not exist, yet.
6. If something refers itself, the thing we call "itself" should just be a reference to itself, like: "This three word", "This sentence"
7. Because to be able to refer something, it should exist so a statement that refer itself can not be longer that reference of itself

What's the mistake I make here? I could only find that it may be the way I interpret the sentence. I interpret it as it was under the effect of a linear interval. But if the statement is being given(whether it crosses on your mind or by mouth) it does happen in a while. One may can reject this by saying it doesn't need to be read or thought, it is knowledge without being processed; but "knowledge" and "sentence" are concepts created by human beings, without them, they aren't significant or have a meaning for someone or something.

Thanks for mentioning about "The Münchhausen trilemma", it is exactly what I was thinking about the knowledge. I will certainly do further reading about it.

I would really appreciate it if you could recommend me some resources(book, video, podcast, anything...) on cognitive closure.

Again thank you for your comment, it certainly helped a lot.

I have read it but I have still a question in mind. Okay god doesn't provide moral reasons to act the way it wants so what? It is god, it says us to do something and if we don't it punishes, if we do it rewards.

This is a different way to look at the situation we are in but it doesn't change anything about the situation. If one believes in god, one should still have to act the way god says. That does just mean they don't do what they do for moral reasons, they do what they do for the sake of award given by god.

Thanks for the resource

Sorry about the confusion. I just have a lot in my mind about our capacity of understanding, so I just messed up a bit with asking right questions.

I will do further research on mutual perception of concepts.

And I will certainly be going to check out "Quine’s criticism" since it seems to suit my mindset and I like it just by doing preliminary research.

Thanks

Would you like to talk

Holy shit, I should warn my cousins

Years of experience speaking:

• Make it work
• Make it right
• Make it fast

If your end results are following this pattern, no one gives a fuck how you do

I appreciate your effort to answer, but I couldn't find the relevance of this with my question.

Religion part is just how I ended up posting this. My question is:

One of the great starting points in many fields, like science or philosophy is “I am probably wrong about many things — because I am unable to know everything, let’s see what I don’t know and put it to the test”

Can I do this to analytical truths because when I do, I couldn't find any claim to support them. I am clueless about, does our logic and reasoning correct?

I know "regress problem of justification" but checking it out again on stanford encyclopedia really widen my view, but still clueless whats the answer since there is also a conflict about the topic among academia.

Thanks for book recommendation, it touches on many topics, but I certainly will check out.

Analytic truths are true by virtue of the meaning of their words

Expressing this like seem to me as "They are true because we say so". It is supported with how we define it, so there is no external claim to support it, so how can we be sure they are correct.

Without wishing to lay down the law, I think "Euthyphro dilemma" is easy to answer, depending on your definition of god. My definition being: God is the creator of everything. There was nothing before it. It can alter or destroy everything, also it can create anything. So pious things defined by god. It didn't love something and defined it as "good", it willed everything to happen and named things "good".

Socrates says:

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

Pious didn't exist before god, so "it is pious because god willed".

And may I ask why does god need justification; assuming god(my definition) exists, reasoning, logic and other things can not exist without its will, so they were not there when god was. Doesn't that make god free from logicality?

I hope it is not annoying to answer a clueless like me, thanks for help.

Forget about the religion part, it is just how i ended up post this.

So first things first, I am not saying take something random as premise, what i am saying is you can take a related premise like god to base your actions(praise, not lying etc.). And someone else can question that premise, which is god.

From here i want to question something else, premises that are more foundational like analytical truths. For example: A is B B is C C is A

Here I just want to ask a one simple question: How?

What does "A is equivalent to B" mean here. That's what I say. Me, myself couldn't find an answer to this question. It is just obvious, intuitional but I just can't answer "How?".

Someone lacks sense of humor

I am gonna be honest with you here. Some of us born with a gift, given directly from god. They can sleep, without thinking embarrassing memories, without using any medicine, without finding comfort itself. But you and I... and many others... we are not welcomed to this dream world of easy sleepers. We are not gifted.

Once I was exactly like you described: "people who want FOSS everything but they contribute nothing". Indeed, it was really bothering me to not contribute anything, but the reason was I didn't have much confidence about my skills. I slowly break that barrier of lacking confidence.

If there are people out there like who I was, please just go and commit anything on any project, whatever it is, doesn't matter.

Wtf dude how did you make bluetooth work

Fair enough, have fun browsing lemmy over sync.

But i still recommend and hope all to use foss