Sign In

CatBus

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
18-Aug-2011
Last activity
26-Apr-2018
Posts
7112

Post History

Post
#1200560
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 MKV IS OUT NOW
Time

pittrek said:

TV’s Frink said:

doubleofive said:

LordZerome1080 said:

Han Duet, Who is he? I’m doing a Star Wars fandom power research project and I need that information.

Is this like the websites from the early internet days that ranked every Jedi or Dragon Ball Z character by power level, but for fans? I can’t wait to find out what my power level is!

First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

So THIS is what I’m doing wrong! Thanks for the tip, Homer!

The sugar’s just for people who don’t have the Power of Grayskull.

Post
#1197753
Topic
Religion
Time

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

But it’s not adding new roles, but a fundamentally different conception of God. Whether one finds any particular asserted attribute of God to be implausible or absurd can be discussed. Some claimed qualities will be more like feathers and bills, but we must also be on guard not to dismiss possible attributes just because we don’t like them.

You’d started on this point earlier. i.e. Just take a conception of God, strip out all the stuff you find implausible, and what you’re left with is a concept of God that works for you.

The trick is, with me, if I strip out all the stuff I find implausible, what I’m left with no longer qualifies as a god in any sense. In fact, I’m pretty sure what’s left is just a squirrel. You know, mammals being less offensive than birds and all that 😉

Post
#1197680
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you.

Religion is a net positive and God doesn’t exist. That’s really the only two points I’ve made. I’ve actually tried to avoid being insulting, but if people ask what I think, I’m going to be honest with them. I like God. God is neat. You don’t have to be real to be neat.

It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god.

Once you’ve thrown “setting the universe in motion” on the table, IMO waterfowl and party favors aren’t a very big ask. Again, YMMV.

You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

I call Dawkins an asshole because he insults people, not because he insults God.

If I believed in God I would find your duck oversimplification as offense as what Dawkins says. I don’t necessarily mind insulting people either, by the way. I just think it’s weird that you would be insulting to theist while simultaneously claiming that religion is a benefit to society.

There’s also a difference, in my mind, between answering someone’s question about what I believe honestly in a way that may offend them or someone else, and calling people idiots for believing what they believe, which is what Dawkins does.

Post
#1197676
Topic
Religion
Time

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

I tend to agree with this comparison and had in mind [believers] of that kind of deity as not included in my reference to “most theists” who recognize a deity based on their own perceptions. A God that is not present is like your imaginary duck. That’s not what most theists see as God.

Which is why the duck was set up as the less preposterous example. You start adding new roles for God and it just gets further and further out there.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never met someone who actually, somehow, thinks that religion is a net positive for society yet has as insulting of an attitude toward the existence of God as you.

Religion is a net positive and God doesn’t exist. That’s really the only two points I’ve made. I’ve actually tried to avoid being insulting, but if people ask what I think, I’m going to be honest with them. I like God. God is neat. You don’t have to be real to be neat.

It’s kind of surreal actually because I’m extremely anti-Christ, anti-religion, and anti-theist in general, but I would never be so absurd as to say that a technicolored duck with party-favors is more plausible than a god.

Once you’ve thrown “setting the universe in motion” on the table, IMO waterfowl and party favors aren’t a very big ask. Again, YMMV.

You call Dawkins an asshole, but even he has more respect for the premise of God than you do.

I call Dawkins an asshole because he insults people, not because he insults God.

Post
#1197646
Topic
Religion
Time

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

I don’t know your basis for saying the duck is more plausible. If the problem is the bill and feathers, then maybe the bill and feathers don’t exist. The discussion on pages 27-28 I mentioned is relevant to that point. Flawed conceptions of God are common but don’t demonstrate that God is implausible.

A fairly mild and minimalist god, maybe your watchmaker-style god, is still, in my mind, more preposterous than the duck, even if the duck was blowing a party horn and wearing a fez. Clearly YMMV.

EDIT: Originally linked to the wrong Wikipedia article. What I mean by watchmaker is the God who set the universe in motion and then just walked away, leaving it to its own devices.

Post
#1197639
Topic
Religion
Time

Mrebo said:

Sure, atheists view things differently, but the kind of duck deity you conceptualize is wholly unlike God conceived by most theists.

The duck was created with the following criteria: no matter how preposterous the rest of it was, it must not be disprovable. So not wholly unlike – your modern gods were created with the same overriding criteria.

That something can’t be disproven or fully understand doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Science proceeds on all manner of theories that can’t be disproven.

Ah, that’s the point of contention, and it’s based on a misunderstanding of the duck post. It’s not the lack of disprovability that means it doesn’t exist, it’s the completely off-the-wall preposterousness of it. The feathers and bill are what made it not exist, not the lack of disprovability. The lack of disprovability is just what keeps the duck plausible enough for its believers. It doesn’t mean anything to me.

You’re right that the duck deity I conceptualize is wholly unlike the gods conceived by most theists, but my point was that because the duck was considerably more plausible than those gods, and I was comfortable saying with certainty that the duck didn’t exist, then it followed that I was comfortable saying the same thing about those gods.

Post
#1197491
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

SilverWook said:

Why is an economic adviser commenting on this? Doesn’t seem to be his bailiwick.

These sanctions originated in the Treasury Department. Presumably an economic advisor may be a White House political contact with Treasury, but with the freedom to give statements that conflict with Department positions and records.

But frankly I’m not sure the concept of bailiwicks really applies to this administration. Doesn’t Jared handle all diplomatic issues with something like a third of the planet?

Post
#1197448
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-russia-sanctions-reversal-republicans_us_5ad6682ee4b03c426da92720

Larry Kudlow, the president’s chief economic adviser, meanwhile, pinned the blame on Haley by stating that she “got ahead of the curve.”

“There might have been some momentary confusion about that,” he told reporters in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Tuesday.

“With all due respect, I don’t get confused,” Haley later responded in a statement of her own.

From her statement, it sounds like she did indeed give him all of the respect he was due.

Post
#1197442
Topic
Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)
Time

carlosmon said:

Working with the subtitles of version 10, I found the next typo errors:

SW-spa-419-titles.srt :
00:49:22,254 --> 00:49:25,008
…que todos los cazarrecompensas
de la galaxia te estará buscando…
-> (should be)
00:49:22,254 --> 00:49:25,008
…que todos los cazarrecompensas
de la galaxia te estarán buscando…

ROTJ-spa-419-titles.srt :
00:27:37,120 --> 00:27:40,583
Traigan a Solo y al wookie.
-> (should be)
00:27:37,120 --> 00:27:40,583
Traigan a Solo y al wookiee.

Thanks. Would you be able to tell me if equivalent problems can be found in spa-es?

EDIT: Already checked. Weird, I think these were found & corrected earlier, but not all files got the correction. It’ll be all set for the next release, thanks!

Post
#1197426
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Since God dwells within everyone*, everyone has a relationship with God, regardless of whether they’re aware of it or not, whether they believe or disbelieve.

That’s my 2¢ opinion, anyway.

*Everyone born with a conscience, anyway.

I don’t like the idea that conscience is related to God. I’m very secular in morality. The idea that we need God at all to be empathetic people is, in my opinion, unfair.

FWIW, this is something I think the Dalai Lama tried to address in Beyond Religion. I don’t think he actually succeeded in what he set out to do, but it was a worthwhile effort, and I’d recommend the read.

Post
#1197413
Topic
Religion
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

What this thread brings to my mind: a discussion between three people — a man who speaks modern American English, a man who speaks middle English, and a man who speaks Engrish. There’s some level of mutual intelligibility, but truthfully, they don’t understand each other at all and likely never will.

Can I be the Middle English guy?

And up the window did he hastily,
And out his erse he put full privily
Over the buttock, to the haunche bone.
And therewith spake this clerk, this Absolon,
“Speak, sweete bird, I know not where thou art.”
This Nicholas anon let fly a fart,
As great as it had been a thunder dent;
That with the stroke he was well nigh y-blent;
But he was ready with his iron hot,
And Nicholas amid the erse he smote.

Post
#1197410
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

We’re definitely not better off with it in this day and age. We got mass literacy and science in spite of religion. The fact that such incredible technology was invented and implemented during the Roman Empire that was not improved upon for centuries is a great example of that.

And we had soap in Roman times, lost it for a bit, and got it back again. Developments come in fits and starts.

The opposition to evolutionary theory is a perfect example and most of the banned books throughout history have been banned because of them causing offense to religious sensibilities.

Evolutionary theory? You probably mean Darwin’s theory of natural selection rather than Mendel’s theory of inheritance, because the church was cool about that one. Big radical new theories are often opposed very strongly – the Missoula Floods, for example. Opposed by scientists for quite a long time until finally the evidence was just too much. Your modern remnant opposition to Darwin, and book burning, is more about the anxiety of becoming culturally irrelevant than religious dogma.

When a huge group of people believe they’ve become irrelevant in the modern world, that anger can be channeled to achieve political aims a la the rise of Wahhabism during the Ottoman Empire. Yeah, there are some religious bones to throw, but there are usually other political aims which are paramount. Is it really a coincidence that science-denying, book-burning religious Americans are also reliably voting to make really rich people even richer? If religion didn’t exist as a tool to mobilize these voters, these same snake oil salespeople would use oh, I dunno, maybe race, to achieve the same goals.

Just because the Sistine Chapel is painted beautifully doesn’t mean that religion hasn’t done far more to censor art than it has to further it.

People like to tell other people how to live their lives. I agree religion plays a part in that, but less of a part than you’re implying.

Fundamentalist Islam has motivated the destruction of so many historical artifacts and works of art.

IMO fundamentalism is the application of hyper-literalist interpretations onto otherwise fairly sane religions, with the explicit purpose of coming to insane conclusions. You want to justify genocide? Just read enough Old Testament with enough of a literal bent and a complete disregard for context and you’ll find it. IMO fundamentalism is about seeking how to weaponize religion, it is not religion in its own right. YMMV.

Religious fundamentalism provides mankind, which I agree sucks, with an easy justification for its atrocities and even sometimes motivates its atrocities. Sane people wouldn’t be beheading people for apostasy if their religion didn’t call for it. Sane people wouldn’t be campaigning against gay rights if religion didn’t condemn homosexuality.

Aside from what I’ve already said about fundamentalism, people behave very badly to people they don’t like, that much I agree with. Were it not for religion, though, I believe people would find another justification to injure those same people. Religion provides easy justification for bad things, certainly. But I think you overlook mankind’s ability to seek out other easy justifications.

Also, I want to stress that I’m not trying to let religion off the hook completely. It does help lead to many of these things. But it is just one of many, many things.

Post
#1197362
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I definitely disagree that religion does more good than harm. I don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. Maybe a personal belief in a god can be a net positive maybe, but religion definitely not.

Basically because all the ills commonly attributed to religion have very little if anything to do with religion. War, genocide, terrorism. IMO that’s just mankind being mankind. People just put a not-very-convincing religious gloss over these things to add legitimacy/justification to the actions they were going to do anyway. Meanwhile religion actually brought us mass literacy (where’s Gutenberg without the Bible?) and science (Mendel, Leibniz). Yeah, religion leads to some bad things too, but overall, I’d say we’re better off with it.

Post
#1197341
Topic
Religion
Time

Mrebo said:

CatBus, the problem with your imaginary duck hypothetical is that it relates to nothing. If theists viewed God in that way it would be just as nonsensical.

The duck was a man-made invention that was purpose-built to be an entity that can neither be disproven nor fully understood. So in that sense it’s exactly like gods – the fact that theists and atheists view such things differently was the point. The feathers were added to highlight the implausibility angle.

Most theists believe in God based on what they can perceive and find it implausible that a deity doesn’t exist based on those perceptions. There are very flawed conceptions of God and I agree with Frink, at least to an extent, that really understanding God is beyond our capacity. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a basic (and necessarily flawed) understanding that does us some good.

And here I agree. I think religion does more good than harm, which is where I part ways with jerkwads* like Richard Dawkins. Religion helps people in tangible ways regardless of the underlying truth of the tenets (and perhaps if the duck hypothesis were more fully fleshed out, I could find a way to make belief in the duck provide similar tangible benefits). So in that sense it doesn’t matter if God exists or not, believing in him is probably a net positive if you can swing it. I just can’t swing it, that’s all.

* I know we’re supposed to be polite in the Religion thread, so I suppose I shouldn’t say “jerkwads”. What I meant was “assholes”.

Post
#1197325
Topic
Religion
Time

Frankly, on the Internet in general, that’s probably a good move. As for me, I’m interested to hear it. And for what it’s worth, I’ll believe your testimony is “true for you”, which is about as much credence as I’ll grant anyone’s testimony.

Just because I don’t believe religions doesn’t mean I don’t like them. I’m always up for better understanding of my fellow man Skynet nodes.

Post
#1197302
Topic
Religion
Time

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

Chyron knows there’s a God. He’s 100% certain of this. I know there aren’t any gods. I’m 100% certain of this as well.

How can you possibly know that? The only thing I find more unlikely than someone knowing for certain God exists is someone knowing for certain that gods don’t exist.

Basically via Occam’s Razor, but not even that philosophical. I am comfortable making the following statement:

There is absolutely, positively, not a giant pink-and-mauve duck flying in space, hidden in the dark side of the moon, with the capacity not only to survive in space, but also to be undetectable to any attempt to observe it.

Now, this duck, by its very definition, cannot be proven not to exist, yet I am absolutely certain that it does not.

Gods are far more implausible than the duck, so by extension I am certain that they also do not exist.

You do realize that the nature of God would be such that the odds are we can’t even conceptualize it, right?

As with the duck. It’s more of a wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey astro-duck. And it ain’t there.

Post
#1197299
Topic
Religion
Time

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

Chyron knows there’s a God. He’s 100% certain of this. I know there aren’t any gods. I’m 100% certain of this as well.

How can you possibly know that? The only thing I find more unlikely than someone knowing for certain God exists is someone knowing for certain that gods don’t exist.

Basically via Occam’s Razor, but not even that philosophical. I am comfortable making the following statement:

There is absolutely, positively, not a giant pink-and-mauve duck flying in space, hidden in the dark side of the moon, with the capacity not only to survive in space, but also to be undetectable to any attempt to observe it.

Now, this duck, by its very definition, cannot be proven not to exist, yet I am absolutely certain that it does not.

Gods are far more implausible than the duck, so by extension I am certain that they also do not exist.

EDIT: My mom is agnostic, and I totally get that viewpoint as well. But I’m pretty sure she doesn’t believe in the duck either.

Post
#1197210
Topic
Religion
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

Chyron, your presupposition, and refusal to elaborate on said presupposition, that God’s existence is completely evident and unquestionable can be frustrating. Your strong faith is quite admirable, but your behavior in this thread today is baffling.

IMO the danger of any mixed-company religious conversation is failure to couch terms appropriately, and that goes double for text-only formats. This whole “true for me” and “true for you” is ultimately sorta bullshit, but useful bullshit. Chyron knows there’s a God. He’s 100% certain of this. I know there aren’t any gods. I’m 100% certain of this as well. You don’t have to wade very far into a conversation with this level of un-couched honesty before you reach the obvious conclusion that one of us is wrong.

But that’s not a useful conclusion to any religious discussion. It neither helps nor informs anyone. Unless you’re in the conversion racket, I suppose, which I’m certainly not. So instead of saying “I know”, people say “I believe”, which ratchets down the conflict a bit. But really, for some people it’s the same damn thing. Chyron and me, we both know, we’re both certain. But to facilitate a more fruitful conversation, it’s “belief”, which is suitably equivocal, albeit sometimes less accurate.

Now sure, many/most have room for real doubt, and I’m not trying to downplay that. I think doubt is far more theologically interesting than certainty on the faith end of the spectrum (whereas hardly anything is theologically interesting about my end). I think the story of Doubting Thomas illustrates this quite well, how lack of certainty/evidence is precisely what gives value to faith. I’m not exactly sure how to approach absolute religious certainty in that respect, but I’ll keep reading and listening.

Post
#1197142
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 MKV IS OUT NOW
Time

evaskeeva said:

I wanted to thank Harmy and all who worked on this restoration.

Be sure to watch ESB 2.0 and ROTJ 2.5 while you’re at it. I’m sorry to say that those look so good now that they make SW 2.7 feel a little less amazing. And you will be similarly pleased with the audio on both (ESB has a one-frame audio sync issue which you are unlikely to notice, but it will be fixed in the next release).

Post
#1196941
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

MalàStrana said:

NeverarGreat said:

Trump is very smart at branding and controlling the media narrative.

Media is politics, then do the math 😃

Also, if he’s so great with the media, then why is he so historically unpopular? And why was he barely capable of even coming within 3,000,000 votes of winning the popular election? I don’t even know why I’m asking these questions.

Because 8 billion illegal criminals voted for Clinton in California, duh.

I love how right-wingers claim to love the electoral college now purely because it gives Republicans an advantage. They say, “Well, if it weren’t for the electoral college then people in California and New York’s votes would count for something.” Yeah, that’s how the democratic election of a representative works.

Well we’re a democratic republic, which I guess means that if you live in a more populous area, your voice matters less.

I know I’m being pedantic, but over-representation of rural areas is not in any way a by-product of a democratic republic. I know people say that all the time but they are all completely wrong. The fact that votes cast by people who live in less populated areas have more weight than votes cast by people in more populated areas is mostly just a function of how we chose to implement federalism in the US. There are other ways to implement federalism, and you can also have a democratic republic with no federalism at all, so that this is a non-issue. Democratic republics and our electoral college mess are apples and unicycles. There’s no link.

Technically you still have a little over-representation of areas with lower (or negative) population growth in a democratic republic (which tends to skew rural, but not always), due to the fact that the census is not continuous and is instead based on snapshots in time. But if that were the only issue we were struggling with, our democracy would be in good shape today.

Good write up, though I hope you know I was joking.

Yeah, but it’s such a common statement I’m not sure you can deadpan it like that. I’m sure if elections were cancelled or votes were openly discarded, someone would say, “Well sure, if we were a Democracy this wouldn’t happen, but we’re a Democratic Republic so of course ballot boxes get dumped in the river.”