Sign In

CatBus

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
18-Aug-2011
Last activity
18-Jun-2018
Posts
7260

Post History

Post
#1202520
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Oh, I wanted to mention something I saw this May Day. As with most cities, we see some people every year using May Day as an opportunity to smash stuff, start fights, and engage in random violence during otherwise peaceful protests. I don’t know whether we’re better or worse than most towns, but it’s seemed pretty bad by my estimation.

Well, this last May Day, there were lots of protests and very little violence, which was nice. But the great thing was what I saw. A room full of riot cops all decked out and ready to go, sitting around bored and playing with their phones. Something about the sight really made me happy. Sure, it was to some degree wasting taxpayer money and they obviously overstaffed by a big margin, but frankly I’m still delighted that they found solace in Candy Crush or whatever instead of going out into the protests and making trouble where there wasn’t any before.

Post
#1202516
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

I’d like to see some statistics backing up the supposed consensus.

I suspect it’s directly down party lines.

While I’m no Reagan defender, quite a lot of time has passed since then and both parties have changed a lot. Republicans tend to praise Reagan as an article of faith, but frankly he’d be viewed as a fringe liberal in today’s Republican party. On some issues he’d be fairly liberal for a Democrat these days too. Top marginal tax rate of 50%? Pffft! Go back to your Bernie rally, Ron! Evil Empire? Fake news!

So if you ask “What do you think of Reagan?” I agree the answer will be split down party lines, but if you ask “What do you think of these specific policies?” the answer may also be split down party lines, in the opposite direction!

Post
#1202155
Topic
Religion
Time

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders.

😉

I don’t know how he could get those confused. The Raiders scene starts with Indy figuring out how to spell neolithic.

Cause I’m a big doodoohead! Stop looking at me!

Post
#1202092
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

Possessed said:

*YouTube video I’m not going to click on*

Clip from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

Indy, teaching class: “Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.”

It’s actually from Raiders. And I should note at least some of his students aren’t interested in fact or truth, but the more pressing matter of how to get into Dr. Jones’ pants. The kids are all right.

Oh, and I also agree with Chyron. Even as an atheist, I feel fiction often more accurately expresses the truth than nonfiction.

Post
#1202014
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

So, Pravda on the Checkout Line is pushing the story that Flynn was a Russian spy. While traditionally, nothing resembling the truth can ever come out of that place, for the past several months, people have had some success applying the principles of Kremlinology to the tabloid. i.e. you don’t ever learn the truth per se, but you learn who’s in, who’s out (as in out of favor, not necessarily out of a job), and who’s going to fall off a roof next week.

Now all the cool kids are doing Trump admin Kremlinology using the National Enquirer.

Post
#1201850
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

I don’t know the origins of FSM or whatever

FWIW, I never really cared one way or the other for FSM, but it was created as a rhetorical device, designed not to counter belief in God, but to counter the trend of people enforcing their religious beliefs on others through the law. i.e. “if you’re going to legislate that my kids have to learn religious creation myths in a public school’s science classroom as if they were fact, then please allow me to demonstrate what a bad idea that is using the FSM, since we cannot Constitutionally favor one religion over another”.

The trick is, there are plenty of real religions with alternate creation stories that most people would not want taught in a science classroom. I think that’s an area where the Satanists, for example, have done better work keeping the argument civil than the FSM people IMO. You don’t always have to jump straight to an extreme to get your point across.

Post
#1200994
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Trying not to get too optimistic about Korea. On one hand, this would be great for all parties concerned and the world. On the other hand, we had basically the exact same fanfares and promises in 2000 which turned out to just be cover for a half-billion dollar bribe. Hope is appealing, but cynicism is maintaining a slight lead in my head right now.

Post
#1200970
Topic
Religion
Time

CatBus said:

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.

At risk of re-starting the same shitstorm I started last time, this is nevertheless topical to the “truth” discussion.

Post
#1200918
Topic
Religion
Time

Oddly you probably get the most understanding from me. I get being certain, and that certainty, while being unusual, isn’t actually terribly interesting to talk about. At least in your case, your certainty leads to interesting follow-on questions, though 😉

That said, we should all be careful not to interpret other people’s descriptions of their own faith, or lack thereof, as an attempt to convert others to their point of view. There is valuable stuff to learn from other people’s religious viewpoints, whether you agree with them or not.

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.