Yes, but Chyron did give his reasons for not giving his reasons. I wish he felt differently about it, but it’s not like he’s being completely opaque and uncommunicative. He says he’s not comfortable talking about his reasons and I believe him.
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.
It is funny how only one of you can be right and yet somehow you’re both wrong. :p
You just wait. One day I’ll be the customer, and then you’ll change your tune!
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.
Text format, loss of subtle nonverbal cues, and all that. I never thought you were trying to rope us into anything.
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.
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.
It was an international dick-measuring contest.
I’m never going to one of those again! Fool me once…
PM sent.
*Squirrels, who have a longstanding feud with birds, are awesome.
And here we find our kumbaya moment. Here’s to continuing the struggle against the rear guard of the dinosaurs!
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 😉
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The most important thing I learned was that basic knowledge of German made Middle English much more readable. All those kids taking French and Spanish were really struggling.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.