ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Since it is obviously inconceivable that all metaphysical theories can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
The tone and assumptions you make in this post are strange to me. It's like you expect to see members of this forum deride and criticize atheism... why?
I thought it was pretty strange to see those expectations going in another direction, but it seemed to be considered not strange at all; just a regular, serious question. I wonder what you make of that asymmetry.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
If you are proposing that Atheism is just as ridiculous as Wokism, then I'll register that I don't actually agree and probably a large chunk of the Motte doesn't agree either
Why not? And why did you immediately retreat to agnosticism instead of robustly defend it in the first place?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I think the first one is straightforward: they confuse methodological constraints for a metaphysical theory. That is, science has methodological constraints; it makes certain assumptions and speaks only to things within the constraints of those assumptions. But instead, folks want to claim that those are not constraints on the method; they're constraints on reality. Rather than building an actual metaphysical theory, they just declare that their constraints handwave the whole problem away.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
So, even if we don't ridicule the agnostics, why don't we ridicule the atheists more?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Anyways, I think most atheists, if pressed, will say that they're technically agnostic.
So, why don't we ridicule the remaining atheists more?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I find it interesting that The Motte tends to treat atheism with kid gloves that are not reserved for other belief systems. For example, the idea that there is no difference in intelligence between different genetic groups of humans is widely called out here as being simply wrong. Which it almost certainly is, in my opinion. But consider the idea that methodological constraints actually are a metaphysical theory, or further implying that shoes are atheists. These ideas are, I think, even less likely to be true than the idea that there is no difference in intelligence between different genetic groups of humans (at least the latter can be empirically shown true or false; the former is just a category error). But atheism on The Motte is usually not met with accusations that it is as absurd, indeed perhaps more absurd, as any flavor of wokeism. Nor is the history acknowledged that New/Internet Atheists almost certainly led to a willingness to embrace relativism everywhere and ultimately wokeism by the masses of "laypeople". Wokeism gets often and in my opinion properly pilloried on here for being nonsensical on the level of correspondence to objective reality, but atheism typically gets a free pass. Even the philosophers on here mostly refuse to really call it out as being absurd when the topic comes up.
Does this happen because atheism is largely not viewed as a threat anymore (since its birth of wokeism is already in the past) and because since wokeism is this community's main out-group and atheism is vaguely internet-weirdo-aligned in the modern West, people here tend to follow the principle of "the enemy of an enemy is my friend"? Or, to be more charitable, maybe it is because wokeism can fairly easily be criticized on the level of normal scientific investigation, whereas the claims that atheism makes go so far beyond typical constraints of the scientific method that one actually does just quietly make an exception for it because its claims are fundamentally viewed as being orthogonal to scientific investigation (and people just fail to ever mention such)?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Ah yes, my opponents don't actually believe things, and when they do, they're clearly crazy. Oh, by the way, my personal interpretation is the obvious thing that is implied by what they would believe if they actually believed things. Which is how we know they don't actually believe any of it at all. This is all right and good then. Carry on! Sorry I ever said anything!
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Nobody showed any sign of dodging the mockery of an argument he made when he randomly brought it up. And be serious; this whole chain was started by someone say, "Why don't we mock my opponents more?" Whelp, I guess we're mocking opponents now. Them's the grounds you wanted to live on.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Ok, given the modding, I'm just surprised by your position. It's got nothing to do with maximizing reproduction/fitness, which is obviously the One True Message from your belief system. We even have examples of scientific eugenicists through the years to demonstrate that this is, without question, the real interpretation.
You may not like this argument, but you can engage with it properly.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Nah, you started the sneering in your OP. My turn now.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Least you could do is read the entire chapter.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
end banking like Jesus clearly said we should, or stop accumulating wealth and live like the birds and beasts of the field like he also said we should
It never ceases to amaze me how utterly poor people's reasoning becomes when they're trying to make their opponents sound bad. This is, like, woke-twitter-level atrocious.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
I find myself going back and forth, precisely along the lines of what you've described. I do mathematically-heavy research, and intuition really is a thing. When something just feels like it should be right. You don't actually think it yet, but you're like, "If there is any beauty in mathematics, this should be right somehow, or at the very least, thinking about it should lead me to something relatively profound." It's purely a feeling, looking through a very hazy glass, extremely darkly. Once you can start to erect at least a shell of how you're going to get to a result, you can move toward, "I think."
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
That there is a group of "priests" who do not have otherwise productive jobs does not imply that all Christians should live as such. Hell, even the Israelites had an entire tribe of Levites. Maybe Christ/disciples were broke, but where does it say they were ascetics? Where they specifically cast off all their material goods specifically for the purpose of casting off material goods rather than, "Yeah, preachin' don't pay so good, but we're called to preach, sooo..."
Also when Mary annoints Jesus’ feet with ointment his disciples say they should have sold it to give to the poor.
I mean... the passage actually says:
But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for [b]three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
7 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; [c]she has kept this for the day of My burial. 8 For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”
I mean, yeah. Reallly not quite what you say it says.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
A perfect Christian with knowledge of who needs more than they do, should probably give away everything except what they need to live and support their families. Christ being the exemplar.
I mean, where is that in the Bible? I think it's pretty silent on the topic of what the carpenter did with his carpentry wages. Obviously, he sacrificed his life (thus relinquishing all possessions in death), but I don't think it ever says much concerning his interaction with material goods. He advises the rich man to give up all of his possessions, but that was for a specific purpose - to follow him.
I think it unlikely that Christ was sneakily sitting on a trove of material treasures. I think he gave freely of his special power to help others in terms of healings, multiplying food, etc. But I think it's pretty silent on Christ's actual possession or non-possession of any material goods. There is the example of the widow's two mites, but it is noticeable that this was not billed as a direct example of Christ giving up every last item. Plenty of parts about being generous, probably more generous than most anyone would like today, but I'm not sure Christ actually did set an example as an ascetic monk, and perhaps that's part of an argument against the extreme of becoming one.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Do you think that "whoever brings more shouters wins" is a stable equilibrium? Will you be willing to defend the same right if it turns out that your ideological enemies can bring more shouters to target you and yours?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Now in 17, substance means body. Remembered that the fulfillment of the Old is found in Jesus.
Sure, but you didn't quite notice which word in your translation isn't in the Greek. Once we get that, we'll see how your astute observation here makes more sense.
then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth
It’s very clear then that the intention is not to focus on the human-made rules and regulations
BZZZZZZT. You added "rules and regulations" here. That's not in there. Do you think the things which are above, where Christ is, include rape, murder, and pillaging?
You quote Romans 6 well, but it seems you have not read it. Are you to sin because you are not under law but under grace? If you are obedient from the heart, what are you obedient to? Great job jumping to 7:6; perhaps check some other translations. Say, what does verse seven say?
Your criticisms are convoluted and purposely opaque. I am not hyper-focusing on anything; I'm just observing that you're hyper-focusing on a few words here and there, completely divorced from the rest of the text.
this is exposed by Jesus again and again in the Gospel where he breaks letter to perform the spirit
This is correct, but the letter of what? The spirit of what?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Proof text much? Colossians 2:16 goes on into verse 17. Pay attention to your translation, and notice which word isn't present in the Greek. Romans 4:15 is written by the same guy who went on to write chapter 6 of that same book. And Galatians 4:10? I mean, I don't even know if I have a complaint. It's straight impressive how magically you read something into here that isn't remotely present. Like, kudos for whatever kool-aid you've got in your cup. And man, 1 Corinthians 6:12? This guy wrote the previous three verses; what do you make of them? Do they imply that nothing is forbidden? Did you just skip the first part of the chapter of Romans 14, where it indicated the types of things it was talking about, rather than being a free-floating license to do literally anything. I mean, you can't really believe that. You can't really believe that if Paul was standing in front of you right now, and you asked him, "Hey yo, this passage here. This be where it says that it's totes cool to rape, murder, and pillage, right?" that he would say, "Abso-toot-o-lutely! Hop in my ride! We're heading for a rape off right now!"
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
It's actually happening in five days. I think that's ultimately a self-defeating strategy. It is only a matter of time before some change has to be made to the core functionality, whether due to discovery of a new security vulnerability, compatibility with updating to a new phone, or whatever else. At that time, which is inevitable to come sooner or later, we'll be right back in the same dilemma. In the meantime, rather than being able to just be mostly ignorant about these little details, I'd have to basically become hyper-vigilant about paying attention to every twist and turn, which is a significant cost.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
They integrated SMS into their app, so it was an all-in-one, and you didn't have to have two different apps. I am also salty about them removing this. I have five days to figure out what I really want to do about it. It absolutely makes their app significantly less valuable in general, but at least it doesn't indicate that they may sneak some fucky code into an update sometime that breaks how the core product is supposed to work.
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Frankly, hearing this makes me trust the developers less. A solid reason to trust, for example, Signal, is because they have straight bitten the bullet of saying, "Our software may end up helping deplorables at times, but we're still utterly committed to it, and nothing else is as important to this organization as this one thing." It's a commitment that helps me be comfortable that they're not going to roll over and sneak shady shit into the code if, like, I don't know, some Canadian truckers protest, the Canadian gov't declares an emergency, and the narrative is that they are the spawn of Satan and Hitler's gay love, and oh, if we could just peek in to their files, we'll stop the next holocaust.
I don't know that I trust Syncthing to do that anymore. I now really worry that they may be compromised... or at least that the snowball of their personnel is rolling downhill, ejecting anyone not on board with the narrative enough, on its way to being fully compromised.
This leaves me unsettled. I love their software. I use it everywhere. I might not yet be "too committed to pull out", but I'm considering revamping some things that might push me even closer to that line. Yet now, I sort of want to pull out. There's probably not a great alternative yet, I'm guessing. But is there any way for me, as a regular user, to affirmatively signal that I really really want them to make this commitment and cut the other shit out? Anything stronger than just "not donate"? Is there an alternate project that has such a commitment and which is close to being as good that I can donate to (maybe not even use yet if it's not there yet)? Anything?
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
It's like saying to a smoker "stop smoking" and then saying your intervention is effective.
Obviously that won't work as an intervention. Maybe, and believe me, this is a hypothetical, what if we stopped telling people that eating less didn't work? What if we stopped lying to them by saying that CICO doesn't work?
My wife swears up and down that she "didn't know", even though on one level, you know. You don't know, in your gut. You hear all these tales of how it's this thing or that thing, that you need this special diet or that special diet. That so and so has a magic thyroid that causes a 300 cal/day diet to result in gaining weight. That the sign on the gym which says you can lose 20lbs in 30 days is real. And this isn't just misinformation on the internet; literal doctors are involved in keeping people "ignorant". We have a good friend who is quite obese. She literally asked her doctor for help. She practically begged for an actual plan; something other than, "Well, ya know, maybe you could eat less." I know doctors are constantly afraid to tell their patients that, "Diet and exercise will help with [insert condition here]," because sooo many patients either a) get offended or b) aren't going to do it anyway. So you know what this doctor told her? "You're just getting older." Seriously.
It requires actual education, planning, support, and discipline. For education, if you asked people, "How many calories per day corresponds to a 1lb/week weight gain/loss," do you think you'd get consistent answers? What if it wasn't so pointed, and instead something along those lines was asked in a multiple choice along with a bunch of other options? Like, lithium and thyroids? Maybe perhaps not lying to people anymore might help even a little bit?
For planning, even just estimating calories is surprisingly hard to the raw senses. One tablespoon of Substance A will have the same calories as two cups of Substance B, and they may have vastly different satiety characteristics. You need to have an actual plan for how you're going to measure, compare, and execute. Lying to people and saying that the only possible plan is to do nothing probably isn't going to help.
And, of course, support/discipline matter, too. Why do you think alcohol therapy/rehab deliberately plan support to help with discipline? For a personal example, when I convinced my wife to try tracking our calories and weighing ourselves every morning (putting together an actual plan), she obsessively tried to over-read the noisy line tracking our weight. Sooooooo many times, she whined, "The line looks like it's going up the last few days! Maybe it's not working anymore!" Over and over again, I needed to basically say, "Shut up; keep doing it; in a week or two, you'll see the line is continuing to go down." It always did, but in a few more weeks, she'd complain again that maybe it's not working this time, as if she just forgot the last seven times where no, it definitely still kept working if she just shut up and kept doing it. If I wasn't there to provide support/discipline, she'd probably have gone back to believing people like you and just failed. She has succeeded, by the way, and is incredibly attractive, maintaining her desired weight well, now that she knows how it works and knows how to plan adjustments.
Obviously, not having a plan isn't going to work. Obviously, just casually saying, "Maybe you could eat fewer calories," isn't a real plan and isn't going to work, just like casually saying, "Maybe you could just smoke less/drink less alcohol," isn't a real plan and isn't going to work. But having a real plan that includes actual mechanisms for education, detailed planning, support, and discipline absolutely actually works. It would be frankly stupid to look at the data, say, "Whelp, alcoholics still exist. People still smoke tobacco. The success rates are the success rates. It must just be impossible to stop drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco!"
ControlsFreak
3yr ago
Just getting people to openly admit to this would be a win. They will not admit to this. They will not admit that it was what the narrative used to be. They will not admit that it's not the current narrative now. I cannot imagine a Good and Righteous person even responding to the question, because the question is inherently 'problematic, racist, and transphobic'. Always remember to ask people if they think that trans folks have the brain of their self-identified gender, and if this can be validated using fMRI or whatever. Just ask. Record answers if you can. Share. We need to see what the mind virus is fever dreaming now.
For example, the idea that methodological constraints actually are a metaphysical theory, or further implying that shoes are atheists. Or that New/Internet Atheists almost certainly led to a willingness to embrace relativism everywhere and ultimately wokeism by the masses of "laypeople". Or perhaps other things, I'm not sure how general the OP was, but I don't think we're allowed to hypothesize that they just want to bash the outgroup generally for the lulz. We probably want to keep it to the motte.
More options
Context Copy link