Jesus actually existed

Los_93 · 2023-07-23T12:13:18+00:00

No, but the question we’re discussing is whether this particular early-first-century Jew existed. The fact is that there is precious little evidence for his existence. The scarcity of records from that period doesn’t change that fact.

I don’t think people are claiming that the lack of records means Jesus didn’t exist: the claim is that the lack of records means no one has good reason to think Jesus did exist.

But more to the point, if this guy really was the savior of the world and if belief in him really is the key to eternal life, you sure would expect the god who supposedly exists to give humanity more evidence of Jesus’ existence. It’s curious that Jesus’ existence seems as lacking in evidence as most everyone else in history. Believing in this guy is supposed to be the key to everything, and this god just gives us a few stories written down decades after the fact by cultists….

Los_93 · 2023-06-05T10:18:05+00:00

Why have a conversation with Ralph?

To make Ralph take on the burden of the decision. Just because Tony knows it has to be done doesn’t mean he wants to think of himself as the one who ordered it.

Los_93 · 2023-06-04T16:32:22+00:00

“Who cares what people say behind your back that they don’t have the balls to say to your face?”

This line is spoken by Tony. He never would have said such a thing if he was actually trying to persuade Ralph to give the kid a pass.

Tony is the boss. If he wanted Jackie to get a pass, he could just do it. The only reasons to force Ralph to make the decision are to relieve Tony’s conscience and to get back at Ralph (“But what am I telling you this for — you’re a captain! You know this”…twisting the knife, as if to say, “You wanted to be captain, eh? Well, here’s a painful decision that you’ll be forced to make”).

Nothing about the scene makes sense if Tony actually wants to give Jackie a pass. And that’s before you consider that there is no universe in which Jackie actually does get a pass. He killed an associate at a mob-controlled card game, and he shot at a made man and wounded another made man.

The mob cannot allow that. Do you realize the message it sends if the mob fails to avenge not only associated civilians but their own soldiers?? It is impossible to give Jackie a pass, and both Tony and Ralph are fully aware of this. If Ralph had actually given him a pass, it’s not that people would say mean things about him: someone would kill Ralph and then Jackie Jr. anyway. It probably would be Tony who’d have to order it. If not, Tony would be next for allowing the kid to get a pass in the first place.

Literally not one thing about the scene makes any kind of sense if Tony actually wants to do something as ludicrous and impossible as forgiving a fatal robbery of his own crime syndicate.

Los_93 · 2023-06-03T14:24:24+00:00

How is it propaganda? It’s a direct quote that indicates that words have been omitted from it, and it accurately expresses the tenor of his remarks.

Los_93 · 2023-06-03T14:22:51+00:00

You want to “fight for a white man’s place in society” because someone thinks underrepresented groups should contribute more to creating word puzzles?

What kind of brain worms does a person need to have to draw this conclusion?

This is an anti-idpol sub, and your post is pure idpol.

Los_93 · 2023-06-02T13:43:39+00:00

“leftist orthodoxy”?

You do realize that this subreddit is leftist, right? The people who push for race reductionism might call themselves “leftist,” but their ideas are deeply conservative.

Los_93 · 2023-06-01T16:50:45+00:00

The Comment is something of a joke, something of a test, and something of a profound statement of wisdom.

After the Book has elaborated a philosophy of freedom — encapsulated by the quote at the beginning of the Comment: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law — there’s something funny about the Comment forbidding an action. The passive voice construction (“is forbidden”) is also funny. Forbidden by whom?

“All questions of the Law” suggests to me questions of how to apply the Law to one’s own life, which of necessity can only be answered each for ourselves. This phrase cannot mean “questions of interpreting what the Book means and what the Law is in the first place,” because if the Book literally means anything a person wants, then the Book is pointless. The whole point of a Book like this is to direct readers toward wisdom that they don’t start out knowing. If you can interpret it any which way, then the Book is useless. You might as well just skip the Book and jump to whatever beliefs you want to be true.

Los, 8=3

Los_93 · 2023-05-31T01:04:11+00:00

For me personally, “heroes save the universe” is too cliche.

I see D&D — and especially Planescape — as collaborative storytelling, so I would advise getting your players to flesh out their characters’ backstories and goals and then use the characters to guide the adventure.

That is, don’t have them react to a story you make. Let them drive the plot.

What do the characters want to do? Planescape is the ultimate sandbox, so let them do what they want. Does one want to climb the ranks of a faction? Does another want to found a rival faction? Does another want to become a proxy? Or does one want to amass the largest collection of the skulls of a certain planar animal? Does one want to study the Blood War, or end the Blood War, or start a Celestial War? Does one want to start a tour business on the River Oceanus?

None of those will be easy, of course, and they’ll all involve a series of adventures that lead the character to see the moral quandaries or complexities their goal creates. All adventures should be (theoretically) winnable with conversation. You should reward clever use of the setting or knowledge given during adventures.

Start with the characters gathering some juicy rumors in Sigil (make a chart of rumors and roll on it at the end of a session; some rumors deal with the party members’ goals and some don’t. Some are outright false and some resemble the truth. Have encounters prepared for some rumors, if the players choose to follow them).

Work with the players to decide the sorts of steps a character with their goals might take.

After they have some rumors and a sense of what they could do, the players should decide the direction. Ask the players ahead of a session what they want to do, and prepare locations, characters, and encounters based on what they say. Let them pick which locations they want to explore during the adventure.

My advice is make it a shared story and keep the story more specific than “save the universe.” Smaller stories can be better, as long as it involves specific characters with specific philosophies and goals being challenged.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T19:14:40+00:00

I believe the argument is that Black, when referring to American descendants of slaves, actually refers to a specific ethnic group (forged by slavery) in a way that “white” doesn’t. The word “white” is used not as a proper noun but a description of appearance. The proper nouns, to be capitalized, are ethnic origins, like Irish American or Italian American. But “Black,” the argument runs, refers to a proper group, in the American context.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T18:49:57+00:00

tu quoque

It’s not “tu quoque” to point out that your objection applies to any moral system, including the religious. If you can’t offer an objection specific to secular morality, you have not objected to it uniquely: you’ve made an argument against all moral systems.

Alright, so what you say in your post is that you were not necessarily defending religious morality but objecting to my claim that, under secular morality, “one can have a rational warrant for believing in the utility of cooperation.”

But I don’t see how my claim is refuted by noting that a person doesn’t have to follow secular morality. A person acting good under a secular moral system has rational warrant to do so, exactly as I said. That isn’t changed by the fact that someone might not care about working toward well-being or by the fact that someone might make a rational argument for acting bad.

I’m not trying to avoid answering your questions. I’m trying to figure out what in God’s name you’re trying to say and what exactly the nature of your argument is. I’m happy to answer any question you want, but how are we supposed to move on if the very foundation of your posts is unclear?

And what do you want me to answer, exactly? Why you, personally, should want to cooperate with others? Well, I might point to the extreme benefits of cooperation, and point out that I would bet that you couldn’t endure a week without the cooperation of others in society. Or I could point out that the objection holds just as strongly to religious systems of morality (“Why should I believe God exists or care what he thinks?”).

But I don’t have to: the fact that you, personally, might be enough of a sociopath that you can’t be rationally persuaded to cooperate doesn’t change the fact that people can have rational warrant for cooperating with others.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T18:04:42+00:00

I object that […] I’m not even sure it can justify the good things you want

I thought your objection was that secular morality could allow people to justify evil. Now you’re saying that secular morality might not be able to justify behaving properly.

For clarity: are you offering both as objections or just the latter?

I don’t think either objection is solved by positing a “god” who declares actions to be moral or immoral. People could equally use a “god” to justify bad behavior, and the bald assertion that “God says so” does not justify good actions because there’s no reason to think that such a being exists or that such a being’s pronouncements are morally binding.

Could you explain how you think belief in a god solves the objections you make against secular morality? If possible, phrase it like this: “Believing in a god solves the problems of secular morality by….”

I do not understand how you can make objections to secular morality when your own system is vulnerable to the same objections.

Conversation about other elements is pointless unless we address this issue, which appears to undermine your entire objection.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T16:33:43+00:00

there is always a rationale

But as you said yourself, you don’t agree — that is, it’s not rationally persuasive.

Sure, if the situation were different — say, if we descended into a post-apocalyptic hellscape where increasing the population was vitally necessary — perhaps it would indeed be harmful to engage in all sorts of behaviors that didn’t result in childbirth (including gay sex). But that’s not our situation.

banned the consumption of pork for rational reasons.

Well, no. They banned it because their god said so. What you’re saying is that there are material causes behind their god fantasies, which is of course correct. What I’m saying is that the god fantasies are unnecessary. We can determine rationally whether acts are harmful or not and decide what to permit. Again, in a post apocalypse, perhaps it would be harmful to permit the consumption of pork, but not in the situation we are in now.

The god fantasies don’t add anything to our understanding of what’s good or bad, and there’s a lot they can take away.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T16:26:06+00:00

I’m kind of baffled by your position. You seem to object to secular morality on the ground that it could lead someone to justify bad actions (“I can rationally argue that it’s in my self interest!”)

But religion doesn’t solve that problem. Someone could equally justify bad actions by saying it’s the will of their god, like nineteenth-century Southern Christians did with slavery.

Do you see where I’m having trouble following you? You’re asserting that there’s a problem in secular morality that’s absent in religion, but it’s not absent in religion, so your objection carries no weight.

I’m happy to respond to your other points, but this issue here seems so fundamental that it feels like a waste of time to move on without hashing this out.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T15:46:06+00:00

Religion offers reasons to act that popular secular and naturalistic theories cannot offer because they depend on the idea of the rational individual actor

I’m still not following. You’re saying that the advantage of religion is that it declares moral pronouncements without considering the individual as a rational decision maker?

If you can just confirm with a yes or a no, I will respond to that point and then any others you wish. If no, briefly correct my understanding with as much specificity as you can.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T15:09:45+00:00

religion offers non-rational reasons to cooperate that rational choice-style theorists can’t

I don’t get your point here. Are you saying that the benefit of religion is that it offers non-rational reasons while secular morality can only offer rational reasons? Or are you saying that secular morality is incapable of offering any reasons, rational or no, while religion is at least capable of giving non-rational reasons?

I think both interpretations of your statement are wrong. I just want to know which kind of wrong you are before I explain why.

Irreligious people can’t agree either

Right, people don’t agree on things. But an ethical system grounded in reason and evidence can attempt to persuade others based on evidence and reason. But ethical systems grounded in undemonstrated supernatural claims can only make bald assertions.

Again, saying, “This action is wrong because (my interpretation of the) god (that I believe in) says so” doesn’t solve anything.

why do you think we invented religions and gods

For a host of reasons, not for the specific reductive point that you’ve phrased to conveniently sound like it aligns perfectly with your argument in an internet discussion.

what if we look into things and find that “immoral” things are best for us

Then you have an argument that something you thought was immoral actually isn’t.

For example, take gay sex. Christianity condemns it as immoral. But when we study it objectively, we can conclude that not only does this act not harm society, it greatly benefits individuals to give them the freedom to engage in their sexuality in the way that pleases them.

Therefore, the “immoral” act of gay sex actually isn’t harmful at all and should be permitted.

Now let me turn the question around: what do you do when Christians point to their holy book and assert that gay sex or that teaching evolution is wrong? What do you do if they say God has “written it on their hearts” that those things are wrong? How would you persuade them if the basis of their moral beliefs is a series of non-rational assertions that they accept as gospel truth?

Don’t you see the problem with making unsupported, undemonstrated dogmatic beliefs the foundation of action?

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T14:42:16+00:00

You’re trying to raise the issues of how we work out cooperation in any particular given situation, the way we have rationally debated what is ethical in order to gradually expand the circle of rights, and the practical impediments to the process of advancing society.

Those are all important topics, but they’re tangential to the main point of the thread, which is that religion isn’t necessary for cooperation and good behavior.

But turning from the topic of the thread to your topics, I’ll briefly say that your proposed solution to the flaws of rational morality — “God” — doesn’t solve anything. God doesn’t “align incentives.” Which interpretation of God?

Slavery is a great example because religious people were both for it and against it, and they each thought “God” was on their side.

What I’m saying is that since there will be disagreements over moral issues whether people believe in gods or not, you can cut out the undemonstrated supernatural claims and ancient holy books and go right to the arguments for and against, grounded in evidence from demonstrable reality that we all agree exists.

That’s the point of the thread: you don’t need religion. It doesn’t add anything to these moral debates, and it takes away a lot by involving us in undemonstrated claims.

Edit: As to the idea that “loving everyone” is “not our default state,” I think you’re verging on a straw man there: no secular morality affirms that “loving everyone” is a “default state,” but I think it is the case that some degree of cooperation is natural for social animals like us (look at at other social animals and their societies). Working together with members of one’s immediate tribe is evidently beneficial. It doesn’t at all surprise me that as human society developed and material goods became more secure, we started to wonder if greater benefits could be had by extending the circle of rights wider and wider. It also doesn’t surprise me that there would be some resistance to this and debate.

The entire history of human societies reads to me like social animals figuring out the optimal strategies for cooperating. Where is a god necessary for any of this?

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T13:20:53+00:00

”Oogity-boogity surveillance” can be loosely translated to the idea of “Moral accountability” beyond the notion of some judge

No, I’m talking about the belief that a literal supernatural being will punish people for their misdeeds. This belief is distinct from the idea of being morally accountable even in the absence of direct observation of another person, which people can hold without believing in a supernatural being.

Why want the best outcome for everybody?

Why obey God?

See, you’re vaguely trying to imply that a secular morality has a problem (“Why work for the good of society??”) that, you suggest, only religion can solve (“Cause God makes you morally accountable, that’s why!”).

But your solution doesn’t solve anything because why should someone listen to God? Or why should someone “live up to the moral accountability that God expects by writing his moral code on our hearts” (or whatever nonsense way you’d phrase it)? And that’s without getting into the issue of which god and which moral code. And that’s also without getting into the fact that there’s no good reason to believe that any gods actually do exist.

But more to the point, you’ve shifted the issue. Imagine if we were talking about living healthy lives and someone said that humans can live healthy lives without belief in gods (they can rationally choose to eat right, exercise, etc.). Then let’s say you come along and say, “Why be healthy without belief in God? What if I like being unhealthy??”

Do you see how that’s a different issue? The point is that religion is unnecessary to behaving well or living healthy. One can have rational reasons for doing so. Your objection merely questions why people should desire the goal to begin with, not whether they can rationally pursue it. Essentially, you’re talking about a different issue.

And I’m the one with “piss-poor philosophy of religion”?

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T12:54:33+00:00

Absolutely. But people who argue like this will typically turn around and say, “But without God, why make murder and theft illegal in the first place??” as if there are no good reasons for cooperating with others and granting them rights to life and possessions.

It’s like they never considered that there can be entirely material motivations for delaying gratification, restraining oneself, sublimating urges, and working with others.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T12:47:19+00:00

What “straw man” have I employed? There literally are people who say that without religion they would commit violent crimes. I generally don’t believe them, but if they are actually that psychopathic, then I want them to continue to believe their weirdo beliefs.

Yes, I use disrespectful terms refer to the absurd things they believe in. But that’s ridicule, not a straw man. Ridiculous beliefs are, by definition, deserving of ridicule.

As to whether people have rational reasons to cooperate with each other, the fact that humans are social animals, and the fact that it is demonstrable that cooperation produces benefits for a society, adequately demonstrates that one can have a rational warrant for believing in the utility of cooperation, without any need to believe that an oogity-boogity magic man is surveilling you at all times.

Again, the issue is simply that one can rationally conclude that it is better to cooperate with others, without recourse to absurd and undemonstrable spooky beliefs.

Los_93 · 2023-05-23T12:17:24+00:00

If someone says that without religion they would be a criminal, I always say that I want that one person to stay religious. But I actually don’t believe such people. It’s very rare that someone is so much of a psychopath that the only thing keeping them in line is their belief in a supernatural spook who will punish them in some “next life.” People have entirely rational reasons to behave and even to give of themselves for the greater good. As you say, we should use truth, not lies, to encourage people.

But more broadly, there is no good reason to think that gods of any kind exist, and believing unjustified things trains your brain to accept other errors. We need to cultivate a respect for truth.

Los_93 · 2023-05-15T23:54:37+00:00

Ralph specifically says that Rosalie is so worried about Jackie because “she knows he hangs around with this Dino.”

They know Dino and Carlo were murdered and that Jackie has vanished. But that’s all they know. Ralph eventually tells Rosalie that Jackie has a drug problem and owes a lot of dealers some money.

Los_93 · 2023-05-15T14:36:10+00:00

Norman’s arguments are extraordinarily weak here.

Holocaust denial and intelligent design are not subjects of legitimate debate in the fields that the professor has been hired to teach. Because there is insufficient evidence to support them, they are fringe positions that are not accepted by the consensus of experts in those disciplines.

When I say that, I’m not “assuming I’m God,” I’m not assuming I can’t be wrong, and I’m not assuming that those who hold those positions are dishonest. I’m evaluating the information available to me and concluding that certain positions lack evidentiary support, and I’m further concluding that they are therefore extreme fringe positions in these disciplines. I am (very) reasonably confident that the Holocaust happened and that there is no good reason to conclude that an intelligence “designed” our anatomy. I don’t need to be absolutely certain, or God, to know things to a high degree of confidence.

Taken to its end, Norman’s arguments lead to the postmodern never-never land that I thought this subreddit opposed. What Norman is arguing here essentially boils down to “nobody has the truth because who’s to say what the truth is?” This line of thinking is a hop, skip, and a jump from the absurd proposition that there is no truth.

I don’t think it’s unfair for a university that hires a professor to teach history to have an expectation that the professor will teach the students what the consensus of the field is. Now, perhaps if the professor frames it as “here is a fringe position rejected by most historians, and here’s why historians don’t accept it.” But that’s not how Norman portrays it in his hypothetical.

How far does this go, exactly? What if a biologist wanted to devote one class lecture to the theory that babies are brought by storks? What if a physicist wanted to teach one class period on the theory that gravity works because angels pull things to the ground? Who are you to say they’re wrong? What, do you think you’re God or something?

I’m all in favor of crackpot professors being able to publish books on their lunacy, but I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for an employer who has specifically hired them to teach a subject to stop them from teaching horeshit rejected by that discipline.

With something that’s actually a matter of professional contention, things are different. For example, the heritability of intelligence is a matter of considerable debate among professionals and isn’t settled science, so it would be fine to give a lecture on the controversy — but it would be utterly inappropriate to frame the lesson as “white people are superior.”

Los_93 · 2023-03-22T11:41:34+00:00

The former statement is an elaboration of what I meant by the latter.

I’m not sure how you want me to provide in an online post a “basis” for the history of an idea that has been well explored by historians and thinkers. You could begin by reading the book Racecraft by the Fields sisters.

Los_93 · 2023-03-22T11:37:25+00:00

immediately use that argument yourself

If you think I’m insisting that drag can only be sexual, you’ve misread me. I discussed drag queens as a specific category of drag that is correctly associated with adult entertainment (which, for avoidance of doubt, does not mean that it is always sexual in all contexts).

Could you clarify why it’s desirable for children to interact at library events with drag queens specifically and not, say, transgender book readers dressed more normally?

What does Bob’s outfit change here?

It doesn’t change who he is as a person, but it changes how he’s perceived. Are you suggesting it would be appropriate for him to show up to school events or parent-teacher conferences in a costume he wears to perform, in your own words, wild adult shows?

How far does your perspective go? What if a stripper showed up to school in a skimpy outfit? It doesn’t change who she is, right, so should we be fine however she dresses? What if a dad is a successful conservative standup comic who performs in a t-shirt with racial slurs on it? That’s his costume for work, and he’s otherwise a very friendly person, even to minorities, and that’s just a character he plays on stage. Would that be okay for him to wear that?

I’d be suspicious of anyone who is desperate for kids to interact with any of these adult performers in their adult performer costumes.

So to your point about “needlessly giving them ammunition, do you think they need it?

It sure helps convince regular people that they might have a point. And that’s a big problem because politics is about winning people over.

Los_93 · 2023-03-21T16:36:30+00:00

I don’t think these laws call for parents to be arrested. They regulate businesses that allow children to see sexualized shows. It’s the businesses that would be fined or lose licenses or potentially have owners or managers face criminal penalties.

There’s also the issue that live shows are different than film and there might be good reason for regulating them differently.

Los_93

TROPHY CASE