Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Page 32 of 125 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast
Results 2,326 to 2,400 of 9319
  1. #2326
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It's not that he slurs his words. You can understand individual words and phrases. It's that there's no clear train of thought behind his words and phrases, and that much of it is apropos of nothing. E.g., he spoke (again) about the electoral college and how he wasn't supposed to win the election. First, no-one asked him about that. Second, the election was 18 months ago ffs, there's more important things going on today
    Can you understand his points in spite of how he phrases them?
  2. #2327
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Can you understand his points in spite of how he phrases them?
    Maybe you could watch the Fox & Friends interview and write us a synopsis.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  3. #2328
    Steve Doocy is a dork (DUCY?) and Trump on the phone is not what I would consider a good time.
  4. #2329
    A Korean's perspective on Korea and the US:

    Hi. I'm native Korean who have been living in the southern part of the peninsula for 21 years. I want to share some recent approval(is this word appropriate?) and sentiment toward Mr. Trump and an opposite veto and negative sentiment toward Obama and Hillary here in Korea. I've never been to any English speaking country for a single day and I learned English only through school education and private academy... hence my English is broken and poor, so please understand if there are some points you can not grasp, are some words that are inappropriate and weird.

    First, before introducing what's going on in Korea now, you have to understand media environment in South Korea. Some attributes are different but in many points both media in SK and US are corrupt and unreliable. Basically, unlike those in the anglosphere, Koreans have little interest on global/diplomatic issues if they are not related to the peninsula's problem. We have tons of professional experts on the North/South issue, but very little on other global affairs(except for Far East relation/problems). This is also applied to the field of media, so almost every Korean media gather first information through the so-called mainstream media of US(+BBC). This clearly means that their biased and purposed opinion and frame are regarded as very impartial, neutral and objective. So during the election campaign period, Korean media depicted Trump as maniac, psychopath and immoral trash. They literally demonized Trump as the "mainstream media" in the US did. It worked quite well for a while, but as Trump was elected many Koreans got to have doubt on this reckless bombards from our media. 'If he is so bad human being, how the hell he was able to make it? There must be economic/social/cultural issues that were usually ignored(maybe purposely) by media.' This was the most common skepticism that we had witnessing the entire campaigns and coverage on them. (+ Our media were very shocked about the result of the election, and they started to analyze how this was possible. They explained something like 'the fury and frustration of workers in the Rust Belt felt toward Democratic party' blah blah blah, but they never quit the habit of demonizing Trump for some months.) Also, our ex-president 박근혜(Park Geun-Hye) was impeached for various felonies she committed, including engagement on state-run media. Those who gave up the role of watchdog against power now declared that they reflect on their past and will fully function as neutral, impartial, truth-seeking media. But these turn out to be lies nowadays. Although some media have functioned quite well like they declared, many of them are just fucks. People are realizing that media are intrinsically just business seeking its own money and interest, and they will do whatever to achieve that even if it's political maneuvering or fact distortion. Reporter, which had been respected vocation through the period of strife for democratization in this country, is now despised. The fact that many people call 기자(reporter) 기레기( 기자/reporter + 쓰레기/trash) clearly shows this.

    Second, Koreans now evaluate the president of our most confidential ally, the United States of America, by actual policies he/she impose and affect on real world, rather than virtual reputation/image which are so vulnerable to being manipulated and plotted by few purposed individuals. You guys may have been once heard of praises and appreciations from our president Moon on Mr. Trump's maximum pressure policies for the situation now happening in this peninsula. That is not just his own thought but typical and common thought the folks contemporarily have.

    Trump is called 트력제[트 of 트럼프(=Trump) + 력제 of 만력제(=萬曆帝, the emperor of Chinese medieval Ming dynasty] on the internet, and this is even a huge meme. There was an invasion of hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops against our country in 1592, which almost destroyed 조선(Joseon) dynasty, the preceding dynasty right before the Republic of Korea. Then, the Chinese emperor 만력제, who had refused to work and abandoned his sacred and important role of emperor for almost 20 years, miraculously started to come back to his office and ordered to send many regiments to Korea. He even payed his own treasures to purchase foods/supplies for the soldiers. With this aid and heroic victories made by most respected Korean general 이순신(Yi Sun-Sin), Korea successfully expelled Japanese samurais from entire peninsula. After the war, a shrine worshipping the emperor 만력제 as god was established, and kings and nobles visited there once a year for about next 300 years. I heard that some enthusiastic supporters of Trump call him 'God Emperor'. This can sound hilarious to some people but for Koreans this is right. Many politicians including former ministers(secretary in American English?) and current lawmakers(congressmen) of the ruling party is now calling for 'Mr. Trump for Nobel Peace Prize'. This was a joke in the beginning, but now it is getting consensus among folks and, I guarantee that this will lead to a organized movement in months if things are well solved. Also, Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is now regarded as total bullshit. He made no empirical actions on peace/human rights but he was awarded. We now doubt that this entire thing was just a theater act designed by certain political powers. Plus he almost abandoned dealing with North Korean issues and justified/decorated this attitude with a non-sense word, "Strategic Endurance." He was once popular, respected and loved by Korean people but now he is viewed as a total hypocrite who is genius in image making and theater acting. Here are some proofs on the internet.

    https://www.fmkorea.com/index.php?mi...webzine&page=1

    https://www.fmkorea.com/index.php?mi...webzine&page=1

    http://mlbpark.donga.com/mp/b.php?m=...X@hlj9SY-ALmlq

    http://mlbpark.donga.com/mp/b.php?m=...X@hlj9SY-ALmlq

    http://mlbpark.donga.com/mp/b.php?m=...X@hlj9SY-ALmlq

    These two websites are ranked in top 5 among Korean web communities, and I just randomly picked those threads with 오바마(Obama) keyword in one minute. They all criticize Obama and show their thanks to Mr. Trump.

    Someone even claim that if Hillary got the presidency, American troops may withdraw and the whole peninsula would be communized, but I'll not introduce this opinion because this can be controversial. (If you are interested, read a lecture script revealed by WikiLeaks that Hillary mentioned she wants to keep these nuclear and unification issues remained and unchanged, for national interests of the US. Personally I feel deep anger when I first saw this, because I'm Korean. This wordings are very similar to those Globalists like Henry Kissinger use to bark.)

    Anyway, Koreans are so much grateful for the actions Trump made, but it is sad that no western media cover on this phenomenon. I hope one day he get praise and respect he surely deserves on his diplomatic achievements in the States. He saved entire planet and humanity from the verge of terrible nuclear war.
  5. #2330
    First, NK was never a serious threat to anyone except its own citizens.
    I've been saying this for years. He has a very nice life for himself in North Korea, he knows that all ends very quickly if he actually nukes anyone. Personally, I'd be more worried about the militant Islamists who have influence in Pakistan.

    Really though I don't think NK and SK meeting is all that big a deal
    It's a massive deal though. Maybe it has major role in your life, but this has been ongoing for a very long time and it causes problems between USA and China, as well as causing untold misery across the Korean peninsula.

    Second, while I'm happy if NK and SK stop arguing I don't think it is a monumental world event. Get India and Pakistan (who both have nukes, but which doesn't seem to bother the US) to stop arguing or Israel (with nukes) and 10 of its closest neighbors to stop arguing and you've really accomplished something.
    It's on a par with India and Pakistan, and the Israel situation is probably the only global security problem that is indeed more serious.

    That the media plays up NK/SK as an important place in terms of world peace just shows how little is going on in the other danger zones.
    More like how much they don't want to you know.

    Third, even if this goes through to a happy ending, there's no reason to think the US had a lot to do with it. China is by far NK's biggest trading partner, and if anyone put the screws on Kim it was them.
    Why do you suppose China suddenly starting twisting the knife?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #2331
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Trump put the screws on China. That's why China has changed course.
    wuf already answered my last question, nice.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #2332
    Obama media has stated that Obama told Trump that NK is the biggest problem he will face.

    Perhaps the main reason it is a problem is because of lessons learned from the Cold War. NK is developing the technology to enter the world into that same situation. The other countries mentioned are not. The reason the Cold War type situation is such a problem is that because of what is known about how things happened, a good case can be made that it was by luck that the world didn't get blown to bits in the Cold War.
  8. #2333
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Trump put the screws on China. That's why China has changed course. On this forum, I predicted this in clear terms before it happened, detailed it while it was happening, and encapsulated it after it entered a more full effect.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.df18931dd4ac
  9. #2334
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Maybe you could watch the Fox & Friends interview and write us a synopsis.
    Oh I can do that.

    It was about 2 or 3 things that are relevant to anything, the rest just jabbering nonsense and/or repeating things he's said before.
  10. #2335
    What about this?
  11. #2336
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Excellent breakdown of the big news of the week. Kanye related

    Caved in and watched it.
    How is this an excellent breakdown? How does he get all of that from Kanye tweeting that him and Trump have dragon blood? That Kanye is countercultrue? Kanye is many things, but he's not an idiot. Getting retweeted by the president is worth more than a million dollar ad campaign. This is viral marketing. He's playing Trump. Just like everybody else is.
    Last edited by oskar; 04-28-2018 at 04:48 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  12. #2337
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    And he does the same thing as Jordan Peterson and the other redpill guys. Say very simple things in the most convoluted and roundabout way so that A: people can bring their own interpretation, which makes it more agreeable. And B: be vague enough that you can always backpedal and no one can nail you down on what you said exactly. It's atrocious.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  13. #2338
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What about this?
    Oh sorry I should have been clear that you have to read the bits that aren't quotes of Trump talking about what a great job he's done.
  14. #2339
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Why do you suppose China suddenly starting twisting the knife?
    What makes you think it was sudden? NK's been under sanction for years, minus a few interludes here and there where Kim makes some vague promises and gets a bit of relief.
  15. #2340
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Oh sorry I should have been clear that you have to read the bits that aren't quotes of Trump talking about what a great job he's done.
    I was hoping to understand your point instead.
  16. #2341
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    You are the one making unsubstantiated claims about Trumps victory regarding NK. Nothing has happened. Talks are on the way. If they negotiate a peace deal, very little will change. Hopefully some families can re-unite, maybe some foreign prisoners will get released, but that's already waaaay optimistic. There isn't even a consideration to get rid of nukes on NK part. They are halting further testing while talks are underway. Not that their previous tests were anything other than symbolic. They have no intention on attacking anyone. Their nukes are a deterrent without which the dprk would no longer exist.
    They are guilty of numerous and ongoing human rights violations. Much of their economy is reliant on "labor camps" that the Führer would be proud of. Their defensive capabilities are the only reason there hasn't been a UN intervention. None of this will change anytime soon. If anything will happen it's a very very slow process and it's been decades in the making.

    I'm open to the idea that the Trump administration played a part. I'm very doubtful it had anything to do with Trumps personal input.
    Last edited by oskar; 04-28-2018 at 07:35 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  17. #2342
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Trump laying out the specifics regarding his NK strategy.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  18. #2343
    Ya, but you can tell that he's using real words and phrases in there, so obviously he's coherent. Doesn't matter it's free association rambling, that's just so Hillary won't see the hammer coming and then when the fake news says it's something fake, which they do, it will always still be a win, cause you just keep on winning with this president. Unlike the Persians.
  19. #2344
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/st...21835816505344

    Kanye going full skeptosphere. This is going to be great!
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  20. #2345
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    https://youtu.be/naLQ35Py-aE?t=6m42s

    Where is everyone? This is getting better every day!

    This is old fake new, but it's new to me:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LkO9KIlSYg

    This is real! I can't believe this is real!
    Last edited by oskar; 05-03-2018 at 06:16 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  21. #2346
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    This is real! I can't believe this is real!
    What exactly is your problem with this?
  22. #2347
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    That people not only believe in a god, but in a specific god, and are not ashamed of it but are proud to show it publicly, and that the most powerful people in the world would be that kind of people. That is INSANE to me.
    Last edited by oskar; 05-03-2018 at 10:15 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  23. #2348
    That's not very nice of you oskar, dare I say it you're almost being a bigot? If they were talking to Allah, then your mockery would be a hate crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #2349
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    That people not only believe in a god, but in a specific god, and are not ashamed of it but are proud to show it publicly, and that the most powerful people in the world would be that kind of people. That is INSANE to me.
    Maybe try a little less Richard Dawkins, a little less Sam Harris, and a little more Jordan Peterson
  25. #2350
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    You mean the guy that says the bible is more true than truth, because words don't mean anything anymore?
    I'm glad this debate happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDbAR0CoRno
    This is the first time I've heard someone properly critique the absurd semantics of JP. If you're not convinced that JP is a fraud whose only objective is to monetize the anti-SJW movement, then this is worth your time.

    I never understood why anyone would take such a big issue on faith. Every single religious person is completely level-headed when it comes to every other religion, but when it comes to their own, rational thought goes out the window. If you have a good argument for the existence of god, or why one should believe even if there is none, we can make a thread about that because that discussion is an endless source of entertainment.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's not very nice of you oskar, dare I say it you're almost being a bigot? If they were talking to Allah, then your mockery would be a hate crime.
    There are levels of stupidity. Islam is probably the most stupid of all the religions currently, but they all share the same massive problem that they have to make faith a virtue. Not only is it not a virtue, it is the greatest source of suffering in the world. Believing things that are demonstrably true should be a virtue. Faith should be ridiculed.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  26. #2351
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You mean the guy that says the bible is more true than truth,
    Yeah that guy. It means that a story about a snake is more than a story about a snake. Get it?

    JP is a fraud whose only objective is to monetize the anti-SJW movement,
    Pretty sure JP said that as a joke...
  27. #2352
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yeah that guy. It means that a story about a snake is more than a story about a snake. Get it?
    He likes to redefine words like truth or reality to mean something entirely different than the dictionary definition. That's what I was getting at.

    I'm pretty sure everyone still active on here is an atheist. Except maybe wuf if you count Trump as a deity. So if you want to make a case for why it makes sense to believe in a god, I'd love to ridicule it. HEAR IT
    I'd love to hear it.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  28. #2353
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You mean the guy that says the bible is more true than truth, because words don't mean anything anymore?
    I'm glad this debate happened: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDbAR0CoRno
    Thanks for posting this. Some thoughts as I watch it:

    1. Peterson's introduction is correct. The idea of God is not taken seriously by challengers. This appears to me to be due to the common conflation of the idea of a god with a specific god. Also due to conflating science with metaphysics.

    2. Peterson's explanation about legitimacy of the idea of the existence of God is good. If, however, he were to imply that the evidence is for the existence of God, that would probably not be correct. There isn't much that can be evidence for the existence of God since the existence of God is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

    Furthermore, the best logic I've come across implies that God does in fact exist (from the simulation hypothesis); we just have no idea what God is and peoples' religions could have nothing to do with the real God (i.e. the origin of the Universe).

    3. I'm not a fan of Peterson's discussion of truth. He seems to jump to conclusions, or just not fully explain his steps. On the flip side, those who think they know what is true because they *cough* use science *cough* actually don't know.

    I was thinking of doing a step by step on the video but I'll just stop here because it's better that way.



    I never understood why anyone would take such a big issue on faith. Every single religious person is completely level-headed when it comes to every other religion, but when it comes to their own, rational thought goes out the window. If you have a good argument for the existence of god, or why one should believe even if there is none, we can make a thread about that because that discussion is an endless source of entertainment.
    Humans are adapted to survive rather than to this expressed mode of rationality. It can be the case that populations that hold religious beliefs and rituals survive better than ones that don't. The dumb position could be the one that tries to eschew that which most benefits fitness.


    Also, I'd like to note that atheism is an experiment. Religion, not as much. Religion has survived, it seems to work. But atheism, nobody knows if it don't know if it works over long periods of time, and there is reason to believe that it might not work.
  29. #2354
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    He likes to redefine words like truth or reality to mean something entirely different than the dictionary definition. That's what I was getting at.
    The dictionary defines the meaning of words. What book exists that definitively explains concepts? If you want to insist that "truth" is a word and that's it, then you're a dick. Truth can be discussed as a concept.

    For example. You can ask, "is it true that everyone matters?". And then you can look at differences between societies that are oppressive and unfair, and societies that treat everyone like they matter. And if we see that throughout time, the societies who treat people like they matter do better...then perhaps we can assume that the concept of "everyone matters" is TRUE

    You might think you're telling the truth when you say you love your wife. Then the next day you find out she is plowing the mailman. Well, you didn't really love your wife. That was un-true. You were in love with a person that you imagined. The real person is a bitch.

    I'm pretty sure everyone still active on here is an atheist. Except maybe wuf if you count Trump as a deity. So if you want to make a case for why it makes sense to believe in a god, I'd love to ridicule it. HEAR IT
    I'd love to hear it
    JP's got hundreds of hours on the psychological significance of the bible. I've only sampled a tiny fraction, but it seems that the point is that it's fine to recognize the "truth" (lol) that there was never a flood so bad that all life on earth had to be saved by riding out the storm in a 1000 foot wooden boat built by a 500 year old man. Like, a snake never fed a dumb bitch an apple, but that's not the point.

    The snake represents something. The flood represents something. Cain and Able represent something. They represent the acting out of "truths". In the new testament, the representations of truth are made through an axiomatic individual.

    You can have "faith" in those truths. You can "believe" in the moral value of biblical stories. You don't have to accept that water can actually be turned into wine, or that a dead man can be resurrected from the grave. But you can celebrate, practice, worship those traditions as the almighty end all guide for existence.

    If you're gonna rant about "transubstantiation" and people who take shit literally, fine. go ahead. I really believe that those people make up 20% at most of Christianity. Can't say for other religions, but those are fucked up bullshit. So I'm with you when it comes to mocking the "literalists". But there is definitely value in acting out the proposition that it's all real. And people gathering around the source of their morality, and making up a community around "acting out" the proposition of religion is something that I think is immensely valuable.
  30. #2355
    For all we know, believing something makes it true.

    A serious person takes a step back and says these two things: we know virtually nothing about what existence really is, and the idea that the Universe is an original, spontaneous happening isn't any less ridiculous than the idea that the Universe was made by something preexisting.
  31. #2356
    Something that Peterson doesn't seem to address often is that all of his points, even if they are right, can be evidence of religion as a human phenomenon rather than an existential one.
  32. #2357
    If you're not embodying the mythos of the archetypal hero by metaphorically dying, then you're never gonna kill the snake man! let alone rescue your father from the underworld!

    -Best JP impression ever.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS71EDAwX1o

    Do yooooo agreeeeeee with that?
  33. #2358
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If you're not embodying the mythos of the archetypal hero by metaphorically dying, then you're never gonna kill the snake man! let alone rescue your father from the underworld!

    -Best JP impression ever.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS71EDAwX1o

    Do yooooo agreeeeeee with that?
    LOL I watched that several times a few weeks ago. Great stuff.
  34. #2359
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    JP is a fraud whose only objective is to monetize the anti-SJW movement,
    One more thought on this....

    The SJW's brought the fight to him
  35. #2360
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    LOL I watched that several times a few weeks ago. Great stuff.
    Is the fat/bald stubbly guy supposed to be Stephan Molyneux?

    If not, who?
  36. #2361
    It's Molyneux
  37. #2362
    Harris, Shapiro, Peterson, Molyneux, Thunderf00t
  38. #2363
    The Shapiro Thanksgiving was pretty hilarious too
  39. #2364
    Goo goo gaw gaw folks. fucking lol
  40. #2365
  41. #2366
    sweet frosty jesus it's almost as sick as the "because you'd be in jail" burn

    https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/992478971458703361
  42. #2367
  43. #2368
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Thanks for posting this. Some thoughts as I watch it:

    1. Peterson's introduction is correct. The idea of God is not taken seriously by challengers. This appears to me to be due to the common conflation of the idea of a god with a specific god. Also due to conflating science with metaphysics.

    2. Peterson's explanation about legitimacy of the idea of the existence of God is good. If, however, he were to imply that the evidence is for the existence of God, that would probably not be correct. There isn't much that can be evidence for the existence of God since the existence of God is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

    Furthermore, the best logic I've come across implies that God does in fact exist (from the simulation hypothesis); we just have no idea what God is and peoples' religions could have nothing to do with the real God (i.e. the origin of the Universe).

    3. I'm not a fan of Peterson's discussion of truth. He seems to jump to conclusions, or just not fully explain his steps. On the flip side, those who think they know what is true because they *cough* use science *cough* actually don't know.

    I was thinking of doing a step by step on the video but I'll just stop here because it's better that way.





    Humans are adapted to survive rather than to this expressed mode of rationality. It can be the case that populations that hold religious beliefs and rituals survive better than ones that don't. The dumb position could be the one that tries to eschew that which most benefits fitness.


    Also, I'd like to note that atheism is an experiment. Religion, not as much. Religion has survived, it seems to work. But atheism, nobody knows if it don't know if it works over long periods of time, and there is reason to believe that it might not work.
    1 - Most people who believe in a god believe in a specific god and the attributes they assign to a specific or non-specific god can vary greatly, so it's good to start off by defining the properties of the god you're trying to argue for. I'm perfectly happy to argue against either.

    2 - Again, depends on your definition of god. A creator god is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. A god that intervenes through natural disasters, answers prayers and hands out miracles to cancer patients is a scientific hypothesis and is testable.
    If you want in to hand in the simulation hypothesis as evidence for a god, I really need you to define the word god.

    3 - "I don't know." Is a possible answer. I don't say that any god hypothesis is demonstrably false, my position is that they are untestable. If you say you believe in a god, you should have a good reason why you think it is true, rather than defaulting to "I don't know".

    I have answered this in length before, but in short I think religion is a vestigial meme that originates from our ability to recognize patterns and look for explanations even if we don't have one yet. Religion is the earliest attempt at science and deserves credit for that, but virtually all scientific explanations you get from religion have been demonstrated to be false - from the origin of the world, celestial mechanics to dietary guidance. The little that remains are some shaky metaphysical arguments for a prime mover.
    Last edited by oskar; 05-05-2018 at 06:23 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  44. #2369
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    @banana
    I'm inclined to mock the literalists less than the apologetics. The westbro baptist church might have some appalling morals, but at least they're consistent in their believes. I think a metaphorical interpretation of the bible is virtually useless. You can pick and choose a couple dozen verses out of thousands that could be useful or thought provoking, but statistically it's a bleak endeavor.
    That is not to say knowing the bible is useless. You need to know the bible to understand literature, but I wouldn't put it above Iliad or the Odyssey... or 1984 for that matter.

    But we're getting ahead of ourselves. If you really want to make an argument for the existence of a god, start off by defining god, so we know what we're talking about.
    If you don't actually believe in a god, I'm curious why you would think that religion is useful in any way, or why you don't think that oval office prayer is deserving of ridicule.
    Last edited by oskar; 05-05-2018 at 06:20 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  45. #2370
    If you really want to make an argument for the existence of a god, start off by defining god, so we know what we're talking about.
    I'm God

    If you don't actually believe in a god, I'm curious why you would think that religion is useful in any way, or why you don't think that oval office prayer is deserving of ridicule.
    I thought I already explained this. People gathering a community around the source of their morality, and reinforcing it, is a non-ridiculous way to spend time.
  46. #2371
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Name me one moral argument that can be derived from scripture that you could not make otherwise.
    Then name me an immoral act you could derive from scripture that you wouldn't think to engage in otherwise.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  47. #2372
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Name me one moral argument that can be derived from scripture that you could not make otherwise.
    Separate and isolate menstruating women so you don't have to deal with their bullshit.

    Then name me an immoral act you could derive from scripture that you wouldn't think to engage in otherwise.
    Your question is worded strangely. But I think this answers your question

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI
  48. #2373
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Separate and isolate menstruating women so you don't have to deal with their bullshit.
    I would put that under immoral, as I assume would you. So if there are no moral values to be derived from scripture that you couldn't have arrived at otherwise, but there are a litany of immoral values, how can scripture be a source for moral values?

    Your question is worded strangely. But I think this answers your question

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI
    Could you just tell me what part of this nonsense you agree with so I don't have to go point for point on this load of shit.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  49. #2374
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    So if there are no moral values to be derived from scripture that you couldn't have arrived at otherwise
    What do you mean by "scripture"?

    Many religions embrace the idea of sacrifice. Give up something now in return for something better later. Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Sacrifice is a common theme. So in a way you're right. We could understand the value of sacrifice without specifically relying on the story of Cain and Abel contained in what I believe you're referring to when you say "scripture"

    But the point isn't that Cain and Abel weren't actually real people. It's just a fable used to embody the transcendent value of the notion of sacrifice as part of a recipe for meaningful being. Who knows how old that notion is. The book of Genesis might just be one branch of storytelling derived from a single source of values that is as old as consciousness itself.


    Could you just tell me what part of this nonsense you agree with so I don't have to go point for point on this load of shit.
    All of it
  50. #2375
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    2 - Again, depends on your definition of god. A creator god is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. A god that intervenes through natural disasters, answers prayers and hands out miracles to cancer patients is a scientific hypothesis and is testable.
    I'd say these can be testable, but aren't necessarily. A god could organize components of reality that we don't detect that impact components we do detect.

    If you want in to hand in the simulation hypothesis as evidence for a god, I really need you to define the word god.
    Both the simulation hypothesis as well as the "big bang was the beginning" allows for the existence of an entity (for lack of a better term) that created this reality.

    I bring this up because it is close to the god Peterson discusses. The leap Peterson makes isn't about the idea that god could exist, but about the idea that human experience signifies god. It could, and it could not. Who knows?

    I have answered this in length before, but in short I think religion is a vestigial meme that originates from our ability to recognize patterns and look for explanations even if we don't have one yet. Religion is the earliest attempt at science and deserves credit for that, but virtually all scientific explanations you get from religion have been demonstrated to be false - from the origin of the world, celestial mechanics to dietary guidance. The little that remains are some shaky metaphysical arguments for a prime mover.
    This is very close to what Peterson has claimed, and he discussed it in that debate.

    What I think is going on is that fundamentalists have their specific interpretation and atheists counter that, then everybody walks away thinking they discussed the entire set of "god." Yet it was just one small bit. Here's an example:

    An interpretation of religious dietary laws is "something something health something something." Maybe that claim doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. But here's a much smarter interpretation: religious dietary laws exist because the populations that espouse them survived. Did the laws make those populations physically healthier? Probably not. But did the laws do things like keep the Jewish community together over generations and across continents since the laws made it so that they would not dine with non-Jews? Could be.
  51. #2376
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    @banana
    I'm inclined to mock the literalists less than the apologetics. The westbro baptist church might have some appalling morals, but at least they're consistent in their believes. I think a metaphorical interpretation of the bible is virtually useless. You can pick and choose a couple dozen verses out of thousands that could be useful or thought provoking, but statistically it's a bleak endeavor.
    That is not to say knowing the bible is useless. You need to know the bible to understand literature, but I wouldn't put it above Iliad or the Odyssey... or 1984 for that matter.
    Since this came about because we were discussing Peterson, he agrees with this.

    If you don't actually believe in a god, I'm curious why you would think that religion is useful in any way, or why you don't think that oval office prayer is deserving of ridicule.
    Do you not think it is useful?
  52. #2377
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Name me one moral argument that can be derived from scripture that you could not make otherwise.
    Then name me an immoral act you could derive from scripture that you wouldn't think to engage in otherwise.
    It's about what "does happen". What "could happen" doesn't much help us.

    What does happen is that when people believe certain things, they act them out. The question for religion is if it impacts what people believe (and thus how they act). I believe it does, and I believe the impact is powerful enough that the great prosperity of society can be credited in large part to Christianity. Also that the deterioration of Christianity results in unraveling prosperity, and that some historical unraveling of prosperity may have been due to "secularism".

    Am I right? Who knows?
  53. #2378
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What do you mean by "scripture"?

    Many religions embrace the idea of sacrifice. Give up something now in return for something better later. Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient. Sacrifice is a common theme. So in a way you're right. We could understand the value of sacrifice without specifically relying on the story of Cain and Abel contained in what I believe you're referring to when you say "scripture"

    But the point isn't that Cain and Abel weren't actually real people. It's just a fable used to embody the transcendent value of the notion of sacrifice as part of a recipe for meaningful being. Who knows how old that notion is. The book of Genesis might just be one branch of storytelling derived from a single source of values that is as old as consciousness itself.



    All of it
    Spotless room is spotless.
  54. #2379
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I think that the "problem with atheism" as described is not accurate. Taking away God doesn't mean that anything is justified in the micro sense. What it means is that some important things change in the macro sense. Peterson has explained this well elsewhere (but not the video), and it is something IIRC Harris and Dawkins have agreed with somewhat tacitly.
  55. #2380
  56. #2381
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  57. #2382
    Tell me what you think instead of what somebody who has been caught misleading his audience thinks.
  58. #2383
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    If you want to define god as something that doesn't reside in or interact with observable reality, then we agree on the conclusion, just not what the word exist means. To say that because religion has been around for a long time, and because of that fact alone it might have some merits, is just an argument from tradition and carries no weight. For most of human history people wore hats. Nowadays we don't wear hats nearly as much. Is it possible that hats had something to do with the prosperity of the human race. Possible. If nothing else, it created jobs in the hat industry and brought us all the beautiful and varied hat designs we know today. What doesn't follow is that we should all wear hats today.

    I have in another thread given some examples for when religion could be useful, but instead of going through that again, I think the negatives more than make up for the positives: Not allowing people to cope with death in a healthy way, but rather putting in the pacifier of the afterlife. For people who grew up believing, and then lose their faith, this is a big issue because they were never given the tools to cope with loss.
    The mode of thinking it enables is very troublesome. If you can take such a big issue on faith and demand no evidence, what else can you be made to take on faith?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It's about what "does happen". What "could happen" doesn't much help us.

    What does happen is that when people believe certain things, they act them out. The question for religion is if it impacts what people believe (and thus how they act).
    Sure, I just don't agree that that's a good thing. I personally am not a fan of male or female genital mutilation to name one example.
    I believe it does, and I believe the impact is powerful enough that the great prosperity of society can be credited in large part to Christianity. Also that the deterioration of Christianity results in unraveling prosperity, and that some historical unraveling of prosperity may have been due to "secularism".

    Am I right? Who knows?
    That's a huge citation needed for me, dawg.

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  59. #2384
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    ... used visual persuation of captured tankers
    I know a fucking Dilbert meme when I see one. What the fuck does any of this even mean, or can it even be traced back to Trump?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  60. #2385
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The problem isn't religion; it's the majority of people are too ridiculous to handle religion.

    There are some intelligent religious people out there, and they're cool.

    There are also religious idiots - whom don't know what the organized religion they claim to teaches or stands for - injecting their own whims into their faith and insisting those whims are "God's Law." They cannot separate their ego from their faith. They think one can have faith without humility to the surrender of certainty.
    E.g. most Americans


    I have a problem with people claiming they have a godly mandate to hate other people. Or worse, that by expressing cruelty to other people, those people are done a service.
    I.e. that punishing someone for believing something different is a good and right way to handle that situation.
    E.g. basically all the religions


    While the idea of religion is fine, actual humans can't handle it. They (we) pervert messages of altruism and inclusion into sentiments of cruelty and domination.
    So long as religions provide a direct path to the latter, and entrench their faithful along the way into painting the conflict as something other than base cruelty and fear of difference...
    they're hugely and vastly more negative than positive.

    Entrenching people into behaviors only works when the behaviors are civil. Whatever religions do to entrench positive behaviors, they do in localized microcosms, based on ethnocentrism, historically, which directly leads to seeing other cultures as villainous, evil, godless people for whom civility is not warranted.
    Any attempt to tell people that they should struggle more or try harder because they have God on their side is bullshit. It leads to elitism and resentment. It's how you intentionally feed the emotional fuel of an army, not how you lead a productive and peaceful society.


    In conclusion: most people are too lazy and/or stupid to have both religion and civility. Insofar as religion can support civility, it is on a tiny microcosm of all humans, and incites extreme lack of civility between humans perceived to be on different sides of that imaginary line.
  61. #2386
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Tell me what you think instead of what somebody who has been caught misleading his audience thinks.
    It's not David Pakman claiming; it's Kim Jong Un claiming.

    Also, there is some LOLirony to your statement as well, with a Trump supporter claiming anything about "somebody who has been caught misleading his audience" ...
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  62. #2387
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    In conclusion: most people are too lazy and/or stupid to have both religion and civility. Insofar as religion can support civility, it is on a tiny microcosm of all humans, and incites extreme lack of civility between humans perceived to be on different sides of that imaginary line.
    What exactly do you think happens in church?
  63. #2388
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    To say that because religion has been around for a long time, and because of that fact alone it might have some merits, is just an argument from tradition and carries no weight.
    I'd say that makes it worth looking into and worth considering as the default "answer" (because math) when there is not enough reason to believe anything else. But, yeah, it's not evidence.

    Not allowing people to cope with death in a healthy way, but rather putting in the pacifier of the afterlife. For people who grew up believing, and then lose their faith, this is a big issue because they were never given the tools to cope with loss.
    The mode of thinking it enables is very troublesome. If you can take such a big issue on faith and demand no evidence, what else can you be made to take on faith?
    There's certainly a debate to be had on this.

    I tend to think that the normal state for people is to inadvertently be reasonable only a tiny amount of the time while being not reasonable the rest of the time. Things like pacifiers, taking things on faith -- if those go away, people might not function that well.

    That's a huge citation needed for me, dawg.
    Western prosperity associates with Christianity. Nobody knows if Christianity is required to create the western world that we know of, but we know that the one time it happened, Christianity had a significant role.

    Per examples of collapse, nobody knows why Rome fell though some think it was due to over-secularization. Interestingly, both Christianity and Judaism survived, signifying possibly more robust fitness of those who espoused those religions. Other examples can be of the 20th century experimentation with totalitarian, atheist, humanist statism, which resulted in dumbfounding death tolls and society collapses.
  64. #2389
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I know a fucking Dilbert meme when I see one. What the fuck does any of this even mean, or can it even be traced back to Trump?
    It was neat to see Adams compiled the main points he was making back before anybody outside of a handful of people were saying that Trump was doing very big things regarding NK.
  65. #2390
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    In conclusion: most people are too lazy and/or stupid to have both religion and civility. Insofar as religion can support civility, it is on a tiny microcosm of all humans, and incites extreme lack of civility between humans perceived to be on different sides of that imaginary line.
    I think the natural state of humankind is the stupidity you describe. Religion could be a tool that has helped populations organize more productively.

    The worst elements of religion makes the news. My n=1: of all the people I have known, devoted Christians are much higher on the list of "people who do good" than non-Christians. In fact, I have recently become surprised at how good some Christians I know are. I left the scene a long time ago yet have recently been spending time with dyed in the wool Christians, and they're just good people. I've known a lot of Christians like this over the years even though I've tried to ignore it.
  66. #2391
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    It's not David Pakman claiming; it's Kim Jong Un claiming.

    Also, there is some LOLirony to your statement as well, with a Trump supporter claiming anything about "somebody who has been caught misleading his audience" ...
    You take Kim's word for it?


    Please let me know if you ever see me use Trump's statements as a source of fact-based commentary. He may be even more unreliable in that regard than Pakman, which is why I wouldn't use Trump in that way.
  67. #2392
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Statements like: the udssr was a humanist society or that the roman empire was secular, make me question whether you understand what those words mean, or if you know anything about the historic context or both, and secondly even if it was true, you'd still have to show causation.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    It was neat to see Adams compiled the main points he was making back before anybody outside of a handful of people were saying that Trump was doing very big things regarding NK.
    Almost none of those points are true or make sense, except the ones related to tweets I guess. I'm not going point for point because obviously the core of his strategy is to drown the reader in so much bullshit that it would take an overwhelming effort to refute it all. But how about this one:
    "used visual persuasion of captured tankers" - what does this refer to and how does it relate back to Trump?
    Last edited by oskar; 05-09-2018 at 07:59 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  68. #2393
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You take Kim's word for it?
    You must see the irony.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  69. #2394
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Statements like: the udssr was a humanist society or that the roman empire was secular, make me question whether you understand what those words mean, or if you know anything about the historic context or both, and secondly even if it was true, you'd still have to show causation.
    Rome was a mix of secular and religious. The idea is that an increase in secularization associates with its decline.

    The historical impact of humanism includes an uplifting of the human being above all else. This was one of the base components that gave socialist regimes their credibility.


    Almost none of those points are true or make sense, except the ones related to tweets I guess.
    They make sense to me.

    "used visual persuasion of captured tankers" - what does this refer to and how does it relate back to Trump?
    I've posted about this in the past. Getting somebody to associate an idea, person, or event with an image is a more powerful way to influence what he or she thinks about the idea, person, or event. It's a tactic that Trump is fond of using.
  70. #2395
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You must see the irony.
    I don't take Trump's word about supposed facts for anything. Others take Kim's word for everything that affirms what they want to hear.
  71. #2396
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Citation needed on "The idea is that an increase in secularization associates with its decline." This certainly is not the majority opinion of historians, and it's certainly the first time I hear anything like this.
    They make sense to me.
    How is something making sense to you different from it making sense to everyone else?

    I've posted about this in the past. Getting somebody to associate an idea, person, or event with an image is a more powerful way to influence what he or she thinks about the idea, person, or event. It's a tactic that Trump is fond of using.
    Fair enough, but what pictures of what event is he referring to?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  72. #2397
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Citation needed on "The idea is that an increase in secularization associates with its decline." This certainly is not the majority opinion of historians, and it's certainly the first time I hear anything like this.
    I wonder if there is a majority opinion by historians. They seem to be all over the place on the topic.


    Fair enough, but what pictures of what event is he referring to?
    I didn't pay attention to the event, so I don't know.
  73. #2398


  74. #2399
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Don't worry about them being all over the place! Just give me any source that supports what you said. I will literally take anything.

    I didn't pay attention to the event, so I don't know.
    You paid attention. It didn't happen.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  75. #2400
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Religion could be a tool that has helped populations organize more productively.
    ... within the microcosm of that faith, at most
    ... at the cost of dehumanizing perceived outsiders, leading to reduced trade and often war

    How is this not at odds with your statement that increased regulations (limitations) on trade are always a negative on productivity?
    Same for war?

    Aren't you ignoring the effects of Christianity on non-Christian cultures?
    Aren't you really saying Christianity is good for Christians?

    Would a Muslim person in your same position say that Islam is good for Muslims?
    I.e. it is a tool that helped populations organize more productively (within the microcosm of Muslim peoples)?

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The worst elements of religion makes the news. My n=1: of all the people I have known, devoted Christians are much higher on the list of "people who do good" than non-Christians. In fact, I have recently become surprised at how good some Christians I know are. I left the scene a long time ago yet have recently been spending time with dyed in the wool Christians, and they're just good people. I've known a lot of Christians like this over the years even though I've tried to ignore it.
    If we're sharing n=1 stories:

    I can't deny that the few truly (sickeningly) good people I've met have been strongly religious, and while I was growing up around only Christians, that seemed like a correlation to Christian values.

    Now that I've been exposed to a wider variety of people, with varying faiths, I see a different correlation. I see correlation between that level of goodness and intense spiritual devotion, painted on a canvas of their cultural background. If someone was raised in a Christian society, or a Jewish society, or a Muslim society, or a Hindu society seems truly a moot connection.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •