5 ms·

your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he

your family has been passing down a family bible for many years. your father gives it to you and says, "this was your great-great-great-great grandfather's, he brought it from the old country, and it has the names of all the babies born into the family back then. you say "eh, it could be anybody's, everybody had a bible and lots of kids back then" and you throw it away. you're right, no way to prove it was his and you can live your life unencumbered by the past, no point in looking for meaning.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"no point in looking for meaning." You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure. But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning. It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hluska 2y ago
  Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.” If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter? We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other people's business. We need room to breathe, including believing in stuff. However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.
    - User23 2y ago
      Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of course we don’t really know how to define what life even is satisfactorily. And then, still for no reason at all, except apparently some built in drive to replicate (why? No reason of course) that life evolved over billions of years into something that fancies itself rational, for no reason at all. It’s quite a puzzle!
      - card_zero 2y ago
        I like this point. But what's the issue with defining life? I don't mean "which things are hard to categorize", viruses are, but it's beside the point, isn't it? If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.
        User23 2y ago
        > But what's the issue with defining life? All of the working definitions beg the question in some form or another. And then there's stuff like this[1]. > If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't, and I don't think any reasonable person claims that you can. My view of Christianity is that it is, basically, Greek philosophical monotheism (I'd quibble over "deism," preferring something like "philosophical monism," but it's just a quibble) with some vestigial Hebrew trappings plus historical claims based on testimonial evidence. The resurrection falls squarely in the historical claims area. It's hard to overstate the influence of Greek culture and philosophy on the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus' ministry. [1] https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-to-distinguish-life-from-abiotic-systems/4017874.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-t...
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Go back and read the parent . What I was responding to was the sentiment of doubling down on mysticism. "My parents beliefs are my beliefs, and that is correct, and so that's what I'm going to believe, and then teach my kids". No opportunity to grow. Was pointing out that, a lot of people really spend a lot of years going in weird directions, so why not pause, look around, and figure out a better way forward. Really, this seems to be the kind of response I get when others want the "freedom means free as long as they agree with me". But suggest thinking differently, and boom, can't have that kind of stuff happening, "not that kind of freedom". Like if someone was a Satan worshiper. And I suggested reading the bible. Then that is good, people should be free to suggest that, and to change. But if someone is evangelical. And I suggest that Satan might have made some good points, or the Bible actually allows for abortion. Then boom, that isn't freedom, you are corrupting people, we have to stop that.
atombender 2y ago
This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of ownership at all; there is no such list. The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.
- ted_dunning 2y ago
  Furthermore, there are records that the pope of the time required that the shroud be labelled as a replication, not an authentic artifact.
Maken 2y ago
Well, to make that metaphor work with the Shroud, you have to add a couple of extra details: 1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to boast about family treasures and often made up stories about his parents and grandparents. 2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back matter. But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

"no point in looking for meaning." You say it I think sarcastically. I'm not sure. But not spending a life going down rabbit holes that are most likely false, is not giving up on searching for meaning. It is just switching to more fruitful avenues to spend the limited time we have on looking for meaning.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hluska 2y ago
Why do these conversations inevitably move into insults? As soon as humans get into the subject of belief, someone always says something like “it’s just switching to more fruitful avenues.” If something works for you, that’s great. But why do people automatically say that their way is better? Does being right really matter? We could have a really great world if we’d just let people believe in whatever works for them.
- card_zero 2y ago
  That's not an insult, it's a criticism. The criticism is: your thing is not very good. What you're requesting here is that you should never be told that your thing is not very good. I know the feeling, you're not alone, I, too, hate it when people piss on my strawberries, and sometimes I feel like I have a right to request that they be less negative and more supportive. This is why we have privacy instead of everybody being overbearing and constantly back-seat driving and interfering in other people's business. We need room to breathe, including believing in stuff. However. It would not be a really great world without criticism. It would be a world even more full of conspiracy theories and wacky viral social media posts about the government engineering hurricanes or archeologists digging up giants. Being right matters because indulgently anti-reason people don't limit it to what "works" for them, they go around pressuring other people to be similarly stupid. By the way, what does "works" really mean here? It's something like a need to have non-critical thought processes. That's fine, I think, even vital, but only in private. Bring those weird-ass thought processes out into the light, and then they should be criticized, otherwise we're heading toward folie à deux territory.
  - User23 2y ago
    Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of course we don’t really know how to define what life even is satisfactorily. And then, still for no reason at all, except apparently some built in drive to replicate (why? No reason of course) that life evolved over billions of years into something that fancies itself rational, for no reason at all. It’s quite a puzzle!
    - card_zero 2y ago
      I like this point. But what's the issue with defining life? I don't mean "which things are hard to categorize", viruses are, but it's beside the point, isn't it? If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.
      - User23 2y ago
        > But what's the issue with defining life? All of the working definitions beg the question in some form or another. And then there's stuff like this[1]. > If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't, and I don't think any reasonable person claims that you can. My view of Christianity is that it is, basically, Greek philosophical monotheism (I'd quibble over "deism," preferring something like "philosophical monism," but it's just a quibble) with some vestigial Hebrew trappings plus historical claims based on testimonial evidence. The resurrection falls squarely in the historical claims area. It's hard to overstate the influence of Greek culture and philosophy on the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus' ministry. [1] https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-to-distinguish-life-from-abiotic-systems/4017874.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-t...
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Go back and read the parent . What I was responding to was the sentiment of doubling down on mysticism. "My parents beliefs are my beliefs, and that is correct, and so that's what I'm going to believe, and then teach my kids". No opportunity to grow. Was pointing out that, a lot of people really spend a lot of years going in weird directions, so why not pause, look around, and figure out a better way forward. Really, this seems to be the kind of response I get when others want the "freedom means free as long as they agree with me". But suggest thinking differently, and boom, can't have that kind of stuff happening, "not that kind of freedom". Like if someone was a Satan worshiper. And I suggested reading the bible. Then that is good, people should be free to suggest that, and to change. But if someone is evangelical. And I suggest that Satan might have made some good points, or the Bible actually allows for abortion. Then boom, that isn't freedom, you are corrupting people, we have to stop that.

atombender 2y ago

This is of course a false analogy. We don't have a record of ownership at all; there is no such list. The shroud showed up in France in the 1300s or 1400s; it's unclear exactly when, because it seems several shrouds were circulating at the same time. When written sources start talking about the current one, they don't say where it came crom. Nothing like "here's this shroud, taken by A from B, who had it after C, who found it raiding Byzantium, who got it from...". It just appears suddenly.

ted_dunning 2y ago
Furthermore, there are records that the pope of the time required that the shroud be labelled as a replication, not an authentic artifact.

Maken 2y ago

Well, to make that metaphor work with the Shroud, you have to add a couple of extra details: 1. Your father got it from your granpa, who really liked to boast about family treasures and often made up stories about his parents and grandparents. 2. The bible clearly says "Printed in 1956" in the back matter. But of course, you are free to believe whatever you want.