Video of the day

Dragatus wrote:

Yes, but this time he teamed up with Matt Easton and they got a bunch of people to fight.

With really bonkers Loyd's commentary, at that.

@Philo: Demographically, all the Western technologically advances societies are set to extinct. In Europe, you could clearly see who will inherit their technology, while rejecting their values. So yes, in the long run Islam is poised to be more successful. Unfortunately.

In Europe, it is not Islam vs Christianity. Christianity and its values were discarded decades ago. Nowadays it is Islam vs Nothing. By that, I understand Islam vs conctantly changing, chaotic, more and more internally incoherent "European Values", that even European natives pay lip service only to, save for few zealots.

Yes, but that's not the point I was making. What you said was that religion "gives social order through transcendentently based values, in contrast to values given/agreed to by men. We agreed to it? We could topple it! And chaos creeps in. As Dostoyevsky put it, if there is no God, you could koll yor father. With the assumption of not getting caught, of course."

My question was: how do you know they're transcendent? What makes you think that?
If we're going by "well, they've survived" then Christianity has the same transcendence values as Islam or Chinese confucian values.


What I was arguing was that every value can be argued to be transcendent. You just need some good PR people to do it.

Ah, I misunderstood your question, then.

Yes, basicallly for transcendental values to work it is both necessary and enough if sufficient percentage of society belive them to be transcendent. That is why many statesmen who were agnostic or outright atheist personnaly still supported religion for social order and cohesion benefits, to quote Pilsudski or Bonaparte.

Feral wrote:

Ah, I misunderstood your question, then.

Yes, basicallly for transcendental values to work it is both necessary and enough if sufficient percentage of society belive them to be transcendent. That is why many statesmen who were agnostic or outright atheist personnaly still supported religion for social order and cohesion benefits, to quote Pilsudski or Bonaparte.

That's still not what I was asking.

My question was: how do you know they're transcendent? What makes you think that?


Also, Video of the day:

ThePhilosopher wrote:

That's still not what I was asking.

My question was: how do you know they're transcendent? What makes you think that?

Ah? You mean personally, not on societal scale.

I don't. It is a matter of pure faith. I do judge by the results, though.

So it is paradigm bending in favor of the player...

How about the following approach: we use values because they work, not because they're transcendental.

Dragatus wrote:

How about the following approach: we use values because they work, not because they're transcendental.

I would put it differently: we give the values that work transcendence (or project, call it as you will), so the majority of people is less inclined to transgress than if they were percieved as mere human constructs. As I stated before, if given ruleset is truly transcendent is of little consequence, as long as it is both socially beneficial (order and cohesion mostly) and thought to be coming from a higher place by the majority of the population.

Probably wasn't intended, but that felt close to an admittance that religion isn't about truth but societal order to me.

Karavolos wrote:

Probably wasn't intended, but that felt close to an admittance that religion isn't about truth but societal order to me.

It was fully intended.

From a poit of view of a believer the social benefits are a nice perk and it goes along well with the Catholic "thou shalt judge them by the fruit they bear" approach. For a nonbeliever, it is scientificably verifiable fact thet makes a case for a pure usefulness of religion, even when the ruling class does not believe in it.
It also makes for a case of comparative study of civilizations and how were they influenced by religions they proffesed. Why did Europe conquer? It was a total backwater by 1500, compared to the Ottomans, Safavids or Ming China. Why does it collapse now, when China rises? Why Arab Islamic world cannot rise even despite all the petrodolars, while Muslims other than Arabs fare comparatively better, as in Indonesia, Malasya or even Pakistan? I need to find works of Koneczny and Paradowski on typology of civilizations in English and post a link here.

I lost track of where this convo was in my laziness to reply. Anyway okay, but then you don't get to make truth statements regarding the accuracy of religious claims when you admit outright that it's not about truth, but about societal benefits. Unless we're talking about the positive impacts religion has on society in theological discussions ahead, you're almost universally gonna get a mental "shut the fuck up" from me.

That being said, I came to post this thing I came across somewhere in the depths of youtube history which I think debunks Feral's claim about "transcendent values" of Christianity pretty neatly.



=EDIT=
More.

I will have to watch the Bible ones when my brain works again... Whole day of integrating chromatograms is too much. #MakeFeralsBrainGreatAgain

All good man, we all have those days. Take your time, we can always disagree with each other later

Karavolos wrote:

All good man, we all have those days. Take your time, we can always disagree with each other later

Today I need a holiday more than the good general...

https://9gag.com/gag/aZLbDXz

https://9gag.com/gag/aD1A2Lx

That's a really nice knife fight choreography and the room trick is clever.

Good one on plant metabolites! I work on this shit!

I liked the one on Numidium too. The Dwemer were so... Scientific.

The comment section seems to think it's fake and I can see why, but it's still fun to watch: https://9gag.com/gag/aGZKv0G

Dragatus wrote:

The comment section seems to think it's fake and I can see why, but it's still fun to watch: https://9gag.com/gag/aGZKv0G

You see, not all skaters are bad

I actually pictured that as being part of Sebastian's backstory.

Dragatus wrote:

I actually pictured that as being part of Sebastian's backstory.

So you picture Sebastian as a kid who is actually good inside but plays it tough to be safe at school Sabbat? Aw, I am doing a poor job roleplaying...

That would be before he got bitten. And I see Sebastian as someone who doesn't really know what he's doing.