One could certainly argue that a system where leaders have a direct platform to address the people is more democratic than one that relies on media gatekeepers, but it does have its downsides.
-for most of his presidency, Fox News has echoed President Trump's viewpoint
-therefore for most of that period I'm not confident that his Twitter access has made a huge difference to outcomes (although a number of his comments have certainly been notable).
-recently though, Fox has not been entirely on board with Trump's claims that the election was rigged. They haven't denounced them as strongly as other media, but they haven't wholly endorsed them either.
-So in recent weeks, it appears to be that Trump's direct channel to his supporters via Twitter was instrumental in leading to the current situation.
It appears the majority disagree with me, but I'm not clear where.
Older Trump fans are mostly getting their info through FB now. Look at FB's top shared pages/posts. The younger ones are on spread out on FB, reddit, reddit clones.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und...
CNN, NYT, Washington Post, HuffPost, Vox, Fox News turned into extremely biased sources of disinformation and blatant propaganda.
E.g. a fabricated story in The Atlantic magazine, citing anonymous sources, was repeated and amplified by all these major media hubs and then further by social media for weeks. It's like a giant wave after wave of misinformation and rumors presented as facts. The burden of evidence apparently no longer applies.
The bias is mostly on the left wing of political spectrum, but the right wing are not too far behind.
OANN/Newsmax delenda est
I think it's also important to call out what's different between the two instances. The BLM protests were in response to a real, meaningful threat to the safety of a group of individuals. American citizens. There were real life body counts that were being fought against, and an attempt was made to renegotiate the role of policing in modern society.
The capital assault was over something that didn't happen. The capital assault happened because the president has been fanning the flames of violence in America for four years. Seeding dissent. Destroying faith in governance and in the rule of law. Simply because of the fragility of his ego didn't allow him to accept defeat.
I'll come right out and say it, violence is never ok. It's also not fair to equate the two of these situations.
actually, your two examples are very alike in the "things that did not happen" category. the murder of George floyd was negligent at best and malicious at worst, but racist cops killing blacks is simply not a large issue, and certainly not a "meaningful threat" to all black people.
San Harris published a seminal piece on the matter:
Without saying I agree or disagree, if I take the position that racism in policing doesn't exist, and that the police are treating everyone equally:
America has in prison today almost 0.7% of its entire population. Right now. It is the world's leading jailer on a per-capita basis. [1] Two thirds of private prisons (which lets step back for a second is horrifying as a concept) include minimum occupancy clauses. [2] This is an utter failure of the state in its duty of care to its citizens. To call this a conflict of interest doesn't even begin to do it justice.
The incarceration rate among African Americans is almost 7X that of white folks in America. Criminality and race do not go hand in hand, therefore there exists a real and meaningful problem that is disproportionately affecting a racial group. A social and/or economic problem.
African Americans have way more interaction with police and policing, and even if you believe there's no racial disparity in the way those interactions go down - that instead they're killed and harassed at the same rate as white folks on a per-encounter basis - the fact is they have way, way more encounters per capita. This is likely a function of the society that America has built and fostered.
The reaction and the frustration and the protest is still justified even if you believe that race didn't play a factor in the specific instances, and even if you believe there's no systemic issue with policing.
Now, there's also evidence that there is a difference in how they are treated by police, but I think my argument holds even if you reject that premise.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra....
[2] https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-find...
Please don't do this. Its obvious OP didn't even remotely mean or say this.
They clearly said that there is some level of racism, not that it doesn't exist at all. Is it the greatest problem facing America? I'd argue its not even in the top 10.
We can have multiple problems, and we can address them in parallel. We don't have to pretend one problem doesn't exist simply because we run into another.
its bad form
they feel political unrest and they took it out on politicians. theyre probably wrong, but its better than burning down some unrelated guys store, no?
- That's partly why this really highlights the cold immorality and/or the abject delusion of the fomenter of this activity more than it does for most of the mob. I don't necessarily think most of the protestors and rioters are immoral or trying to be malicious: I think they genuinely believe what their leader is telling them and believe they're doing a righteous thing to protect the Constitution and the country. So for a large subset of the people, I think Trump deserves more blame for this than they do, whatever the underlying reasoning behind his actions.
- It's difficult to accurately debate this without empirical classification of offenses (what people did and how many people did them), otherwise it's easy to start reducing a broad situation to one symbolized by its least or most admirable participants.
The other is trying to overthrow the United States government by attacking a formal sitting Congress.
They are exactly the breed of fascists that everyone thought they were. You can blame the left as easily as you breathe but there isn't enough whataboutism in the world to negate that.
Nobody set the capitol on fire. The majority of protesters didn't even enter the building. They damaged some property in a public building. They didn't set a police station on fire.
There is absolutely no way you can compare what happened on the 6th to any BLM race riot. Was it wrong? absolutely. They should not have done it. But the left has burned and looted. Portland has been absolutely insane. A 14 year old black kid was killed in CHAZ by community police that shot up a white Jeep and then tried to get rid of all the evidences.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Texas lawsuit with three sentences. Three sentences!!! SCOTUS is the only venue for a state to challenge any other state.
People have lost faith in the system, not because of the orange man bad, but because the system if fucking broken. People are totally unwilling to even acknowledge the idea or concept that wide spread mail in ballot fraud happened, when it certainly did.
This is the crux of the issue; one of the two movies playing on the same screen.
You and many other Trump voters genuinely believe this to be the case. The opposition believes there's no credible evidence not only for wide spread mail-in ballot fraud but not even for minor, scattered cases (besides the rare outliers here and there that are inevitable for every election).
This one particular issue carries the potential to catalyze a chain reaction that eventually leads to conflict or war, so I think it's extremely important that people at the very least take the discussion seriously and try to help bridge the gap between the two movies. If this doesn't happen, the screen might just get ripped asunder.
The same Supreme Court with six conservative justices? If Trump couldn’t convince the conservative justices anywhere (let alone at the highest level) that there was widespread fraud, maybe there wasn’t.
Wait, is it? I'm not American and even I know that Portland has been the site of continuous nightly riots for months now. It stopped being reported a long time ago but it's still happening. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo posts pictures and videos of it every single day all summer and winter. They smash up and burn buildings all the time, and that includes repeated attacks on federal courthouses.
Ngo claims the group are called antifa and the rioters all seem to be white, but they claim to be BLM and to be fighting against racism so I guess it's reasonable to call them BLM riots.
I mean, which kind of rioting is worse is absolutely a reasonable discussion to have, but writing off the last six months of nightly rioting in Portland as "right wing hyperbole" when there are endless pictures, videos, mugshots, etc ... well that just seems like the kind of bubble isolation that is being decried up thread.
The protests here in Portland have been limited to a few square blocks. The constant claims that the city is burning down are obvious hyperbole. And the completely disingenuous comparisons of these actions - however you view them - to terrorists storming the US Capitol to undermine an election is just astounding.
I understand that you're not in Oregon or even the US - and even though Ngo clearly speaks to your politics, he's not an accurate source of information. There's an abundance of information showing that to be the case.
Second, you have it backwards. Trump IS an authoritian - if today isn’t proof of that to you then I don’t know what to say to you.
Which sadly seems to exactly be the problem.
But I’ll reiterate the facts:
- Zero election fraud. - President Trump lying and saying fraud existing, that the election is not in fact legitimate, and encouraging a violent mob to storm the capital.
If Trump isn’t an authoritarian, tell me what he is.
Because he obviously doesn’t believe in our system of democratic elections.
Yes you are absolutely right! Trump bombed innocent kids in Syria after receiving the "Nobel Peace Prize". Trump dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. Trump launched multiple Wars, invaded foreign countries and destroyed millions of lives and livelihood. Isn't it? Trump did all of the things an Authoritarian would do. Hang him for his crimes!
> - if today isn’t proof of that to you then I don’t know what to say to you.
I hope you got your "proof".
By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
True. But doesn't stop imperialists from being autocratic in the areas they colonize because no rule of law exists once a regime is toppled and a vacuum created in those regions. It is literally free for all. For a period of time, that occupied area belongs to the imperialist power (unless the power is magnanimous enough to let go of the occupied area and allow the people to determine their fate). But during that period, would the laws of the imperialist power extend to occupied territories? I don't think so. I haven't heard of any such instance in history.
> By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
True as well. But it comes down to not having WMD and threatening the World (case in point: North Korea or even China). So these are autocrats but with their sphere of influence only restricted to their own territory because of lack of military capabilities. Do you seriously think that Lukashenko won't flex his muscle over other neighbouring European countries if he had military capabilities the likes of which US has?
Most/all imperialists are authoritarian but many authoritarians aren't imperialists. It's true that Trump doesn't appear to be as imperialistic or hawkish as many previous presidents, but that doesn't imply one way or another anything about potential authoritarianism.
You made an argument that accusations of Trump being an authoritarian are unfounded, but as evidence you cited examples of him not being an imperialist, rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian. Your examples don't preclude the possibility of him potentially being a non-imperialistic authoritarian.
Well can you give me a way to find examples of him "not being" an authoritarian? That very question shows how weak your argument is. That you have to clutch at straws to prove he is an autocrat.
Now let me ask you this: Is Putin an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Xi an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Kim Jong-un an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. From targeted assassinations of opposition leaders to detention/containment/concentration/re-education camps you have every single reason to label them autocratic. Can you give examples of Trump being an autocrat? The literal definition of "autocrat" is "someone who has absolute power". Trump doesn't have absolute power. So how does it make him an autocrat?
There are literally many autocrats in this World you can compare against. Trump is definitely a loud mouth. No doubt about it. And he is crass in the way he speaks. He doesn't have a likeable personality. He is a narcissist.
His entire tenure was literally crying about how media treats him, how many in his own party don't support him (RINOs) and how investigations against him vis-a-vis Russian collusion was based on a hoax. Can you name one autocrat who cried about how powerless he is? Have you seen Putin talk this way? Xi talk this way? What about Hitler? Name one autocrat who comes to your mind who has exhibited this behaviour. You can't. This in no way sounds like an autocrat. An autocrat is never this weak and defeatist.
The first thing an autocrat would do is muscle the media. Media thrived under the Trump regime. Constantly berating and attacking him. If this had happened in China or Russia that media house would be non-existent the very next second with all journalists mysteriously missing. If Jack Ma isn't safe you think journalists would be? No ways. This is autocracy for you.
Heck, Trump ran his entire 2016 campaign on the slogan of "Lock her up". Did he do it? On the contrary, the entire scandal was hushed up and the investigative agencies instead focused on Trump's supposed collusion with Russia and Ukraine. I can bet my right limb no investigative agency will investigate Biden on his ties with Ukraine. Why? Because things are back to how it always was. Trump was just an aberration. History will be kinder to him because right now emotions are high and no one wants to see things without filters.
Shame on you; you should be ashamed of yourself.
Shame on me? I am no American. I don't need to be ashamed of the mess that USA has become. By the look of it you voted for Obama. So you should be ashamed of a President who had the gall to receive a Nobel Peace Prize and then went on to bomb foreign nations with impunity causing millions to die and be displaced. My country has never invaded other nations and will never do that. I don't need to feel any shame. You need to. On the contrary we fought back tyranny and created a new country called Bangladesh. Could have easily occupied that captured area after overthrowing a tyrannical, oppressive regime and re-integrated it back into our country. We did not do that. That is what separates us from the imperialist developed World.
> I see what you’re doing - you point out someone else’s flaws but avoid the matter at hand and under discussion.
Well it is quite easy to point fingers at someone while forgetting that three fingers are pointing back at you. If you can criticize Trump I can criticize Obama. I don't need to follow your script of how to respond. I can respond in my own way. Thankfully, the place I come from isn't authoritarian where I have to respond in a certain way else I am shamed/cancelled/rejected/boycotted or worse killed.
But is Obama still President? No.
I’m criticizing Trump because we are talking about now.
My apologies - I did assume you were American.
If you are not a fan of the Trumpists then I retract the shame ;)
Haha no worries. I am not a fan of Trumpists. I am just trying to balance the narrative. I explain it here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368150
I am perfectly fine with media holding Trump accountable. And it should. What I am not okay with is that it is directed only at Trump and everyone else is given a free pass. This I say as an observer of US politics. Media must do its job and be objective. What you see today at the US Capitol is anger spilling out because the Right wasn't even heard and dismissed as something dangerous. When you stifle expression it explodes in unexpected ways. Because people see how ridiculous it is that Trump was made to prove he isn't a supporter of KKK some 35 times while Biden passed racist laws that incarcerated thousands of Black Americans and was given a free pass. Vice President Kamala Harris called Biden a racist during the primaries. Today she has happily taken up the job of being the Vice President under him. If she had an ounce of integrity in her she would have refused to work under a person she herself called a racist. In all this where was the media? No where to be seen. It just wants to milk Trump till the bitter end. Even if it leads to division, violence and destruction. The easiest way to pacify the Right is to hold the Left leaders accountable for their misdeeds too. Balance it. Then you won't have any discontent among any base (be it the left or the right). But media thrives on sensationalism.
Think about it. Obama bombed a foreign nation 26000 times. 26000 times! Did any mainstream media (I am not just talking about CNN here. It includes Fox as well) rake this issue up during his tenure and make a big deal out of it. It did not. Why not? Because everyone got along. The political class, media and diplomats. Everyone were in sync. Trump was an aberration. He did not play by that rulebook. He was an outsider. What Trump has done may not be understood today but history will be kind to him. Once the dust settles and people introspect, they'll realise how fucked up the system had gotten to that it took just 1 orange haired man to shake it all up. And please don't think for once that I am singling out USA. My country has flaws too. Probably a lot more than USA. Just because we don't drone other countries doesn't mean we are perfect. But you can't get to perfection by drowning out the voice of the people. Even if it means 75 million of them who voted for Trump. Trump was just a figurehead for the grievances that those 75 million hold. Those who voted did not vote because they believe in White Supremacy or that they are against immigration or they are fascists. Nor are people in the left communists, socialists and crazy lunatics. This sort of reductionist thinking is what is causing division and spite. In fact, if you look at the voter demographic in this election, Trump lost because he lost the vote of white voters and instead gained in minority communities: Blacks, Latinos and Asians (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-bi...). Why? Why would a racist, white supremacist lose the white vote and gain the minority vote?
Some of what you are saying I agree with and believe is true. Other parts of what you are saying are, I believe, overly reductive and not accurate. I think your post articulates some important points and also overlooks some. But they're also kinda mixed together and there's a lot there, so, tbh, I can't take the time to fully parse out your comment and respond with the kind of clarity one ideally would wish to in an intellectual discussion, the kind you know that would stand up to analysis and reasoned argument. So, do I agree with you? Ehh, yes and no?
Just kind of imagine me saying it with a Larry David voice, if you've ever watched the show 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' (speaking of American cultural imperialism/colonization lol).
His last and final tweet was literally to tell everyone to go home and not cause violence. He literally said he wanted peace. Either you haven't listened to it or your hatred is so strong nothing will quench that fire.
Trump could have told them to occupy the building and they would have. He is the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war. He let cities burn and didn't send in any people unless states asked for it.
In what fucked up world do you think Trump is authoritarian?
He’s the fucking President of the country. He has responsibilities to defend the Constitution and the government and the country. He clearly failed those responsibilities today.
Shame on you.
Trump's lawyers played a PR game. They made ostentatious allegations in public, but almost never presented the courts with a viable case -- and notably, didn't claim those allegations in court. The court is obliged to throw out cases without merit, and did so. And that makes it really easy to run out and claim that the court is tossing out your cases without them going to trial.
Seriously, I can't believe you had good intent and were engaging in good faith with that question because it's so obviously baloney.
You need to think hard about your values, or, educate yourself more about history.
For example:
- Winston Churchill's five-volume history of WWII. Read the first volume of that and you'll understand what is or isn't OK in government, even in exceptional times. You'll also understand what government actually is, and what politics actually is. You'll see what a leader making a difficult and controversial decision, and then taking responsibility for it, actually looks like - in both success and failure.
- Leadership: In Turbulent Times, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. A classic which looks at Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and LBJ at critical moments in their Presidencies and their past experiences which prepared them for success as leaders during a crisis.
If you had read those books, or works of a similar quality, you would know better.
As it stands it just sounds like you don't really understand what responsibility, leadership, accountability, politics, and government actually are.
Or, that you're not interested in those things actually functioning in a just and democratic fashion.
I honestly don't know which it is.
Not to stereotype but I feel like SO many people on HN don't realize just how uneducated they are about history, government, and politics.
The US yo me now seems to have become close to the comedy movie Idiocracy. You know in the 80s and 90s everyone looked up to the US so much. It was where everyone dreamt of going. I dont know anyone who clings on to that idea now.
A lot of the effects of religion have been mostly positive, but in its core it's based on misinformation.
Sure, some people (especially historically) have treated it like a tool, but that is not religion's fault (religion can't be at fault because it lacks agency). Those people would have seized upon whatever cultural phenomenon that was available to their own political purposes.
It absolutely was designed. Thoughtfully and explicitly.
You might find it interesting to learn about how the new testament was assembled. Many books did not make it into the final version of the new testament, left on the cutting room floor of history. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew for instance has a teenage Jesus fighting dragons. Check out the New Testament Apocrypha. [1]
Any scholar of the NT knows that the apochrypha date very late and the cannon is the legitimately oldest extant texts. There is no evidence that earlier texts were excluded. You do know (you probably don't) that the majority of the Pauline epistles are considered to be authentic, by secular atheist scholars, and date to to the middle of the first century right?
Outside of the pauline works, Hebrews is dated to no later than about 45 AD by secular, non believing scholars.
You're advacing a rather tired late 19th century view that just doesn't wash in the light of modern scholarship but was the darling of many 1800s and early 1900s lutherans.
The point I'm making is that the new testament was curated and texts were picked and chosen to advance the interests of those picking and choosing.
Ancient Jews saw the scriptures as possessing different levels of “cannonicity” - the Books of Moses were “very cannon” while books like Maccabees were “new fangled.”
Christians adopted that view as well. The fights over the Old Testament are still ongoing with different religions organically accepting or rejecting other books every now and then.
The logic behind these still ongoing arguments has much to do with traditions, and little with the actual content.
If we were to reevaluate the Old Testament with fresh eyes, I don’t think anyone would include Ecclesiastes or Job. Too depressing and bizarre.
Not even clear what’s going on or when it’s taking place.
But ultimately there’s a certain logic to these debates - and “we’re designing a religion” isn’t part of it.
Edit: Here’s an excellent example of how “non-designed” the Old Testament is: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Testament_Canon
"Canon" is what's considered truth in a mythos (also a musical form and an electronics company).
"Cannon" is a type of gun.
Throughout history societies have used religion as a way to do this. Every society usually had one official religion that was used in this way: ancient egyptians, ancient greece, roman empire (first a religion copied from greece, later replaced by christianity, where the center of christianity was actually moved to rome), european kingsdoms with different versions of their official christian religions, and other countries throughout the world.
It's a pretty simple mechanism: follow our rules, god sees everything, if you don't follow the rules you will be punished, i.e., go to hell, if you follow the rules you will be rewarded, i.e., go to heaven.
We do the same thing with children in the hope that they'll listen to their parents: if you are a good boy/girl you get presents from sinterklaas (santaclause), if you are bad you will be be punished. Dutch santaclaus will take the bad children to spain, which is our version of hell ;-)
Funny thing is that children around the age of 8 will be smart enough to understand that they've been lied to and that santaclaus doesn't exist, whereas with religion some adults never get to this point of enlightenment.
And to top it off, his story ends with him rising from the dead!8-))
Personally, I don’t really think it matters much either way (the events of a few decades being much less influential than the following two millennia of activities by people who did believe he existed), so I default to taking the word of people who’ve actually studied the matter in depth; but as he was one of several Roman-era Messiah claimants wandering around (we know of at least two others, and there were probably more whose names never made it into the histories we have) it seems reasonable that the group which happened to catch on would have also originally coalesced around an actual person.
So it is generally accepted he existed, even if the criteria used to judge other historical characters is loosened for JC.
Edit - but please try to not say things like "ignorant" or "disabused" unless you meant to attack OP. Those are pretty loaded words for a collegial discussion.
Two mentions. One is almost certainly fabricated, or at least heavily rewritten by later Christians.
> For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.
The Gospels aren't first person accounts. The closest you get to first person accounts of Jesus in the NT are brief mentions of Paul's conversion experiences in his epistles. The Gospels probably draw on first person accounts to some extent, but they themselves aren't first person accounts.
There's a very strong case to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but you make a misleading one by leaving out some very important context regarding Josephus and mischaracterizing the accounts of Jesus in the NT.
debate the authenticity all you want, but what exactly do you think the new testament is?
In contrast Pontius Pilate is historical - there are extant documents with his name and title.
Simply b/c Pontius Pilate was real doesn't mean Jesus Christ was real. And it certainly doesn't mean he rose from the dead!
If I told you the story of our lord and savior Sauron, could you prove to me it's not true? Could you prove to me any of the Lord of the Rings didn't happen?
We don't generally require proving a negative.
There are some interesting arguments that we evolved to become hard-wired for religion. Fear during early evolution was probably the driver for this, all the earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, death by germs etc. We invented religion as a means to explain stuff - the solar cycle, disease, etc, etc. Turns out those explanations were wrong, but our biology is still the same ..
I argued that that claim is wrong.
Someone responded saying, "find one true account that religion is based on". I responded asking whether they could find an account that is proven false.
The context here is important--I'm not arguing my belief in religion, or that you must believe in religion. I'm arguing that not all religion is based on misinformation. I brought up my question to point out that his question is irrelevant, and he can't prove anything to be false, therefore he can't prove that it's all misinformation.
If I see a bird fly over my head, then claim to you, "a bird flew over my head", I can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that my claim isn't real, or that my claim is misinformation.
~2000 years ago people witnessed Christ die and some claim they saw Him come back to life. They wrote about it. Those letters still exist today. I agree that this information alone is not enough to justify someone changing their life to believe the letters--merely existing doesn't "prove" that what's in them is true. But pretend for a second it really did happen. What evidence/proof do you think you'd find that could prove it?
This is honestly getting watered down a lot though, with people jumping in without reading everything. I don't blame them--I do the same on HN.
If someone wishes to discuss why I personally believe, and what I believe in, that's a different thing altogether that I'm happy to discuss but not here on HN.
Given that religion contradicts what we know about the physical world, and that its existence is explained without reliance on the supernatural, it's not logical to believe its supernatural claims.
No one claims that someone is resurrected every day. The claims of Christianity are that it occurred once, and that it was a miracle.
The thought that it's impossible for something to have occurred unless it's commonly overserved isn't sound. There is no such requirement. There are plenty of rare events that occur, with and without scientific explanation.
Update: Perhaps here's what we're missing. There is information, misinformation, and then there's claims that cannot be proven or disproved. I do not believe that all things are false until proven true. I believe that Christianity, and many other religions, can be neither proven or disproven using modern science. It is neither misinformation or information. It is a belief.
Where we disagree is that you think that a 2000 year old text that's been translated 7 or 8 times and by what we would consider today to be idiots (human IQ has increased dramatically over time, in 1910 alone the IQ midpoint would be today's 70, which is a full standard deviation lower) - should be given the benefit of the doubt and be granted a reverse burden of proof. Idiots mind you who would have you burned at the stake for the laptop you're replying on.
The scriptures should be approached analytically with modern techniques. Does anything in there line up with observable reality? No. Is there a plausible explanation? No. Ergo, we should assume its false unless we discover some evidence that it might be true.
The challenge with doing that is religions rely on indoctrinating the youth before they're capable of making rational evaluations and play to our evolutionary weaknesses (the need for an explanation).
> There are plenty of rare events that occur, with and without scientific explanation.
Indeed but I'm not going to recommend telling a 4 year old I've just dunked under water about them based on a book written by an idiot 2000 years ago.
> It is neither misinformation or information. It is a belief.
It's a myth. Myths are fine, but shouldn't be presented as fact. And they certainly shouldn't be true until proven false.
By this token, until you prove otherwise, the whole world was started on a giant turtle. [1]
[1] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/turtle-isl....
I agree there are many strangeties that are in the Bible that don't seem to be plausible, and we should not accept them as fact, due to the nature of translating ancient texts and the corrupting influences of government and religions. You are right that certain stories shouldn't just be believed or accepted without evidence. But you are wrong to say that there is nothing in the scriptures that lines up with observable reality.
The Bible contains many many stories about Human behavior and emotions. Mob violence, rape, drunkeness, greed, corruption, and contain many good lessons on understanding these behaviors in order to overcome them. These are behaviors we observe in our everyday lives.
There are great teachings in the Bible if that is what you are looking for. If you look in the Bible to try and find every falsehood or inconsistency you will never actual find anything of value to your life.
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter." - Proverbs 25:2
Nothing to do with trig, it's based on IQ assessments. [1] Human intelligence has increased dramatically as a function of nutrition, as a function of living in cities, as a function of education and so on. It's even happening to raccoons who live in cities. [2]
It's not their fault, but compared to modern humans, they were big dummies.
> There are great teachings in the Bible if that is what you are looking for. If you look in the Bible to try and find every falsehood or inconsistency you will never actual find anything of value to your life.
Yeah, it's a modern Aesop's Fables. It's a bunch of stories, some made up, some collected from experience, which are used to provide guidance to living your life.
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence
[2] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200416-how-city-life-ca...
Everything is misinformation until proven otherwise.
The bigger and grander the claim, the higher the burden of proof. With a bird, the claim ain't exactly grand, and I'm willing to take you at your word. On the other hand if you told me a bird flew over your head, turned into a plane and wrote "I'm Your Lord and Savior" in skywriting, well, I'm gonna need more than just your word on it.
What matters is do you today believe heaven and hell are real, and will you go to either one when you die? Will you be judged by some know-it-all entity, and what rules does (s)he judge you by? Do you need to follow the roman, greek, egyptian, viking, moslim, christian, catholic, protestant, ..., rules to go to heaven? And if you follow the christian rules, and god turns out to be allah, will you go to hell?
It is impossible to believe in the teachings of the Bible without having faith. I'm sure you bring an equal amount of faith when reading other stories. You don't? Why not?
Go ahead and read any religious text (I've read many!). Nearly every culture has one or many myths. Do you believe them to be fact? Or do you only believe your religious text to be true? And if so, why?
I don't mean to take a stance against religion in general. I agree with the above commenter that the impact of religion in a general sense does seem to be positive! A shared mythos can be a very powerful way of building community. This can have very real positive affects on a population, and, depending on that mythos, on an individual. But to suggest that religion doesn't require "faith" (i.e. believing in something despite no evidence) is... well... naïve.
I've gone through other forks on this thread. Here's my conclusion. No religion that I'm aware of can be proven or disproved based on scientific fact or observation. Yet that does not mean they are all false or true. One could very well be true. Or they could be false. But simply because we can't prove it doesn't mean it must be false. You cannot claim "misinformation" without proving its false. I cannot (and am not) claiming it "information" without proven it true. Its neither.
There is a different question to ask, which is how and why people choose to believe in religion provided that they cannot be proven. I have my reasons, my personal evidences, that have led me to believe my religion is true. I also believe that you can learn for yourself whether or not my religion is true. If you wish to learn more about my experience and what has led me to believe, I'll share it in a venue that encourages respect and understanding. Unfortunately online forums rarely provide that.
There are many myths from many cultures that seek describe where we came from or how we ought to live. For example, nearly every culture has some story about the creation of man/the earth. They all cannot possibly be true. I'm sure we can agree that man/the earth wasn't created as many times as there are stories about it.
So you are making claims about truth! How can you square the above with your belief in your own religion using the thought paradigm you outlined above? By claiming that your creation story is true (or as you may put it, "not proven false") you are also making a claim that all others are not true. A claim you have just argued cannot be made... It's all a fallacy.
The most interesting question worth answering is: Why do you believe the myths that you do?
Statistically speaking, the answer is because it is the one your parents believed. It's hard to explain away the eerie correlation between a person's religion and where they were born. Why is it that a child born in the Middle-East is so likely to follow Islam, a child in the West Christianity, in India Hindu, etc. etc.? It's almost as if these religions are a product of the people, not some greater truth.
And for what it's worth, I see no meaningful difference between something that is false and something that cannot be proven to be true:
"There are 2,145,124,152 birds in flight above the earth right now." - do you believe me?
"Jesus Christ just came down and told me personally that Hindu is the one true religion" - do you believe me?
"I just saw a red 2018 Toyota 4Runner drive past my house" - do you believe me?
"One of the above claims it true" - do you believe me?
What role does "faith" play when appraising the above questions? Are you applying "faith" in the same way to the above as you do to your religion? Probably not.
My arguments on this thread have been about the claim that all religion is based on "misinformation". I feel a bit like a broken record here, but in order for something to be misinformation it must be proven false. Claims can either be proven true, proven false, or simply not proven true or false. There are 3 states--not 2. Religions fall into the last category, where the claims have not been proven or disproved. It's not misinformation until it's proven false. It's also not information until it's proven true. Which gets back to the key differences between faith and scientific fact. Faith is belief in something not (yet) proven true or false. Belief in science is based on something science has proven true or false. You're trying to take the way you approach science, likely because it's what you've been surrounded by in your recent life, and force it upon religious views. It doesn't work, because the basis for faith in a religion implies that the thing isn't proven using science.
> Statistically speaking, the answer is because it is the one your parents believed. It's hard to explain away the eerie correlation between a person's religion and where they were born. Why is it that a child born in the Middle-East is so likely to follow Islam, a child in the West Christianity, in India Hindu, etc. etc.? It's almost as if these religions are a product of the people, not some greater truth.
What environment have you been raised in? Western world, analytically educated? Atheism is a religion. It's the belief that there is no higher power--but it's still a belief... based on faith (not science). Science has neither proven or disproved the existence of God. Agnostic is also a religion based on faith. Whatever your actual beliefs or lack of beliefs are, it's not based on scientific fact.
The word "myth" implies the account is proven false (through science). It's not accurate to use, unless you're able to prove the religious accounts false.
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm not asking you to believe in my religion. I'm simply stating that claiming all religions are based on misinformation cannot be done until they're all proven false.
You've made great leaps about why I believe without understanding me, my faith, or the process I went through (and continue going through) to obtain and keep my faith. You can make as many assumptions as you want, but they haven't been accurate and likely won't be if you continue to do so.
> What role does "faith" play when appraising the above questions? Are you applying "faith" in the same way to the above as you do to your religion? Probably not.
I do not have faith in any of the claims you've made, no matter how reasonable. I'm not arguing that any one of them is true or false.
> The most interesting question worth answering is: Why do you believe the myths that you do?
I agree, this is the more interesting question. But it's not something I wish to discuss on a public forum. It's deeply personal. If you are genuinely interested, I'd happily share it in a different venue.
With the above inconsistency in mind we can explore what it means to "prove something false":
https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-prove-something-f...
The top answer here summarize the current state of our understanding. The key terms on which to focus are "inconsistent" and "contradiction". Can you see how believing in something that cannot be rationalized is inconsistent or a contradiction? It is the belief in a religion itself that is the contradiction. It doesn't matter whether any specific event can be proved true or false (again that is not my point). My point is that "having faith" is to recognize this contradiction and choose to believe anyway. By simply "having faith" you are, yourself, proving it false.
That isn't to say having faith is a bad thing! I will again commend organized religion as a valuable tool to both the individual and society. People are not rational. Feelings are not rational. I genuinely believe that the good that comes from religion outweighs the bad. That doesn't mean I can't recognize it for what it is...
And I am not an atheist! I guess it depends what you mean be "God" though... I don't believe in any region as an ideology, but I do believe in religion as an institution (I do go to church on occasion): Was there a person name Jesus? Probably. Did he inspire good things? Mostly likely. Are the lessons we learn from his story valuable? Absolutely! Did he turn water into wine? No. Did he rise from the dead? Of course not.
In this way I believe in religion, but I don't "have faith".
[0] The word "myth" does not always denote something that is false.
> You are arguing that religious myths[0] cannot be claimed to be true or false
I'd correct this to say "You are arguing that religious myths[0] cannot be claimed to be true or false [using science]"
> It means to hold a belief that cannot be rationalized.
I think you're ignoring the possibility for people to believe things for reasons other than science. If I have a spiritual experience that leads me to believe something is true, I have reason to believe, yet I cannot prove it to others. Does that make it rational? I think it could be argued that it is, especially for the person who had the experience.
I'm okay with "myth" being used then.
Thank you for the respect you've demonstrated. I value discussions like this.
This discussion started as an exploration of the claim that [all] religion is based on misinformation. And I can see, upon reading that word, how someone could interpret "misinformation" to connote a negativity towards religion. I personally do not see it that way, rather, as an accurate and objective description of the phenomenon. This is because believing in religion requires faith, and to "have faith" means [look at discussion above].
In other words religion is a paradigm based on information that cannot be proved true (not just that it hasn't been proved true). I would classify the above as misinformation -- information that cannot be believed (i.e. rationalized). Choosing to believe anyway is each individual's prerogative, but I don't think it changes how we should talk about it.
I don't mean this as a critique to living a life of faith. Though I personally cannot "have faith" (I cannot believe a person walked on water), it doesn't mean I don't believe in God or the values that many religions profess. It just means that "God" means something different to me. It probably means something different to everyone. As you say, "It's personal".
I suspect this is the same article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/revenge-of-...
This claim only holds water because -- in theory -- there is no precise definition of what "religion" is. In practice, it's a set of rules and rituals to follow (literal manipulation) on penalty of an unprovable/unfalsifiable entity or system punishing you (misinformation).
So, okay, "generally speaking" it's not about that. Now show me that the majority of religions don't boil down to manipulation and misinformation.
Part of what fascist politics does is get people to disassociate from reality, there is no truth, there is only opinions. You get them to sign on to this fantasy version of reality, and from then on their anchor isn’t the world around them — it’s the leader and his opinion.
Part of interview on Fascism with Jason Stanley Professor of Philosophy at Yale University.
Religion is no more misinformation than a particular Philosophy is misinformation; a perspective on reality. Even the meta-philosophical act (philosophy of philosophy) of having an ontology of philosophy or any form of abstraction/reification, is an organized form of how one views the world.
What a tired old marxist line this is; And one never applied to say, the political theory of marx himself