u/WrongVerb4Real

The question is in the title.

In light of the question, what were you told? How old were you when you told it? Why did you start to question it?

I was fortunate enough to be raised secular. I'm asking these questions because in my discussions with Christians, it seems like some of them derive parts of their identity from promoting good and fighting bad (with good and bad being however they define them). And I'm wondering if I'm picking up on some teaching or subtext that comes out of that religious tradition.

I have to wonder if one of the popular Christian influencers didn't come out with this nonsense, and either the bots picked up on it, or fanboys think they've got a new gotcha argument for their beliefs. Anyone else suddenly seeing these words?

Note that this doesn't mean "for" other people. What I mean is this:

Having responsibility to people means being accountable to them in a relationship through respect, honesty, and support, while honoring their autonomy. Having responsibility for people means taking charge of their needs or outcomes, which can strip them of independence.

So, while we have responsibility to people in our immediate presence, such as family members and close friends, I'm asking if we have the same responsibility to strangers in our country, and strangers in the world at large.

I have a Western Digital external network drive connected directly to the router by wire. I want to find out the IP address of this so I can mount it onto my Linux system, but when I log in to the spectrum page and look at the details for that device, it isn't showing me the IP address. How do I find the local IP address to this device?

Does anyone have suggestions for responses to the claim by believers that we "just want to sin"?

One I can think off hand is, "you just believe because you're desperate to be part of something you imagine is bigger than you." (This could be shortened, but how?)

Any other ideas?

Hello with Bible critique

​

One tactic I've been using lately is pointing out that the books comprising the collection that makes up the Bible are only there because those were the books and letters that survived for over 350 years. (For perspective, 350 years ago, Isaac Newton was discovering calculus and Benjamin Franklin's grandparents were infants.)

​

See, for the first 100+ years of Christianity, there are no official Christian writings. Instead, these small congregations that developed around the Mediterranean had oral stories at first, then they created their own related works after some time. Most people were barely literate, if at all, so some of those works were written down. Some were not.

​

Many of these small groups either disbanded, or were subsumed into larger congregations, rendering their Jesus stories lost or obsolete. This left works from larger, more wealthy congregations to survive long enough to be canonized.

​

Paul's letters are another example. Does anyone think Paul only ever wrote 7 epistles? (There are 7 confirmed to have the same author, and are attributed to Paul.) That's what the guy did: he wrote letters! Where are the rest? I mean, 1 Cor. is a response to a letter from the Corinthians who were writing in response to a letter from Paul. Where is that letter? Lost!

​

All this leads up to the conclusion that the writings that comprise the Bible ended up there not because they held special knowledge or messages or anything else. Rather, they ended up there because they were the writings that survived antiquity for 350 years.

​

So here's what I'm asking: does this make sense to others here? Having never been Christian (or religious at all), I'm not well versed in either Christian history, nor the Bible. I'd love to get input from others who are more knowledgeable. Thanks.

For funzies, I asked Gemini AI to create the following: a dialog between a person trying to sell a TV, but has no TV to demonstrate, and a random person on a street who was accosted by the TV sales person. The sales person should use justifications for why the person should buy the TV that are similar to those used by religious people trying to justify belief in a god. The sales person should also show the person the TV owners manual as proof the TV exists, while pointing out that other TV stores selling similar TVs can't show those either. Finally, the cost of this new TV would be the low, low price of 10% of the person's annual salary.

​

I invite everyone to improve upon, use, or otherwise enjoy the dialog:

​

-------‐---------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Setting: A bustling city sidewalk. Arthur is just trying to walk to lunch. Marcus is standing next to an empty cardboard box, holding a glossy booklet and looking intensely enthusiastic.

​

Marcus: (Stepping into Arthur’s path, arms wide) My friend! Stop! What if I told you that your living room is empty? What if I told you that your life is missing the ultimate, glorious, 4K Ultra-HD experience?

​

Arthur: (Startled, taking a step back) Uh, no thanks. I’m just trying to get a burrito.

​

Marcus: You hunger for a burrito, but your soul hungers for the Ultimate Television. I am here today to offer you the opportunity of a lifetime. A TV so magnificent, its screen displays colors the human eye can't even comprehend.

​

Arthur: (Glances around) Okay... where is it?

​

Marcus: (Smiling serenely) Ah. You want to see it. How typical of the modern skeptic. You see, the TV cannot be seen by mere physical eyes in a place like this. It requires faith. You must believe in the TV to truly perceive its broadcast.

​

Arthur: Right. So you don’t actually have a TV.

​

Marcus: Look around you, brother! Look at the beauty of the trees, the architecture of these buildings, the complexity of the human eye! How can you look at this world and tell me there is no TV? Such intricate design demands a Manufacturer!

​

Arthur: That’s... completely unrelated. Look, man, if you’re trying to sell me a television, you have to actually show me the picture quality. Turn it on. Let me see the remote.

​

Marcus: (Opens a thick, leather-bound booklet) I can do you one better. I have here the infallible, uncorrupted TV Owner’s Manual. It is written right here in Chapter 2, Verse 4: "And lo, the contrast ratio shall be infinite, and the Refresh Rate shall be everlasting." The Manual itself proves the TV exists! Why would anyone write a manual for a TV that wasn't real?

​

Arthur: People write fiction all the time! And wait, this manual looks exactly like the ones Best Buy hands out for standard OLEDs.

​

Marcus: (Dismissively) Do not speak to me of Best Buy! Or Walmart! Sure, those stores claim to sell "tvs," but have you ever seen their corporate CEOs? Have you ever witnessed the true source of their supply chain? No. They cannot show you the absolute reality of their electronics any more than I can. They are false prophets selling false screens!

​

Arthur: At least if I go to Best Buy, there’s a physical object plugged into the wall displaying a football game!

​

Marcus: A temporary illusion! What happens when the power goes out? What happens when the screen cracks? My TV is eternal. If you accept this TV into your entertainment center, you will experience eternal entertainment. But beware... if you reject the TV, if you live your life in the dark... you will spend eternity in a state of static. A metaphorical basement of endless buffering and standard definition!

​

Arthur: (Sighs, checking his watch) Look, this has been wild, but I’m leaving.

​

Marcus: Wait! Do not turn your back on the Broadcast! I can register you for this miraculous television today. And the price? A mere pittance for eternal HD glory.

​

Arthur: Let me guess, a thousand bucks?

​

Marcus: Money is worldly trash! No, the Manufacturer requires a standard tithing. A humble devotion of just 10% of your annual salary.

​

Arthur: You want ten percent of my yearly income? For a TV I can't see, that you don't have, based on a booklet you printed at Kinkos?

​

Marcus: It is a test of your commitment! If you truly believed, 10% would seem like nothing. Can you really put a price tag on salvation from boredom?

​

Arthur: (Stepping around him) I can put a price tag on my sanity, and it’s worth more than this. Goodbye, man. Good luck with the... broadcast.

​

Marcus: (Calling after him as Arthur walks away) The manual predicts your mockery! It only proves I am right! 10% for eternal streaming, Arthur! Think of the buffer-free afterlife!

​

​

What makes this team worthy of me continuing to be a fan? An accident of birth? (I'm Dayton born and raised.) That hardly seems worth it. Superstars like Elly? Other teams have superstars. Playoff appearances? Other teams squeak into the postseason, just to get bounced in the wild card round. Bobbleheads? Other teams give away those silly dust collectors too. History? Other teams have better histories.

​

So, tell me, what makes this team worthy of my continued fandom?

In my mind, one ball and back in line gets you more balls overall, which means you're better warmed up.

Oh, and it's called warmup, not "practice." Practice is what you do away from league play.

(And I'll die on both of these hills.)

This accusation is usually made by believers. Mostly it's a thought stopping mechanism, so they don't have to think critically about ideas that make them uncomfortable. Don't take their bait.

Instead, point out that no one is rejecting their god. What's being rejected is the claimant's justifications for adopting and maintaining a belief in a god-concept. Point out that those justifications are often mistaken by believers as evidence. However, they are, in fact, only evidence of the flaws in human cognition to which we are all susceptible if we don't have the right tools to counteract their effects on our perceptions and thinking. Finally, point out that until they've made a positive demonstration of their god, there's no god to reject.

I asked what it was supposed to be the rest of the time.

As more and more traffic circles are installed in the area, it would do everyone well to review how to drive through them. To start with, as you approach the entrance to one, you only have to stop if a car is in the circle and on your immediate left. And if you're in the circle, you don't have to stop or yield to any other cars. Just exit the circle and be on your way. These are way, way better than traffic lights, and I, for one, want to see a lot more lights replaced with them.

Hopefully this is the right place to put this idea.

Anyway, I was thinking about the scene in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, where Jones makes a leap of faith from the lion's head, landing on an unseen stone path that leads him to the room with the Grail. My spouse then pointed out how similar that is to "The Fool" tarot card (her hobby of late). And it got me to thinking, is the only difference between acting foolishly and acting faithfully rooted in the cognitive flaw known as outcome bias?

For instance, if the Indiana Jones example was real life, and he'd have fallen to his death, would we label him as faithful or foolish? Or was he acting foolishly all along, but because the hidden trail was there, and he landed safely, are we calling it faith?

Anyway, just some nonsense to think about and discuss. Enjoy.

(The flair is to highlight the fact that I am talking out of my ass here.)

I've quit thinking of moral frameworks as either objective or subjective. This happened when I realized moral frameworks are imposed. The difference is the source of the framework, and in what the framework is rooted.

For many, like Christians, the imposition is through a religious tradition, rooted in a god-concept. For others, the imposition is secular, rooted in the state. And still others, the imposition is natural, rooted in human empathy. There are probably more that I don't know about.

We might call these subjective or relative, but that's as inaccurate as calling them objective.

I guess the next question is, how do you judge which is best? For now, I'll leave that to the philosophical thinkers, as I've just started thinking about morality this way. Maybe I'll find a method for judging one over another. Or maybe they're all equal. Or maybe it's turtles all the way down.

I can't get enough of this film. First time I watched it was about 15 years ago. Caught the last half of it and I was riveted. Watched it all the way through, and I've revisited it a bunch since. This time I'm paying attention to Peter Lorre's performance as a "cut rate" parasite. Just a small part, but do good.

My favorite part, though, is dueling songs. Germans start up, then Lazlo rouses the crowd to a rendition of La Marsellie (sp?). Just knowing the extras singing in that scene are mostly French refugees at a time when the outcome of WWII was very much in question, the intensity of feeling is very palpable. One of the greatest scene in film history, IMO.

I've been thinking lately about the claim by theists, and especially Christians, that they follow an objective morality. It occurred to me that what they're talking about isn't actuality objective. Rather, they're making a claim to what I would call, "agentic imposed morality." This doesn't equate to true objectivity, though. And in discussions with believers, we shouldn't allow them to push back with claims to objective morality, instead pushing back ourselves by pointing out that the morality they're describing would be one imposed by their god.

Further, we can't allow them to claim that we hold to a subjective morality. (Implying without justification that objective is superior to subjective -- but that's another discussion.) Rather, what we hold to is better described as a "derived" morality, received through socialization, empathy, and observation.

Thoughts?