Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 54
- 2
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How can anything grapple with:
Even if 100% of the population believes an afterlife exists, or would if they had a 'sufficiently deep NDE' (I sense a no-true-scotsman), it doesn't necessarily follow that an afterlife exists. Reals > feels. You can do all kinds of funny things with drugs and magnets. Somebody used an MRI machine to induce religious experiences, another where they weakened faith in God. There was a headline about how disabling parts of people's brains made them more accepting of immigrants.
You're basically contrasting materialism with the spiritual and dismissing the spiritual out of hand. Or at least suggesting that the doors of perception, as it were, are not the road to spirituality (or to authentic spirituality). That empirical experiences cannot be trusted to verify the transcendent. Yes?
If God sends forth thousands of angels to scour the world in fire and sword, then I will definitely accept Christian doctrine. People having weird dreams near the point of death is not on that level. Should we also trust in witch-doctors, seances, ghosts and such? They can produce subjective experiences, yet not much more than that. Just throwing one's net into an ocean of beliefs won't help truth-finding.
In my mind, to be scientifically useful, more than one person needs to be able to observe the same phenomenon. I can see the flaming angel, so can you. We can take a photo of it, observe the heat from the blade setting off the fire alarm. But feelings? We can't observe them outside MRI machines and even then it's not very helpful.
What can we observe of the afterlife? Literally nothing, just feelings from people who, by definition, aren't in it! There's no objective records, no second-order effects either. At least UFOs show up on radar from time to time.
I am not making any sort of suggestion as to what you should believe or what criteria you should apply to verifying or holding that belief, I was just trying to get a handle on your point of view as to what we need to classify something as acceptably believable. I'm still not sure I have it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link